Spirit of Jefferson Columns

We are headed for another election

The Backstory

December 13, 2011

Buckle up! It's time for another Jefferson County election cycle. This time it is a "normal" election. That's the kind of election where people are campaigning for positions of power and influence. It is hard to keep track of what election issues are lately. A vote on zoning another on table games any yet another couple about who will be governor for a few months. It probably seems like the process never ends.

You may be reading this thinking that I'm talking about something way off in the future or just another issue vote that has nothing to do with you. Not really.

Candidates are already lining up for their official announcements in January. There will be one county commission seat, three state House of Delegate seats, and one state Senate seat, Let's not forget the people that also touch your life through the court system as Magistrates, Judges and Prosecutor. The sheriff will be up for election. School Board members will also be selected. There are many local, state and federal offices you will be asked to vote on.

Most voting residents say they are interested in issues and where candidates stand. Poll after poll indicates that voters are starved for information about these positions. Polls also indicate that the general public doesn't like "negative" campaigns. Candidates try to take these various items into consideration. They are looking for a job after all. You have all heard or read "still more to do", "give something back", "lack of leadership", "smaller", "better", "more efficient" or "vision" in political campaigns. There is generally some form of bullet point current issues list associated with the broader statements. It is all useful information but is it the most important?.

How many current officials have you heard tell of their failed initiatives or tax increases during campaigns? Have you read a challenger's handout that states they aren't sure what the job is but they can do it better than the person that is in office now? That's where "negative" information starts to take shape. There is a place for it. Does it point out relevant items or is it more a reflection of character on one party or the other. Everyone needs to evaluate the information in their own way.

People talk with me from time to time about many things. It may be in a store, walking down the street or even an occasional email. The conversations are generally social in nature. Some are related to the activities of an agency or on where to get help with something. Best place to eat is a standard. Topics are all over the place. There are two comments I hear repeatedly around election time. First is for a little information about candidates. The second involves some disappointment about a choice they made in some previous election. The quote is like this, "how was I supposed to know what they would be like after the election?". It's a fair question. There is no real way to know exactly what a person might do on a particular issue once elected. The issues of today may or may not be the issues of tomorrow. Circumstance may dictate an entirely different action.

There are several ways to approach the job of "elected official". Calm and reasoned, aggressively active and everything in between. Use of staff and consensus or micro management of every decision. The ability to debate, act and move on or hang on to an issue determined to prevail. Serve the general public interest or personal opinion interest. Staying within the job description or taking every individual phone call as the next item of business. All these things have indicators in campaign material.

So why is a local election important? The people elected will have the greatest and most direct opportunity to impact your life. Issues of public policy, quality of life and safety are to name but a few. What is all this election campaigning about? It is about residents being asked to choose between several options of someone to represent them in the day to day operation of local government.

The real issue that residents should be considering is the character of a candidate. Issues come and issues go but the integrity of an elected official will determine their performance. That is the most important single factor.

Impact Fees Public Hearing

The Backstory

December 4, 2011

Today's county impact fees have evolved since original implementation. There are more of them, the dollar amounts have risen and how they should be spent has changed. We should take a brief step back just for clarification.

Jefferson has multiple impact fees. It isn't a single fee divided among several categories of service. Each individual fee was created by passage of a specific ordinance. "Schools" was the first of four. That was followed by "law Enforcement", "Fire-EMS" and "Parks-Recreation".

Calculation of the fees has always been more art than science. You will hear about statistics and formulas, but at the end of the day it all comes down to how high each fee can be before it triggers a legal action. Remember the phrase "legally defensible"?

Impact Fee policy for distribution of collected funds seems to have changed since 2004. When fees were first approved, there was a very real concern that legal challenges would be filed. That caused officials to be cautious with fee calculation and what would qualify for funding. Politics and time issues have caused these changes.

Initially, impact fee distribution was based on a detailed formula that allocated fees in much the same way they were calculated. A certain portion of the fee was designated for each type of use based on the projected demand from each new housing type or business. That is to say on average, a new house or business would require some set percentage of expanded capacity in public services. The single collected fee would be distributed accordingly toward those projects. It wasn't long before the politics of money standing still forced a policy change. The county board of education put significant public pressure on county government officials to use impact fee funds far in excess of the original calculation for high school construction. It was up to the fee coordinator to change policy and facilitate the political situation. The checks were written.

Time itself has also caused policy to be changed but not in the way you might think. This isn't a case of experience and changes in enabling legislation somehow causing modest adjustments over time. Deadlines for spending collected fees caused policy changes. State law that established some ground rules for collection and spending of fees contains the "time" problem. That specific provision stated "impact fee receipts shall be expended within six years of receipt thereof..." This provision was placed in the enabling legislation to prevent excessive fee collection.

You will remember that the school fees started in 2004, Law, Fire-EMS and Parks fees started in 2005. By 2008 some issues began to emerge. School and Law were finding qualified projects to spend money on. That wasn't the case with Fire-EMS and Parks. Those two categories were struggling to come up with projects that were capital in nature and were a direct result of growth. If policy wasn't changed on what qualified for funding with collected fees by 2010-2011, some money would have to be returned to those residents that had paid the fees. Anyone that currently owns a house built after January 2004 might have been eligible for a check.

Spending policy examples started to include replacing playground equipment at existing parks, lawn mowers and vehicles. An ambulance was approved for an organization that didn't provide transport service. Replacement equipment was also working its way up on the fee funding list. Also gone was any requirement for actual data to support funding requests connecting needs to growth.

So here we are. The level of fees placed on new commercial development is the current item to be evaluated. Our County Commission is going to look at all the fees and see what changes should be made sometime in the future. The benefit from fees, how they are calculated and all the other considerations of affordable housing, tax assessment increases and legacy costs of service expansion should be on the table.

The question should not be about an arbitrary suspension of specific fee collections, but how much is the right fee on all the collections. Just remember that if you are not interested in other peoples taxes there may not be anyone else interested when it comes to yours. The public hearing is Dec 14, 2011.

Time to talk or walk

The Backstory

November 28, 2011

Are we going to continue talking the talk or is it time to walk the walk?

Over the past several elections can anyone think of a political candidate that HASN'T supported open government, more transparency, more citizen involvement and better representation of residents? Do you ever remember hearing a candidate say they DIDN'T support more citizen participation in elections? I sure haven't

These have been great campaign slogans but does anyone know of an action any of these elected officials has taken to carry through on that promise? I sure haven't.

Wouldn't it be great if there was some way for the County Commissioners to join together in making a single policy statement that would say "yes we are in favor of more public interest and participation in elections and local government". Well here is their chance. That opportunity is available and the time is now!

Change the number of magisterial districts.

Jefferson County currently has five magisterial districts and five commissioners. People naturally assume that we must have one commissioner from every magisterial district. There is also the thought that somehow having more magisterial districts than commissioners will somehow make things too complicated. That simply isn't the case.

Our state constitution says that "no two of said (county) commissioners shall be elected from the same magisterial district". "No two" is a lot different than requiring one from each. As for being complicated having more magisterial districts than commissioners? Jefferson is the ONLY county in the panhandle that has the same number. We aren't the rule, we are the exception.

Having a different number of commissioners and magisterial districts isn't difficult. Berkeley has six districts and five commissioners. They used to have three commissioners with six districts. Morgan has six districts with three commissioners. Hampshire has nine districts with three commissioners. A different number of districts than commissioners is actually the norm in WV.

We hear a lot about "open government" and more "citizen participation" during campaign election time. Let's take a look at how Jefferson stacks up in allowing residents to run for the county commission. I'll use the 2012 election for county commission and current number of districts as the standard for calculation. It will simply be a statement of what percentage of registered voters are eligible to run for their own county commission.

Hampshire County, 77 percent
Morgan County, 66 percent
Berkeley County, 50 percent
Jefferson County, 20 percent (now)

Jefferson's county commission has not only the authority but responsibility for changing the shape and number of magisterial districts. West Virginia Code directs that "the county court may, from time to time, increase or diminish the number of such districts, and change the boundary lines thereof as necessity may require in order to conform the same to the provisions of the constitution of the state".

The county is currently working on required redistricting with the current 2010 census data. Changing the number of districts isn't that difficult a task. Dividing the current districts would create ten.

Will adding more magisterial districts mean we will have more county commissioners?

Answer: No, the number of commissioners will remain the same. There are currently 5 county commissioners, each serving 6 year terms and each elected by ALL registered voters in the county that choose to cast a ballot. That will not change. The confusion is caused by a local situation that is more chance than design.

That simple political initiative would triple the number of residents eligible to run for the county commission in the 2012 election, bring candidates closer to their constituents, provide opportunity for more voter interest and not change the current CC in any way.

So who opposes changing the number of districts and allowing more public participation in government? Political insiders and party policy makers, that's who. That whole concept of sharing authority and political power with more residents is a scary thought for those that run local politics now.

If you want more information on local redistricting, check out "magisterial districts" on fredblackmer.com. You can also send comments to the Spirit.

Who protects us?

The Backstory

November 18, 2011

Government by definition is about exercising authority and control over people. Governing has relied on force to impose that control throughout history. There are numerous examples both great and small. Armies or legions of the Roman Empire were created for more than common defense from foreign invaders. They were tasked with physical enforcement of one citizen group's authority over another. The Romans also had gladiators waving fearsome weapons. They fought from fear, not principle. One of their many purposes was to represent power by force. Government had the ability to determine who would be free to watch or who would be forced to fight. The subtlety of being someone watching the battle or being forced into the battle at a whim of political opinion wasn't lost on citizens. Intimidation by threat of physical force is a powerful tool of control.

The armies and legions have been replaced by elected officials, boards and enforcement agencies. Those have become the instruments of one group's authority over another. The gladiators are now waving law books and briefs. Not as bloody, but just as fearsome. These new gladiators also seem to fight based more on fear than principle. It isn't all that uncommon for our county commission to choose others to be thrown into the arena of battle for political reasons.

Legal needs are the real issue here. There are several examples of aggressive county commission behavior have placed the Prosecuting Attorney's office and citizens in a difficult situation. Actions have involved local government using assistant prosecuting attorneys to bring accusations of wrong doing against a local business. There were no criminal charges, simply accusations. More recently the county commission has entered into court filings related to State redistricting. Not state offices but federal district boundaries. During the past Zoning Ordinance referendum, there were some criminal accusations raised over actions of a few regarding election law violations. The prosecutor asked to be excused from the proceeding. It was based on fear that one of the accused (a sitting county commissioner) might reduce his budget or negatively impact his staff. He felt he couldn't do his sworn duty to uphold the laws of West Virginia based on fear of local government retaliation. These attorneys felt obligated to represent the commission's views based on similar fear. That folks is a climate of intimidation.

The most current display of a perverted system came at last week's county commission meeting. During the discussion of potential actions on an agenda item a question was asked by commissioner Pellish. That question asked if a potential action to delay consideration of the agenda topic would negatively impact future rights of the citizens involved. I was actually interested in the answer in that I had requested the agenda item on behalf of two county residents but that isn't the issue here.

Commissioner Morgan then attempted to stop the prosecutor from answering but was gaveled down in one of the more heated exchanges between commissioners in awhile. The answer was given. Commissioner Morgan then went on to pointedly ask the prosecutor "do you think it is your job to provide applicants before this commission with legal protection or is it your job to provide the commission with legal protection"? The answer was "it is my job to provide the commission with legal advice". Folks, this is a climate of intimidation.

The issue here was a simple question regarding if a certain course of action by the county commission would harm the legal rights of a citizen. The comments from Commissioner Morgan clearly indicated that citizens should have to defend themselves from government actions. Local government can enforce political control not with gladiators, but with legal sleight of hand.

So who represents citizen interests when local officials can't be prosecuted, private citizens are second to their elected officials and public sector attorneys can't give sound legal advice to public bodies? The Jefferson County Commission should do one simple thing; hire an attorney to represent them in an attorney client relationship. The public will know how much time and money is being spent in those efforts and that decisions are the sole responsibility of 5 commissioners. That will leave the Prosecuting Attorney free to defend the laws of West Virginia.

It is the right thing to do.

Executive Sessions

The Backstory

November 14, 2011

Remember when you used to whisper something to someone when you were a child? If the whisper was followed by "don't tell Mom" it usually meant you were doing something you weren't supposed to.

Local government and their agencies have developed a similar pattern of behavior. It is becoming all too common for elected and appointed bodies to discuss public policy issues without allowing public oversight. This is done by closing meetings from public view. That type of meeting is called an "executive session".

Federal and State law are pretty clear about the obligation of governing bodies to operate in open session. There are very few exceptions. Most deal with specific personnel matters or contract details that might negatively impact fair competition. The other exception is intended to allow private updates and advice on specific legal actions.

The very nature of closed door meetings makes it difficult for residents to know if there is justification. It should also make residents question why policy matters should be discussed behind closed doors. When the general public and media are excluded from government deliberations, it becomes very difficult to determine how and why decisions are made.

West Virginia law states: The Legislature hereby finds and declares that public agencies in this state exist for the singular purpose of representing citizens of this state in governmental affairs, and it is, therefore, in the best interests of the people of this state for the proceedings of public agencies be conducted openly, with only a few clearly defined exceptions. The Legislature hereby further finds and declares that the citizens of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the governmental agencies that serve them. The people in delegating authority do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for them to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments of government created by them.

West Virginia's Supreme Court spoke to the matter of attorney-client privilege and litigation in an opinion known as Peters VS Wood County: Such executive session may be closed to the public only when the following statutory requirements are met: 1) a majority affirmative vote of the members present of the governing body of the public body, as required by West Virginia Code Sec.6-9A-4; 2) the notice requirements as found in West Virginia Code Sec.6-9A-3 shall be followed; and, 3) the written minutes requirements as found in West Virginia Code Sec.6-9A-5 shall be followed. However, a public agency is not permitted to close a meeting that otherwise would be open merely because an agency attorney is present.

The next time you hear a local governing body go into "executive session" by a motion using the phrase "Peters VS Wood County" or "pending litigation" ask yourself a question:

Why are they whispering and why can't they tell Mom...

Small Change, Big Benefit

The Backstory

November 7, 2011

I want to share some questions I have been asked over the past week. They were about the news stories and my opinion articles regarding County Magisterial Districts. Three stood out as being the issues that people wanted answered.

Number three: "Will a change mean there will be more people on the ballot"?

Answer: No, the number of people on any given ballot is more about issues at the time and who the incumbent is. The election process isn't being changed, only the number of residents that could consider running for public office. Our current system has a candidate filing period, primary election for major party candidates and a general election to allow ALL county voters to select the candidate of their choice. There is no real connection between the number of districts and residents that choose to run. There is no requirement that there be a candidate from every eligible district. This is about more open government in the election process.

Number two: "Will adding more magisterial districts mean we will have more county commissioners"?

Answer: No, the number of commissioners will remain the same. There are currently 5 county commissioners, each serving 6 year terms and each elected by ALL registered voters in the county that choose to cast a ballot. That will not change. The confusion is caused by a local situation that is more chance than design.

Jefferson County currently has five magisterial districts and five commissioners. People naturally assume that we must have one commissioner from every magisterial district. There is also the thought that somehow having more magisterial districts than commissioners will somehow make things too complicated. That simply isn't the case.

Our state constitution says that "no two of said (county) commissioners shall be elected from the same magisterial district". "No two" is a lot different than requiring one from each. As for being complicated having more magisterial districts than commissioners? Jefferson is the ONLY county in the panhandle that has the same number. We aren't the rule, we are the exception.

It isn't difficult. Berkeley has six districts and five commissioners. They used to have three commissioners with six districts. Morgan has six districts with three commissioners. Hampshire has nine districts with three commissioners. A different number of districts than commissioners is actually the norm in WV.

We hear a lot about "open government" and more "citizen participation" during campaign election time. Let's take a look at how Jefferson stacks up in allowing residents to run for the county commission. I'll use the 2012 election for county commission and current number of districts as the standard for calculation. It will simply be a statement of what percentage of registered voters are eligible to run for their own county commission.

Hampshire County, 77 percent
Morgan County, 66 percent
Berkeley County, 50 percent
Jefferson County, 20 percent (now)

I want to repeat a portion from last week: Magisterial districts are political boundaries that simply define a citizen's eligibility to run for County Commission or to be elected to the Board of Education according to the location of his physical residence.

Let's recap the things that won't change if the number of magisterial districts would increase from 5 to 10, the maximum allowed by law. The issue here is not how many county commission members there are. That would remain at 5 just as it is now. The board of education would remain at 5 just as it is now. The length of their terms wouldn't change. They would remain just as they are now. Who could vote for county commissioners and school board members wouldn't change. It would continue to be all county registered voters just as it is now. State constitutional or law sections wouldn't have to change. They would stay exactly as they are now. The "well thought out" voter precincts and magisterial district lines proposed by the County Clerk wouldn't be changed. They would remain just as they have been presented.

And the most often asked question about going from five to ten districts?

Number one: "Why change"?

Answer: Enabling more citizens to participate in local government is the right thing to do.

More Districts, More Opportunities

The Backstory

October 30, 2011

Over the past several elections can anyone think of a political candidate that HASN'T supported open government, more transparency, more citizen involvement and better representation of residents? Do you ever remember hearing a candidate say they DIDN'T support more citizen participation in elections? I sure haven't.

How can someone actually evaluate the performance of elected officials? That's a hard one, but I have a proposal.

Simply ask this question: "What have you specifically done to support more citizen participation in elections"? That could include any official action to allow or encourage more people to consider running for elected office or raising citizen interest in voting.

Now before everyone starts going through old notes and trying to remember if there was anything done about following up on campaign promises I would like to offer another proposal.

Wouldn't it be great if there was some way for the County Commissioners to join together in making a single policy statement that would say "yes we are in favor of more public interest and participation in elections and local government". That opportunity is available and the time is now!

Our County Commission (CC) is considering how to modify the current county voting precincts and magisterial districts as a result of the 2010 National census and the actions taken during the state delegate redistricting. Last Thursday, the CC was presented with a redistricting proposal by the County Clerk's office. It was said to be well thought out, a workable design and meeting legal requirements. There would be little change in the number of voting districts. Magisterial district boundaries would see significant change but the number would remain the same (5).

There was also mention of a proposal submitted to the CC several months ago. It involved changing the number of magisterial districts. Change needs to be understood but that proposal is where opportunity for the CC to make a bold and positive statement comes in.

Let me just start by saying that magisterial districts are political boundaries that simply define a citizen's eligibility to run for County Commission or to be elected to the Board of Education according to the location of his physical residence. WV Constitution states that "no two (county) commissioners shall be elected from the same district". WV Code states "no more than two (Board of Education) members may be elected or serve from the same magisterial district".

One of the best ways to start an explanation about increasing the number of magisterial districts from 5 to 10, the maximum allowed by law, is talk about what wouldn't change. The issue here is not how many county commission members there are. That would remain at 5 just as it is now. The board of education would remain at 5 just as it is now. The length of their terms wouldn't change. They would remain just as they are now. Who could vote for county commissioners and school board members wouldn't change. It would continue to be all county registered voters just as it is now. State constitutional or law sections wouldn't have to change. They would stay exactly as they are now. The "well thought out" voter precincts and magisterial district lines proposed by the County Clerk wouldn't be changed. They would remain just as they have been presented.

So what would change by increasing the number of magisterial districts to ten?

The single most important change would be in the number of citizens that would be eligible to run for the county commission. It just makes sense that if every registered voter in the county is eligible to vote in county commission elections every two years, the number of citizens eligible to run for those offices should be the maximum allowed by law.

So how can the CC keep all of the information presented by the County Clerk as it is and still double the number of magisterial districts? The change is done by simply adding five lines to the magisterial districts on the map proposed by the County Clerk that would evenly divide them into two following voter precinct lines.

That simple political initiative would triple the number of residents eligible to run for the county commission in the 2012 election, bring candidates closer to their constituents, provide opportunity for more voter interest and not change the current CC in any way. If you want more information or have comments send them to the paper or to me.

Fire/EMS fees

The Backstory

Oct 16, 2011

Last week's discussion between the County Commission (CC) and Jefferson County Emergency Service Agency (ESA) was interesting. The original item involved a funding request for more vehicles and equipment with the net result being another vehicle fully equipped for the new deputy director. That part wasn't what the public should be interested in. The discussions and comments that surrounded the item were important. Not so much from a factual or data point of view but how the CC and ESA see the world.

The additional discussion was prompted by a question from Commissioner Pellish. "Why does the administrative staff go out on calls for service? Is it a manpower issue"? The question was a good one. It was also well presented. The honest answer from the ESA director was useful. He stated there are times when multiple calls for service require more EMA personnel than are available. The mention was made of staffing levels and the agency being driven by a five year plan. That the need for administrative staff response to emergency service calls is a staffing issue and a management oversight function.

It reinforces my opinion that there is a structural problem. That problem isn't in the way ESA operates, it is the relationship between the ESA and CC. There also doesn't seem to be any consideration given to setting standards that include level of service data and specificity in the mission standard of service. Things like average response time to scene, average calls, equipment requirements and the manpower needs should be actual numbers.

I don't see any way the larger funding issue can be contemplated without setting a standard in which to measure service. Funding at manpower and equipment levels based on worst case scenario or that service at any level as "not being good enough" is not a viable option for determining performance or funding. We have seen that with the 911 center.

I'm starting to look at a different approach in dealing with the whole fire/ems funding issue. There apparently is never going to be any usable data supplied by ESA in support of their off budget funding requests of the CC. The CC doesn't seem inclined to base public funding contributions on performance or a fixed standard of service. I am going back to the beginning. The statutes, line of authority and accountability.

Has there ever been a presentation by the county administrator and legal counsel regarding the actual relationship and responsibilities of the two (3 if you include the county fire association) parties in this thing?

Reading about the events and regulations that have occurred since 2007, it seems there is a gap between what people think happened and what actually happened. If there is any interest in actually putting a logical and reasonable face on the relationship between private fire/ambulance departments, the ESA and CC funding, a written intent and policy document must be created. Talking without documented resolution isn't going to get it done.

Case in point: Commissioner Dale Manuel talked again about his continuing support and desire to move forward with a combined fire/ems household fee. He seemed to link the delay as an ESA problem in providing a request. Checking the actual documents that allow these fees, the CC is the one and only responsible agency for enacting and determining an amount of the fee. It is the ESA's job to spend the resulting revenue by providing contracted services.

So what was the sequence of events that led to the creation of an EMA?

Some CC members wanted to create a household fee to raise more money. The goal was to shift emergency service funding away from video lottery revenue and into a new fee. At issue was having to create two fees to satisfy WV Code. In 2008, Senate bill 224 is created specifically for Jefferson. WV Code wasn't changed. It was simply a legislative exemption for the Jefferson CC. The WV Legislature was getting tired of special legislation being requested every year only for Jefferson County. The point being that if local elected officials wanted to tax their constituents that badly they might as well let the Jefferson craziness continue.

Out of room! We'll talk more about the relationship between the county commission, emergency service agency, emergency service funding and the new household fees being proposed in this space next week.

Legal Confusion

The Backstory

Oct 10, 2011

So how many of you know or have heard of Judge Forest Dillon? He isn't from around here.

He has had a profound influence on what the county commission's job is. He also established what their authority is in a way. That same influence applies to the towns. Judge Forest Dillon is the leading authority on the flow of government power. That includes who has it, and who gives it. It isn't just me saying it, the WV Supreme Court of Appeals and US Supreme Court have also ruled on the matter.

Judge Dillon and his 1868 and 1872 rulings in Iowa created the basis for virtually all court decisions that followed. The significance of his finding is essential to understanding the basis for West Virginia Code as it relates to county and municipal government authority. In order to get any benefit from reading legislative actions related to the authority of country government, you must remember the context of those sections. It is Dillon's perspective and point of view regarding the line of authority that answers many questions. It is the basis of WV governmental structure when the laws were written.

Dillon's Rule: In 1872 Dillon explained that in contrast to the powers of states, which are unlimited but for express restrictions under the state or federal constitution, municipalities only have the powers that are expressly granted to them by the state legislature. Additional statements and interpretation have said any ambiguities in the legislative grant of power should be resolved against the municipality so that its powers are narrowly construed.

These statements from times past have been used in cases for 140 years. The term "municipalities" used in that original decision was case specific. It was later interpreted to mean all levels of government created by state constitution or legislature. That included counties.

West Virginia is one of 39 states that have adopted the "Dillon Rule". Our WV Constitution speaks directly to the issue in Article 9-11. "Such (county) commissions may exercise such other powers, and perform such other duties, not of a judicial nature, as may be prescribed by law". Translated, that means that the legislature has to specifically grant any and all authority county commissions have beyond items listed in the state constitution.

It is pretty common now days to hear elected and appointed officials talk about how WV Code isn't clear on something, that it doesn't address a certain situation or it is confusing. These statements are usually made before, during or following some discussion about authority.

One problem comes when an elected or appointed group wants to do something that isn't specifically mentioned in WV Code. There are some local examples. Impact Fees and Transferable Development Rights are two that were Jefferson County issues. The WV legislature had to add these two items as actions local government could implement. That authority came with specific standards and procedures determined by the state.

The other problem arises when authority granted by the state doesn't say what local authorities wish it did. The official code words for "we want it to say something else" is "the law is confusing". There are several recent examples: How to fund a new courthouse, land use regulation and the relationship between local government and infrastructure responsibility. All these are covered in WV Code.

When I first got interested in more participation on local issues and government there was always confusion about why they did this or didn't do that. I would actually ask "if it doesn't say you can't do something why don't you just do it"? Public officials and staff would just look at me with a knowing smile and go on about their business. Their legal advisors had explained to them the basis for interpreting the rules. Officials also understood the proper procedures and line of authority.

At some point I was given the magic briefing. The law became much clearer. Understanding the core relationship between state and local government made citizen involvement much easier. When some issue needed to be looked at it was simply a matter of finding the person or agency that had been delegated the responsibility. When it came time to act, it was a matter of following state guidelines that came with the authority.

So how could current officials create clarity and reduce the confusion about WV Code? Ask their legal advisor to reintroduce them to Judge Forest Dillon and the basis for all local authority.

What's the Problem?

The Backstory

Oct 2, 2011

The past several weeks have really put focus on how governments at the county, state and federal level view their responsibility. I will use county level government activities in this article. That isn't because it is any better or worse than other levels of government but because the examples will be closer to everyday life in the community.

Local county government has evolved over the past decade. That evolution has been subtle at times and more obvious in others. Issues have moved from how to provide needed services to a more abstract process. Core financial and policy issues are being discussed but corrective action isn't being taken. Personal political philosophies of those elected to the County Commission have changed the way that body views its job.

Problem solving in the current political climate seems to be the focus of government, not the services that are supposed to be provided the public. Hand wringing over how to reorganize departments, not understanding internal authority, special exemptions to current regulation and the luxury of money to throw at any "problem" without definition or goals shouldn't be construed as serving the public.

Let's do a small test based on one issue that has been discussed regarding "affordable housing"

The issue of affordable housing availability in the county has been a topic for years. Jefferson County has also had the highest average home price in West Virginia for years. There are many factors that create that circumstance. Some can be addressed by local government and others not so much.

So what are the factors that drive home prices? Jefferson County's location in relation to commuting distance from major urban employment centers to the east and relative housing cost in those areas is a major factor. Another is the ability to create diverse housing size, type and density to accommodate various local income demands. National and regional economic factors related to job stability and home financing also play a significant role. Local land use regulation and fees (taxes) also play a significant role in housing cost.

Local land use regulation by its very definition affects housing diversity. Lot sizes, amenities apartments and stand alone homes are all regulated in some way as to location and standards. All of these factors have influence over a housing unit price. It can be debated all day how much and what type of regulation is a good thing or not.

Current discussion is about the negative affect Impact Fees have on the ability to provide "affordable" or "low cost" housing. In theory, these fees were to recover some of the cost associated with expanding population and public service needs. They were enacted by local government for that purpose. Current Impact Fee regulations include the provision for hardship waiver or the payment of fees by a third party.

So here are the choices local government has regarding "affordable housing":

A. Move Jefferson County further away from high cost and job markets.
B. Solve National economic factors related to job stability and home financing.
C. Determine any locally created barriers to diversity, size, type and density to accommodate various local housing demands.
D. Add an exemption to the Impact Fee regulations based on ability to pay VS the new resident's impact on public services and hope it is somehow legal.

Have you chosen an answer?

I have used this specific issue to hopefully demonstrate that solving a perceived problem should start by looking at self imposed hardship. I googled "problem solving" and the result was something very clear. It was obvious to the point of being embarrassingly simple. Virtually all listed steps to problem solving started with identifying and defining the problem to be solved.

Not sure what is causing government to become more complex, ineffective and costly? Let me quote from a Walt Kelly cartoon featuring his famous character "Pogo". "We have met the enemy and it is us".

Voting starts this week

The Backstory

September 19, 2011

That person is going to win, another has no chance. I don't like any of them, it's too negative. The group over in (pick a location) controls everything and changing one person won't make any difference. The polls say the race is over based on a nationwide sampling of 501 random phone calls. The kids have soccer practice and it's only a primary.

Does any of this sound familiar to you? I know you are probably thinking this is just going to be another of those moral or patriotic obligation pieces. There is something to the grander good, freedom isn't free or it's your duty. But this is about reality.

Every day of your life "someone" decides what you are going to pay in taxes. Someone also decides what non-profit groups you will support, where your kids will go to school, what products you will subsidize, how high your grass can be and even which people get killed to protect your freedom. The list is virtually endless. Do you know what all of those "someones" have in common? They got at least one more vote than someone else.

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

"That person is going to win by a landslide. A vote one way or the other isn't going to make any difference". The fact of the matter is that all elections are one vote at a time. Landslide wins are just one candidate getting a lot more people to vote for them one person at a time.

Modern politics is very simple. Individuals run for office on a single issue that they hope appeals to one more person than their opposition. It's called a platform. It may be promises of more or better services, supporting historic preservation, creating jobs or protection from the boogie man (that's something or someone clearly demon possessed). My personal favorite is a laundry list of promised spending on constituent desires without any tax or fee increases.

A definition is in order here. Constituent: one who authorizes another to act as agent. Constituents can be individuals or organizations. Fact of the matter is that every individual or group is a "special interest". Every candidate relies on individuals or groups of individuals to get elected.

Another way of saying special interest is constituent. Voters elect someone to be their "agent". Voters expect their "agent" to give them some benefit. That benefit could be financial, social, safety or quality of life vision. Elected officials serve at the pleasure of those that selected them as an agent. Quite simply put, people run for office to control other people's lives.

So why is it important to vote and how does your vote count? If you want to have any meaningful consideration by a public official, you need to be an active constituent. Virtually every first time candidate for office focuses on issues raised by those people most likely to vote. That same list of people most likely to vote is even more important to incumbents running for reelection.

So how do you and your family get on that most likely list? How do you get meaningful access to elected officials? How do you exercise control over your agent? Living in an elected official's district isn't enough. You need to have the "voted" box checked on your voter registration card.

Early voting starts this week. There is a single issue on the ballot. That issue is who will be the next Governor of West Virginia. It may sound like it doesn't matter who wins but I assure you it does. The more important message here is that elected officials need to know that the general public does care what their elected officials do. They also need to know that they will be held accountable for their actions. If you have gotten out of the habit of voting, this is your chance to start voting again. One issue and one minute to show you care what elected officials do.

There are some absolutes in life. You have heard some of them. Death, taxes, law of unintended consequences and no good deed goes unpunished to name a few. There is one more. It applies to government making decisions every day about you and your family's life.

"If you don't vote, you don't matter."

Rub the Lamp

The Backstory

September 12, 2011

Many of you have heard of Aladdin. His fictional story was told as an Arab folktale of Aladdin and the magic lamp from One Thousand and One Nights. That story of Aladdin was added and first published in a western version about 1704. It is a wonderful story about a boy who went from rags to riches, marries the Emperor's daughter and lives happily ever after.

The whole cycle of success was based on his good fortune of magic rings and lamps. Rub those symbols of power and a genie would appear to grant wishes. These wishes were in groups of three. They were also restricted to the person that held the lamp.

This children's story suspended the reality of our human condition. It relied on people that hold power in their hand to be thoughtful. Literal granting of any careless request could have powerful and very different outcome from the intent. For the past three hundred years that concept of thoughtless use of three wishes has become the basis for countless jokes. I'm sure you have all heard reference to "the law of unintended consequences".

Local residents actually share many situations similar to those in the story of Aladdin. Each resident is the potential holder of a magic lamp. That magic is in the form being able to choose elected officials through voting. The ability to summon and command an elected official is restricted to those that vote. Voters hold the lamp.

Consider elected officials as the genie. They have the ability to implement wishes. This implementation is done through actions that create laws, regulation, policy and taxes. Just as in the story of Aladdin, some genies are more powerful than others but they all have some.

Many benefits and obstacles to quality of life are a direct result of government actions. It is important to remember that elected officials only take action when told to do so. It is true that all voters hold the potential power over elected officials but just holding the lamp isn't enough. Those same officials have to be summoned and told what to do before taking action.

Over the past several months, some residents have been summoning their elected officials. Each resident was given a wish. Many never used their power to communicate their desire with their representative. Others did respond as a command for action. Clearly some desires were better thought out than others.

So what makes the coming months so important? Officials at all levels are getting "wishes" from individuals, organizations and interest groups. Many of these wishes will be treated as commands for action. Everyone should be aware that real life and government are not that Arabian Nights fable. There seems to be a much higher likelihood conflicting requests will cause wishes to be wasted. Rags to riches and living happily ever after are not something that "just happens".

Municipal, County, State and Federal government are geared up for intense regulatory and budget cycles. Perhaps this coming year will be the time that our "genies" will display some common sense and judgment. Maybe officials will be sure the wishes are well thought out and reasonable before taking action. That would be much better than going down the reelection route of attempting to act on every command and passing the law of unintended consequences.

Don't waste your power when it's your turn to hold the lamp. Contact officials, attend public hearings and vote. That is your opportunity to command the "genies"

What if...?

The Backstory

September 5, 2011

At one point or another, everyone has wondered "what would I do with a million dollars?" You know, the what if situation that never really happens. There isn't any right or wrong answer because it is only a daydream, just a little time and reflection to consider priorities.

The thought of sudden wealth generally is based on some potential inheritance from an unknown relative or "when I hit the lottery". Most realize reality is there won't be any surprise letter about an unknown relative. There won't be that moment standing on a stage with the big lottery winner check. There is a much bigger chance of getting hit by lightning than finding an extra million dollars in the bank account.

Thinking about priorities and the best use of windfall wealth does have a place. Debt reduction, a trip around the world or that opportunity to resolve some genuine needs are all things that need review from time to time. Who knows, maybe lighting WILL strike. It could happen!

Now I know many of you are asking where this is going. What does any of this rambling about planning for sudden unexpected wealth have to do with anything? Good question.

Lightning has struck in Jefferson County. Our County Commission (CC) has hit the lottery! They have found millions of dollars in the public bank account. It gets better. Those millions are direct deposit transfers from the WV Lottery Commission.

So what is really happening here? What happens to this "found" money from video lottery and the new table games revenue? There used to be specific accounting of this wind fall revenue but not anymore. It goes into the general revenue accounting and then becomes just another dollar to be spent.

There are probably going to be as many ideas and opinions about how this money should be used as there are people reading this story. Tax reduction, pay raises, savings and any number of special interest grants are all on the table. What to do, what to do?

It may be time to look at something for the greater good. Create something that will leave a legacy. Demonstrate that planning for that unexpected windfall is part of government in a community: An opportunity to make a bold statement about leadership and responsibility.

Our county commission has been talking about several specific needs that impact large portions of the community. It is that daydream about what they would do IF they "hit" the lottery. Well that day has come. It is time to consider the unthinkable. What would be the best use of "found" money? What could that project or program to help ALL residents in one way or another without raising any taxes or fees be?

Create a budget line item to fund real public health and safety issues.

I'm not talking about one more police car, ambulance driver or nurse at the health department. Those are paid for through current taxes and fees. A few of the biggest issues facing the county are known. One is infrastructure quality and rates. Another is a new court house. Yet another is a second access for thousands of residents along Mission Road.

Are these the only larger than life issues facing the community? They may not be the only ones but they are certainly in the top five.

Government at all levels has demonstrated that savings of unexpected windfall money is really not their specialty. They have also demonstrated that without a plan for the unexpected, money seems to vanish over time. There should be a new line item in the budget.

So what is the line item about? It is about being able to bond for large projects. In order for the CC to tackle large issues there needs to be money. In order to borrow that money there needs to be some guarantee that the lenders will be repaid. This is done by creating a budget line item to guarantee that minimum loan repayment.

Bonds have to be approved by the voters. The first step is for government to plan. It also requires a demonstrated financial commitment. That start would be to dedicate $1,000,000 annual funding set aside to provide options. The voters will decide what projects are worthy.

Jefferson is in the unique position of having real money to solve real problems. The time has come to make a bold statement of leadership and commit to government beyond the average.

Easy come, Easy go $38 million

The Backstory

August 29, 2011

A million here, a million there and pretty soon you're talking real money. Well at least it is to most of the people I know. Local government seems to be a little different. It handles a lot of lottery money but how much and what does the public get for it? It's free money for the citizens.

Easy come: Back in 1995, the State of West Virginia offered Jefferson County government a cut of video lottery revenues. It was a new program and no one really knew how much money it would generate. Revenue projections were fairly modest by current standards. All that needed to be done to earn the money was to have county voters approve the games.

Easy go: County voters said "no thanks".

Easy come: In 1997, there were several issues going on in the county. Growth was starting to be discussed. Charles Town Races was in serious financial difficulty and data about what other counties were receiving from video lottery started getting attention. County voters approved video lottery in Jefferson County. The money began to flow.

That first year's revenue was about $392,000. Doesn't sound like much but the county budget was less than $5.5 Million. Second year revenue was over $800,000. It was getting local attention. Citizen groups and more importantly municipalities wanted a piece of the action. Requests started coming in for financial support.

Towns were the first to force the funding issue. They wanted to buy police cars and fix buildings. They also wanted the county government to pay for it from the new gaming revenue. County government wasn't eager to support those requests. County Commissioners (CC) believed that the money should be spent on "one time" capital costs. The money would be held and only budgeted the following year when the exact amount in hand was known. That approach would prevent future budget problems.

The CC held firm. The towns went to our State legislators (Manuel and Doyle) to change WV Code regarding distribution of gaming revenues. A deal was struck and the towns were now going to get 50 percent of everything over $900,000 the county might receive. It turned out to be the deal of the century for towns.

As the years went by revenues grew and local county and town governments were awash in cash. By 2007, the county and town governments were splitting more than $7 million dollars annually.

Easy come: Also in 2007, the State of West Virginia offered Jefferson County government a cut of table games revenues. It was a new program and it was never clear what the new gaming operations would generate. It was a "best guess" prediction. All that needed to be done to earn the money was to have county voters approve the games.

Easy go: County voters said "no thanks". There must be a "better deal".

Easy come: So our legislators went to work. As it turns out, very little effort was required on their part. Other portions of the state wanted revenue that Charles Town Races would add to the "kitty". The better deal was to add a designated piece of the take to local schools (BOE). Also added was some language about how much the towns would get directly. With the "new deal" in place and a two year time restriction between elections up, in 2009 county residents approved table games in Jefferson County. The payout was going to begin in time for the new fiscal year.

Easy go: ALL the video lottery revenue since July 1998 has gone somewhere. We are talking about a number north of $38,000,000.

There was a time when it was easy to see where the money went. From 1998-2005 there was a record of all expenditures of lottery revenue. Those records identify government and civic groups that received money and how much. $11,671,700 through June 30, 2005. After that, it's hard to say.

Last week the County and Towns split $143,228. That is not a typo. The county is getting about $70,000 per week from lottery. The July check for table games was an additional $141,718

You have all gotten way ahead of me here. If the rest of the county governments of the state provide services with tax dollars and fees, what are we spending lottery revenues on?

Truth or Dare

The Backstory

August 15, 2011

A simple game played by children of all ages. Player 1 says "truth or dare" to player 2. Player 2 can then choose to answer the question or complete a "dare". If player 2 doesn't want to answer the question or do the dare, they can appeal to the group who may vote to overturn it and make up a new challenge or leave the game. Time for the Backstory. Over the past several elections can anyone think of a political candidate that HASN'T supported open government, more transparency, more citizen involvement and better representation of residents? Do you ever remember hearing a candidate say they DIDN'T support more citizen participation in elections? I sure haven't. How can someone actually evaluate the performance of elected officials? That's a hard one, but I have a proposal. It's a little game of "truth or dare" local government style. The County Commission (CC) will be player 2. I'll be player 1. County residents will be the rest of the players in this game. The question: "What have you specifically done to support more citizen participation in elections"? That could include any official action to allow or encourage more people to consider running for elected office or raising citizen interest in voting. The dare: "Increase the number of people eligible to run for election to the county commission". That would give the citizens more opportunity to directly participate in elections and raise voter interest during the election process. Appeal: If player 2 (County Commission) doesn't want to answer the question or complete the dare they can leave the game. If Player 2 doesn't want to voluntarily leave the game, they can ask the rest of the players (voters) to excuse them from both answering the question and the dare. The "question" being asked is pretty straight forward. There needs to be a lot more information about the "dare". We need to have some basic information about the current restrictions on how many county residents are eligible to run for County Commission in any given election. Also the authority of our CC to change how many are eligible to file for office during the election process. Who can vote: All registered voters in Jefferson County can vote in county commission elections every two years. The elect one or candidates to a five member commission for a six year term. The 2012 election will be for one commissioner, 2014 for two commissioners and 2016 for another two commissioners. 2018, the process starts over to elect a candidate for the position that was filled in 2012. I'm going to use the upcoming 2012 election cycle to describe who can run for the CC. It certainly isn't everyone. Less than 20 percent of residents eligible to vote in the election can run for the office. Jefferson County is divided into five districts (magisterial) for the purpose of meeting residency requirements by potential candidates. The districts are required in West Virginia Code and can be any number from three to ten. It really doesn't have anything to do with the number of CC members. These districts were originally established more than a century ago. The structure, authority and process of state and local government has change significantly over time but the requirement for the districts remains. Current WV election law recognizes that only one commissioner can be elected from any one district. There is no connection to the number of commissioners a county has and the number of districts. Jefferson's county commission has not only the authority but responsibility for changing the shape and number of magisterial districts. West Virginia Code directs that "the county court may, from time to time, increase or diminish the number of such districts, and change the boundary lines thereof as necessity may require in order to conform the same to the provisions of the constitution of the state". The state and county are currently working on required redistricting with the current 2010 census data. Changing the number of districts isn't that difficult a task. Dividing the current district would create ten. That simple political initiative would triple the number of residents eligible to for the county commission in the 2012 election, bring candidates closer to their constituents, provide opportunity for more voter interest and not change the current CC in any way. If you want more information or have comments send them to the paper or to me. The county commission is off next week. They will be at the Fair. If you see one of them ask if they are willing to play "truth or dare".

Choices, Part Two

The Backstory

August 8, 2011

"If I ever vote for another incumbent, shame on me"

So what caused that opening statement last week? We should pick up where we left off.

My tipping point was July 29, 2011. The time was 7:42 PM. The location was a community center on Mission Road. That public meeting was scheduled to allow local residents an opportunity to express their views on State Delegate redistricting.

The meeting started at 7PM. There was actually a very positive feeling in the air. People from the widest variety of political and community views were talking and laughing. Every resident was representing a single goal. That goal was to put a community back together. Ten years ago politicians had divided the mountain community through redistricting. Residents were now asking politicians to put the community representation back together. A map was on display that was supported by residents. That map met basic requirements for political boundary redistricting. Population equality, county and municipal boundaries respected and compact communities of interest were all addressed. That map was actually drawn by computer based on redistricting criteria. It seemed like a simple and reasonable request.

The mountain community state delegates, Tiffany Lawrence and John Doyle, were also at the meeting. They had brought maps showing how they thought the county redistricting should be done. It was clear they had no interest in bringing the community back together in a single district. The question was why

Delegate Doyle attempted to explain why he was supporting something other than what was being requested by his constituents. To say his explanation was weak would be a gross understatement. There was no substance presented in his defense of a plan the community didn't support.

Delegate Lawrence also stepped up to explain why she would not be supporting the community proposal. Her explanation did have substance. To her credit, planned or not, it was a moment of truth. It was also a moment that no resident in that room will forget. Here is the statement.

The community supported map couldn't be submitted or supported because it was computer generated. It was based only on population and compact boundaries. It didn't consider political party registration, local voting records and how it might impact political party control. The "leadership" in Charleston just wouldn't accept it. Time: 7:42 PM

With all the local, state and national political drama coming to a head, I believe it is clear that political parties, their back room tactics and attempts to consolidate power must be reined in. That can only be done by saying enough is enough.

Political control at the expense of constituents can only be maintained by political parties and their handpicked candidates consolidating power. This is done through promises that can't be kept, programs that can't be sustained and worst of all, spreading fear by misrepresentation. All these are aimed at a single thing, reelection.

The problem is actually the current system of elections. Political parties determine who can be elected. Now I know that the election process will continue unchanged. Those in power have no interest in changing it.

We would have better government by simply drawing names from a hat. Better decisions would be made if the need for considering reelection was removed from the system. Community representatives and delegates to government could simply look at the issues before them, make the best decision they can and go home.

It is time to help public office holders make decisions based on community needs. Create an atmosphere of community service VS a political power career. That first step in helping them is take away the constant worry about being required to make promises that can' t be kept and promoting fear for reelection.

"If I ever vote for another incumbent, shame on me"

Choices, Part One

The Backstory

August 1, 2011

To say that I am disappointed in government at every level may be the understatement of this 21st century. Many talk about my expectations. Others talk about the "real world". The conversations usually end with the suggestion I should expect less.

The worst ending is when someone looks at me with a smile and says "just get over it" "that's the way it is". Well, I'm not going to get over it and it doesn't have to be what it is!

My tipping point was July 29, 2011. The time was 7:42 PM. The place? We'll get to that in a minute. It's time for the "backstory".

In the mid 1990s I was asked by some neighbors to help out with a few issues. At that time the north end of the mountain (where I lived) was really having problems with quarry blasting across the river in Millville. They were operating on a 24 hour schedule with new management. The noise seemed constant. There was also a new map with 5-7 options for the new Route 9. Each route involved homes being taken, years of construction on adjoining properties and a seemingly endless list of quality of life issues. Add to that the water issue and it was busy.

The south end of the mountain was preoccupied with their road conditions. People were starting to move in. They really didn't know that their roads were up to them to maintain. It was a subdivision without a homeowner's association. I wasn't involved in that one.

Jefferson County had begun starting to discuss what to do about school crowding. The big buzz was the number of students at Jefferson HS. The school board (BOE) then was much like the one we have now. Didn't read much about them and there didn't seem to be much controversy.

That all changed when a newspaper article said the BOE was getting ready to break ground on an addition to the school. The planning had been going on for a couple years, but only at the board meetings. The outcry was deafening when it hit the papers.

I guess that was the beginning of our county activists coming out and saying "the good ol' boys" were running the BOE, county and towns in secret. Truth be told, most things were done in the open. Papers weren't covering discussions and the public thought that something was "new" only because they had just heard about it, a trend that remains today.

Anyway, my phone rang. It was then that I met someone completely new. Not just a new person but a grand and glorious character in the most complimentary way. It was one of Jefferson's "grand dames", Frances Miller of Kearneyville. She asked if I would look at the school issue. No strings, positions or pressure. She wanted to know about the two options. Expand the old school or build a second county high school. She also asked if I would participate in speaking publicly on the issue.

Those were heady times for someone who had lived 45 years trying to live an "under the radar" existence. One thing led to another and I got to meet and talk with public officials at virtually every local, state and federal level.

What now seems like a lifetime ago I got my first real introduction to "politics". I ran for public office. Why not? I met a lot of wonderful people during that campaign. I also learned a lot about the towns, county, state and resident issues.

There was one other lesson learned. Running for office isn't for the faint of heart. Politics is a dirty business. That adventure included some life lessons about those that are public officials, those that wish to become public officials and the political party junkies that control the process.

I'm running out of space. We will have to find out what caused my tipping point and that opening statement next week.

Remember? "If I ever vote for another incumbent, shame on me..."

Problem Solving

The Backstory

July 25, 2011

Local county government has evolved over the past decade. That evolution has been subtle at times and more obvious in others. Personal political philosophies of those elected to the County Commission have changed the way that body views its job.

Ten years ago commissioners were dealing with a rapidly growing population. That growth caused the commission to focus on a need for expanding public services. Emergency Medical Service (EMS) and Court facilities led the list of issues brought before them. Land use regulation was also a regular discussion topic.

During this time the CC evaluated the EMS issue. The major concern facing ambulance service providers was a need for increased manpower, specifically caused by a lack of volunteers available during the day. Longer response time to patients due to the increase in calls was the problem. The commission dealt with an identified problem by providing paid EMS personnel to the county volunteer ambulance companies. Response times have been improving virtually every year since that was done.

Expanding population was also causing the court system to also expand. Growing case loads, more personnel and basic storage space needs required more physical space. It was the commission's responsibility to provide that space then, just as it is now. A space needs study was conducted with the various courts and administrative staff. Growth projections were considered and a plan was drawn to resolve the building issue. During that time, legal actions were filed by citizen groups to stop certain aspects of the plan. The major contention was how to deal with Jefferson's abandoned jail which was included in the expansion plan. The outcome was to rehabilitate Jefferson's unused jail for office space. The bigger plan that included new court facilities was abandoned.

This period was also the beginning of "new" money. Lottery revenue generated by the then Charles Town Races was starting to become significant. Commissioners realized the value of this funding source to deal with building and service issues. More importantly, they set aside the lottery funds for specific one time capital expenses. That savings account was supposed to become the source for court facility expansion. The balance reached $15 Million in 2006.

Increased interest in land use regulation was also something that was going to require some type of action. Planning staff was expanded, consultants hired and spending increased significantly. Lawsuits were becoming more common as were increased legal expenses.

The middle of that decade was a time when the political philosophy of commissioners began to change. Land use debates and their impact on elections were changing how that governing body viewed the job. Problem solving had moved from how to provide needed services to a more abstract process. Core financial and policy issues were being discussed but corrective action wasn't being taken.

The evolution of political philosophy was in full swing. Lottery revenues and new Impact Fees were generating more money than anyone had imagined. When that money was combined with the additional tax funding growth brings, the result was something that couldn't be expected (at least by me). That unexpected result was the more prosperous government became, the more concerned the CC was with how to manage on what they had available. It was as though the job or responsibility had somehow changed.

Jefferson's highest approved draft budget is $23.3 million and was approved in 2007. The CC voted to discontinue plans for a new courthouse in 2009. The capital savings to pay for a new court facility is down from its highpoint in 2006 to $6.1 million as of June 30, 2011.

Problem solving in the current political climate seems to be the focus of government, not the services that are supposed to be provided the public. Hand wringing over how to reorganize departments, not understanding internal authority, and the luxury of money to throw at any "problem" without definition or goals wouldn't seem to be serving the public.

I googled "problem solving". The result was something very clear. It was obvious to the point of being embarrassingly simple. Virtually all listed steps to problem solving started with identifying and defining the problem to be solved.

$100,000 and Counting

The Backstory

July 18, 2011

How many people does it take to explain government budgeting to our county commission?

Last week, the CC made it official. It will require at least one more than they currently have. They unanimously voted to advertise for a budget advisor. A new position was created: Director of Financial Management.

Ordinarily I would congratulate the CC for spending some time during their regular meeting to discuss one of the few items that is actually within the scope and authority of county commissions. That authority is to set an annual tax rate and approve the budget. Unfortunately, this current action doesn't have much to do with budgets and taxes other than raising them.

Let's get to the issue that has me writing this piece. That would be ever expanding local government that serves no particular purpose. As I read through the draft job description for this "new" Director of Financial Management there were two things that jumped off the page at me.

First: Virtually all of a long list of duties for the "new" position is currently the responsibility of existing officials. There are at least four current officials/departments that are responsible for monitoring and operation of our county budget. There are a few more when independent budget submissions of the court system are included.

Second: We already have a county department that was created to do the very things that are in the "new" job description. That is the Department of Capital Planning and Management. "Budget and "capital planning" are listed as responsibilities. The director of that department appears regularly before the CC on budget and finance maters.

We should step back to the related events of last week's CC meeting.

Jefferson County Administrator Tim Boyde presented the 5 page draft job description. It was a little ironic that many of the items in the "new" position have been or are in the county administrator duties. That also went without comment.

The commissioners then had a few questions and comments. Several related to the salary, $75,000 (plus benefits). It was clarified by the county administrator that was only the low point. The salary could be raised based on experience and qualifications. There was no "top cap". Commissioner Frances Morgan did point out that the salary should be shown as a range. There needed to be a clear understanding of what the position would pay.

Commissioner Lyn Widmyer wanted to add something to the job description. That would be for the "new" position to create explanations of the budget. It should be in "laymen's terms" helping the public to understand the content.

Prior to the vote, Jefferson's County Clerk Jennifer Maghan talked to the commission. She explained in very simple terms about the overlap between proposed duties of the "new" position and current duties of her office. Those duties are outlined in WV Code. She also offered to work with the CC in answering any questions they might have about the county budgeting process. There was also mention of not knowing why the CC doesn't seem to be interested in working with the Clerk on understanding budgeting issues. There was one other important statement that I'll mention a little later.

A member or two of the CC quietly thanked the Clerk for coming and the meeting went on as though nothing had been said. No discussion or single question as to what had just been presented. It was a conspicuous moment by its very nature. The vote was taken 5-0 to advertise for the "new" position.

During that same meeting, the current Director of Capital Planning and Management Mark Shiavone started a budget action by stating "this is a simple budget revision required by the state auditor's office". That was followed by commissioner Widmyer commenting "did you use the words simple and budget in the same sentence?" The issue of what the transfer actually was and how to re-budget any potential funds was never resolved to the satisfaction of all the commissioners. Eleven minutes later, the "simple" budget amendment was approved after much discussion.

Remember that County Clerk statement that we would get to later? This is it: "members of the public are very astute when it comes to the budget".

Makes one wonder if some current position is going to be replaced or added to? What is the "new" $100,000 position for?

Who is Responsible?

The Backstory

June 27, 2011

Last week there were some intense moments at the County Commission (CC) meeting. It started early with public comment.

The first speaker talked about a proposed traffic light on route 340. It seems that the new Federal training facility needs to change their entrance. That change is due to a major expansion currently underway.

Several weeks ago, representatives from the Training Facility, Department of Highways (DOH) and a local engineering firm appeared before the CC. Their purpose seemed to be letting the CC know what was coming. It truly appeared to be a command performance with all hands on deck.

During the informational presentation, there were several potential options for the location of a new traffic light on route 340. Those options were in the most preliminary stage of evaluation. These options ranged from having little or no impact on the surrounding area to major changes in roads that would even include the possible taking of existing houses. The options were explained as to what benefit, cost and issues would be addressed by each of them. As I said, it was a meeting to simply inform the CC of what was going on.

So what caused an entire neighborhood to become alarmed to the point of believing that their property values, homes and safety were at risk? Even more importantly, why did the homeowners think that the CC was the place to take their concerns asking for reconsideration of the project design? After all, the planning commission is responsible for plan reviews and public hearings regarding new land use projects. The DOH is responsible for design changes to existing roads. Throw in the fact that Federal projects are exempt from local regulations and you have to wonder how residents got the idea that the CC was the authority that had potentially endangered their quality of life.

The cause of the confusion came from actions of individual commissioners. Each in turn started giving their personal opinions about the new Training facility project designs and highway change options. This was done with very little information and with little or no actual authority as a reviewing or regulatory authority. The ultimate moment in this entire event came when the CC actually chose to recommend and support certain draft options over others. One of those they agreed to support was the option with major road changes and the elimination some level of existing houses.

That is the point when the CC had taken "ownership" of an issue in the public eye.

How can the public know who is responsible? Remember, we were talking about taking "ownership" of issues. Those items were being mistaken as a responsibility of the CC by residents.

Later in the meeting the concept of ownership VS authority was brought front and center again. It was the local health department ruling on non-profit food vendors. The CC as a body immediately started trying to figure out how to send a representative to the meeting between the state and county officials that actually had authority and responsibility in the matter. It was then decided to have the WV Senate Majority leader appear at the CC meeting to discuss the issue and possible points of resolution. And so ownership of an issue of which the CC has no control or authority was born.

It was a good example of how the CC as a body becomes involved in resident issues. Bad feelings are created and resolution is generally delayed. Totally unintentional but that is how it happens.

Getting "involved" doesn't require taking ownership. True constituent service might be to do the job well when the CC actually has responsibility and authority. Good constituent service also includes directing people to the "proper" agency for resolution of their issues.

The real rub here is that most people that run for office are actually interested in helping with community and constituent issues. Good elected officials tend to understand the difference between individual community activism and doing the job they are elected to. They don't have to be mutually exclusive. The separation of personal and official positions is really the issue here.

Personal activities and interests of individual commissioners shouldn't be discussed during official meetings. There is no relevance if the topics are not the responsibility or authority of the CC. "Nice to know" type information followed by open debate during official meetings is really counterproductive.

Residents need to know the difference between their elected officials personal interests and actual authority.

Impact Fee Hearing

The Backstory

May 16, 2011

Last week, the County Commission (CC) held a public hearing. The topic was "public hearing on draft impact fee study". The meeting seemed to have three distinct parts.

Part 1. Jefferson County's Impact Fee Coordinator explained some of the methodology that was being used. He also gave some data in support of study findings and conclusions. The items omitted were as important as the selected data presented. Study results are only representation of what numbers are used. Actual conclusions are simply a function of where the pluses and minuses are used.

School Impact Fees make up the largest portion of residential impact fees. It also provides an example of how subtle policy changes drive conclusions. One example is the calculation of how many students will be generated from various housing types or sizes.

The original impact fee study for Jefferson County made it clear that there should be a distinction between new and older housing when calculating students per household. This was the statement: "It is important to note that the impact fee is to cover future demand for school facilities over a 15-20 year period. Over time, a new house will exhibit tendencies that are found with older housing units throughout the County".

There was no mention during the Impact Fee coordinator's report as to why this was no longer a factor. Other issues regarding fee calculations were also absent. Why is appraised value used instead of "cost" for existing services? You want irony? The use of $14 Million in Impact Fees for school construction isn't listed as an additional funding source.

Part 2: Representatives from the construction industry had two basic statements. First: Impact fees were a consideration with regards to construction employment/economy. They should be evaluated on economic impact to the industry. Second: Fees are useful when used properly and should be calculated accurately and fairly.

I agree with the second point but the first? Not so much.

Part 3: The agencies that receive the fees spoke about projects being funded. Focus seemed to be on the value of programs and their community support. It was also clear that the projects were well thought out. Allocated funds were being carefully considered for their maximum benefit.

It is important to clear up a few things about my articles regarding Impact Fees.

First and foremost, the agencies that receive these funds are using them in a judicious and responsible manner. In virtually every presentation, the need for whatever item was being purchased had rational justification of need. All agencies that request and/or receive impact fee funds rely on the sole discretion of Jefferson's Impact Fee Coordinator.

That office determines what expenditures qualify and how much is available. The Coordinator also recommends what the fees should be, who pays and how they are collected. It is the responsibility of the Coordinator to follow a process that complies with local and state regulations when making those recommendations and decisions. All this is subject to CC administrative approval based on those recommendations.

My interest in this whole affair is the fairness and equity of taxes generally. These may be called fees but it is simply another mandatory payment required by elected officials. It is important that all residents and property owners be aware that when some group is singled out for "special" tax or "fees", it is important that there be a direct and calculated relationship between the payer and service provided.

Accountability of elected officials can only be maintained if it is clear to the general public and voters how much and where their tax dollars are being spent. Clouding transparency with layers of household fees, phone line charges, cable TV franchise fees, 911 fees and yes even Impact Fees only serve to shift accountability from elected officials to their various admin agencies.

Impact Fees...fair and reasonable? Time will tell.

Impact Fee Calculation

The Backstory

May 9, 2011

This week, county government is having a public hearing regarding the raising of fees and how they are calculated. This is a very important time.

In order to understand Impact Fee calculations, there are a few basic items that have to be considered. West Virginia law establishes some specific guidelines for calculation of the amount of fees, who pays them and what they can be spent on. The key here is that the law sets some general standards and guidelines but no formulas or a specific method of determination.

There are many subtle considerations that contribute to calculating the amount of an Impact Fee. Some are well defined while others seem nothing more than speculation or opinion. It is this mix of specifics and generalities that create difficulty. They also provide controversy.

State law indicated that there were four major items to consider. The first three include current level of service (LOS), cost of expanding facilities and proportionate share of each new housing unit of that cost. The fourth was something that is very important. Impact Fees could only be collected and spent on new facilities. Those facilities or capital expenses had to be a direct result of growth. They could not be spent on additional operational or maintenance costs associated with the expansion of services. Those costs are included in every property owner's taxes which are paid by old and new taxpayers alike.

Let's look at a few examples of data that goes in to fee calculations. The methodology taken is recommended by our Impact Fee department and hired consultant.

Schools, level of service: The current level of service number for buildings and their value are based on square footage construction calculation projections. These "projections" are from State School Building Authority and State Board of Education construction documents.

Law Enforcement, level of service: The current level of service includes 52 vehicles valued at "replacement cost" in the fee calculation.

Parks and Recreation, level of service: The current calculation includes total land at a "per acre" value. The calculation also includes improvements, vehicles and equipment at "replacement cost"

Fire and EMS, level of service: This fee has a base LOS that includes facilities, apparatus and equipment. The calculation of their value is a mix of actual, square footage assignments and replacement cost.

Now let's look at West Virginia law views on how current LOS items should be valued in the calculation of new resident impact.

"The Legislature hereby makes the following findings: The residents, taxpayers and users of county facilities and services, in affected counties, have contributed significant funds in the form of taxes and user charges toward the cost of existing county facilities and services, which represents a substantial and incalculable investment"

"In determining a proportionate share of capital improvements and public service costs, the following factors shall be considered: The cost of existing capital improvements and public services" also "the method by which the existing capital improvements and public services are financed".

The issue here is a projected value VS the actual cost of items included in fee calculations. Actual cost to taxpayers accurately considers the investment in place when new residents and businesses arrive. That true cost would consider most items that are currently omitted from LOS cost calculations.

School LOS doesn't include the participation of the School Building authority that has provided millions of dollars toward school funding and repair projects. Law enforcement LOS doesn't consider grant funding or increased regulation as factors in capital cost. Parks and Recreation LOS is not reflective of all the donated land and improvements in calculating taxpayer cost. Fire and EMS LOS cost calculations do not represent the tremendous support and effort of our volunteer community.

The legislature created Impact Fee authorization with a purpose to "to provide for the fair distribution of costs for county development..."

Our officials can be fair and reasonable or continue being advised to raise fees without sound basis. They can continue to spend funds on items without justification. I'll close with the same line from last week.

The county is only a single lawsuit away from losing impact fees all together.

Impact Fees 2011

The Backstory

May 3, 2011

Today's county impact fees have evolved since original implementation. There are more of them, the dollar amounts have risen and how they should be spent has changed. We should take a brief step back just for clarification.

Jefferson has multiple impact fees. It isn't a single fee divided among several categories of service. Each individual fee was created by passage of a specific ordinance. "Schools" was the first of four. That was followed by "law Enforcement", "Fire-EMS" and "Parks-Recreation".

Fee collection practices have remained unchanged even thought the dollar amount has gone up. County building permit applications require a receipt for the payment of "impact fees" prior to final permit issuance. The amount of those fees is determined by the impact fee coordinator. General fee schedules are approved by the county commission (CC).

Calculation of the fees has always been more art than science. You will hear about statistics and formulas, but at the end of the day it all comes down to how high each fee can be before it triggers a legal action. Remember the phrase "legally defensible"?

Impact Fee policy for distribution of collected funds seems to have changed since 2004. When fees were first approved, there was a very real concern that legal challenges would be filed. That caused officials to be cautious with fee calculation and what would qualify for funding. Politics and time issues have caused these changes.

Initially, school impact fee distribution was based on a detailed formula that allocated fees in much the same way they were calculated. A certain portion of the fee was designated for each type of school based on the projected demand from each additional housing type. That is to say on average, a new house would require some set percentage of elementary, middle and high school capacity. The single collected fee would be distributed accordingly toward those projects. It wasn't long before the politics of money standing still forced a policy change. The county board of education put significant public pressure on county government officials to use impact fee funds far in excess of the original calculation for high school construction. It was up to the fee coordinator to change policy and facilitate the political situation. The checks were written.

Time itself has also caused policy to be changed but not in the way you might think. This isn't a case of experience and changes in enabling legislation somehow causing modest adjustments over time. Deadlines for spending collected fees caused policy changes. State law that established some ground rules for collection and spending of fees contains the "time" problem. That specific provision stated "impact fee receipts shall be expended within six years of receipt thereof..." This provision was placed in the enabling legislation to prevent excessive fee collection.

You will remember that the school fees started in 2004, Law, Fire-EMS and Parks fees started in 2005. By 2008 some issues began to emerge. School and Law were finding qualified projects to spend money on. That wasn't the case with Fire-EMS and Parks. Those two categories were struggling to come up with projects that were capital in nature and were a direct result of growth. If policy wasn't changed on what qualified for funding with collected fees by 2010-2011, some money would have to be returned to those residents that had paid the fees. Anyone that currently owns a house built after January 2004 might have been eligible for a check.

Spending policy started to include replacing playground equipment at existing parks, lawn mowers and vehicles. An ambulance was approved for an organization that didn't provide transport service. Replacement equipment was also working its way up on the fee funding list. Also gone was any requirement for actual data to support funding requests connecting needs to growth.

So here we are. Our County Commission is going to look at the fees and see what changes should be made. The question should not be how much the fee is, but is the calculation fair, equitable and legal when applied to current and future residents?

This current review shouldn't be taken with a business as usual attitude. Significant changes to the existing fee structure and amount are being considered. A decision based on politics and greed rather than rational process could have unintended consequences.

The county is only a single lawsuit away from loosing impact fees all together.

Chesapeake Bay update

The Backstory

April 25, 2011

Jefferson County has the distinction of being West Virginia's primary location for more than Civil War battles. Many of you may know that Jefferson County is bordered by two rivers, the Potomac and Shenandoah. This simple geographic fact has also created another distinction for Jefferson. We have become the front line for West Virginia's participation in Chesapeake Bay Restoration. This year you will be hearing a lot more about it. The deadlines for action have arrived...Back Story April 18, 2010

In that article from 12 months ago, I gave a history and overview of how West Virginia and Jefferson County became part of the Chesapeake Bay Restoration program. There was also a suggestion that local residents and elected officials get involved. That time has come.

Six months ago, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) team came to town. The purpose of the meeting was billed as "listening" by the EPA to comments regarding their proposed regulations. This included recently published remarks from the EPA about their dislike of West Virginia's draft plan for compliance.

Oh, these guys were good. "Best science", "good science", "pound for pound", "cooperative effort" "calculated loading" and "increased property values". The list of benefits for doing "the right thing" seemed endless. Surely they would end with data on specific pollution measurements, graphs depicting how "good science" had created a link between WV pollution, proposed corrective action and obvious "best science" benefit. There would certainly be a power point slide indicating ALL the factors related to Bay restoration and how everything possible was being done. The head EPA speaker even said "27 years later WV, you are sending us cleaner water..." But "we're asking for more help because the bay still hasn't gotten to a healthy water body".

That was then. This is now. Several things have happened since that meeting.

Local and state legislators have jumped to divert public funds toward complying with EPA and WVDEP waste water treatment plant suggestions. I call them suggestions because the level of treatment standards and timeline for completion are moving targets.

The ink is barely dry on state legislation that will commit $6 million dollars a year for 30 years toward waste treatment plant upgrades in the panhandle. That sounds OK unless you know some other facts. The funding only covers 40 percent of the projected cost. It only covers upgrades that that may become insufficient over the next 5 years. So then what happens? On this current "logic" track, utility rate payers and local governments would have to cover the other 60 percent of cost.

Money aside, the standards themselves are changing. The most recent legislative action was prompted by impending standards that I'll call part one. They are already a thing of the past. State and local governments are facing a new deadline for creating standards part two. Oh yea, this is a multi part process. The total number of "parts" isn't really known. The rules and suggested requirements keep changing.

Local elected officials are being asked to initiate part 2 discussions and regulation. Federal and State agency staffers are suggesting that county and municipal governments create new regulations, fees and taxes for their residents. Maybe it is time for a little different approach.

Recent documents and reports posted on the Chesapeake Bay Program website indicate that current levels of storm water management, waste treatment and some commercial fishing restrictions are working. Water is better and crabs are at the highest levels in 15 years. Striped Bass have fewer contaminants and nutrients entering the Bay are down 25 to 40 percent from when the program started.

Local officials should take this opportunity to use existing data and resources to tell Federal and State regulators the progress we have made. Current status of our waterways and the success of voluntary measures to improve quality of life should be openly recognized.

This isn't the time or place to add new regulation, fees and taxes. It's time to ask hard questions and produce a response that shows our community is doing more than its fair share.

Oh, by the way there never was any "good science", "all options" or "best science" of an action/result presented.

Service or Self?

The Backstory

April 11, 2011

How can anyone have confidence or respect for public officials after last week?

The actions of Congress put me over the top. It highlighted how elected officials can place ego and personal agendas over the everyday lives of those they are supposed to represent. There is no way anyone could possibly make a case to justify what happened.

Let's start with the fact that the most recent "action" by Congress was to pass a measure to give themselves an additional 3 business days to do what they should have done a year ago. It was to debate, review and pass a budget. Not the budget for the coming fiscal year but for the year they are in now!

I am getting used to Congress as a group making bold, even grandiose statements about how responsible and conscientious they are. You all know the comments and speeches about holding spending to a minimum, serving the public and providing ever increasing "services". My favorite is something about representing everyone's best interest and not just those that gave money and votes. Wouldn't it be nice if that were true?

So what got me so upset? It was a seemingly total disregard for the millions of people that were left to wonder about their jobs, pay and future because elected officials in Congress couldn't or wouldn't do their job in a responsible manner. Civic events all over the country had to be changed or canceled. Families had to wonder if or when their next payday might be. Businesses had to spend countless hours trying to plan for a potential government "shut down".

Hopefully this whole business hasn't interfered with fund raising and reelection campaigns. It must be hard to concentrate when days are taken up with finger pointing, press releases and determining a winner and loser in political debate. I'm pretty sure those that are at the mercy of this process are the losers, not those creating the problem.

Then there is all the noise from current elected officials running for Governor. There are 14 running and more than half of them are current elected officials. There are two things that strike me about this whole process. First is that none of the current elected officials have resigned their elected position and stated they would be a much better governor than they are at what they are doing now. The other thing is the number of regular people that know little or nothing about this whole political jockeying.

In fairness, the current campaign is for political parties to pick a candidate. It is a special election and the whole thing will start over again in a matter of months. It is about individual power and popularity with some issues and promises thrown in. Think of this as more of a test of strength for politicians and a diversion for political party junkies.

Local government isn't exempt from the whole blurring of the service or self line. Last week our county commission (CC) spent half an hour "discussing" a policy regarding the conduct of its own members. The policy was created in 2007 as a result of the actions of a former county commissioner. His conduct seemed to rise to a level of requiring some formal action. After that action, there wasn't much talk about what or how the policy should be interpreted or enforced. It was more of a censure than actual policy.

Last Thursday the policy hit the agenda again. The reason? One commissioner was being singled out as using the power of political office for personal issues. It centered around two primary events. First: the perception that one commissioner was attempting to unduly influence the 340 corridor study through planning commission staff contact. Second: that same commissioner's actions were also questioned regarding references to being a county commissioner during advocacy in Charles Town city government matters.

The good news? No action was taken. The bad news? That 30 minute agenda item brought personal issues between commissioners out into the public. It has been suggested that I name names. For clarity here they are.

The 2007 policy was adopted as a result of Jim Surkamp's actions. Patsy Noland placed the issue on last week's agenda. Lyn Widmyer was the one whose conduct was being "discussed". CC Noland believed the line had been crossed. CC Morgan opined that it was up to the voters to judge conduct, not CC members. CC Manuel and CC Pellish seemed to be somewhere in between.

There, it's done. Back to business as usual.

Studies and Action

The Backstory

April 4, 2011

There have been a lot of local government "studies" over the past decade. Many have produced interesting data. Many have suggested some type of action. Some have even been the basis for action. That last category, "action", is a hard item to define.

To some, taking action requires the implementation of suggestions or some legislative or regulatory step based on a study's findings. Some think that the proper process is to review the findings and take a formal action to implement the recommendations or to formally determine that no "action" is required. Still others believe that the proper action following a study is to thank the presenter for their efforts and file the document away for future reference.

Some of the most famous studies in recent county memory are remembered for their controversy.

A county management and wage study was commissioned back in 2005 or 6. It was an effort to determine if a total reorganization of county government was needed. The study became controversial in that its preliminary findings and recommendations weren't politically popular with some. That particular study met a unique fate. The study was completed and given to the county commission. It was promptly stamped "draft" and sent to the prosecuting attorney's office for legal review. To this day, I don't think the commission has taken a formal action to accept or reject the study findings. I'm not even sure if it is even a public document at this time.

Probably the most debated study of the past decade involved land use. It was actually a collection of many studies. Agricultural, environmental, economic, water and traffic were all component topics.

About ten years ago, land use was THE topic of political debate. A new comprehensive plan was written and approved in 2004 after several years (and thousands of dollars) of study. Then it was time to "study" land use regulation. All those studies, meetings and consultants resulted in an entirely new set of land use regulations. These resulting regulations were approved by local government after several years (and hundreds of thousands of dollars) of study.

What made this the most controversial study in recent history? After the county commission took action by enacting the study recommended regulations, voters rejected the action. It was truly the end of an era.

Another study that created one of those head shake moments involved county employee wages. It was debated for a while. All the usual subjects were brought up. Can the county afford it, at what levels and over what period of time? I'm not sure the study and its recommendations were ever formally adopted but the interesting part of the story is another little Jefferson "backstory". One week the CC approved pay raises based on the study while one of the CC members was absent. The following week, the pay raise action was reversed when all commissioners were back. It seemed the problem revolved around a single individual that would get a raise under the position pay formula.

The best study that fell into the "file it away for future reference" category included this statement:

"The challenge going forward is to sustain the momentum and commitment. The community has now taken actions to identify and assess ecological functions and natural resource assets that are part of the commons we share. The next steps will require developing a process so that these assets can be planned for and conserved, protected and monitored, restored and enhanced". (Green Infrastructure Assessment, Jan 2007)

So now we have the long discussed 340 Corridor Study kicking off. Where will it fit in with the last decade of studies? Action, no action or file for future reference.

There is always that fourth option. "If you want to delay something, number one: ask for a study. If you don't like the result of the study, refer to number one". It is an option that only exists in politics and personal agendas.

Children's rules

The Backstory

March 28, 2011

Do as I say, not as I do...

You have all heard this phrase at one time or another. Most of you have thought about using it to end a debate that is going nowhere. It generally is used when reason or logic fails. The person with perceived power and authority over another simply ends a discussion.

This type of situation is most often used in family situations. Parents tell a child to clean up their room or stop doing something that is annoying. The child says "but you don't (fill in the blank) so why do I have to"?

When logic or reason fails, why something must be done is followed by "because I say so". That is a substitute for "I have the power to make you do it so justification isn't required" and the debate is over.

Now this type of discussion is rarely heard out in the real world of adult social interaction. It is generally limited to family interaction because the person with power is pretty clearly defined. The person that must comply no matter what is also pretty well identified. Adults make the rules up as they go along and the children are obligated to comply.

Maybe it's just me, but have you noticed a disturbing trend lately? There seems to be a group of people that believe parent-child authoritarianism applies outside the family. That "because I say so" attitude is noticeably present with ever increasing regularity. I guess what bothers me the most is who is playing the part of parent and who is presumed to be the child.

So what is this group that has me wondering who is in charge and who works for who? It's elected and appointed officials. Now don't get me wrong. This isn't an indictment of government and all those that serve. It is simply a message that I'm noticing a shift in the attitude of some people in government.

There was a time when officials felt obligated to do a few basic things. One would be to recognize what their position and authority were, not what they could be. There was also a very real interest in keeping the people that they represented informed in a meaningful manor. Most importantly, officials used to be aware that public service was just that, service.

There are just a few things that could be done to make me feel more like a partner in government VS the powerless child.

First would probably be that officials somehow resist using their positions to move personal agendas. Things like unreasonable or unfounded regulation should be left to advocacy groups, not elected and appointed government officials. Legal intervention in private enterprise when there is no evidence of criminal activity probably should be a red flag. Private meetings with other officials attempting to gain advantage in personal issues should be avoided.

Next would be for officials to focus more on keeping the people they serve informed in a reasonable manor. I don't mean sitting back and saying that all day meetings are "available on the website" or "minutes are posted".

I'll give a recent example. Commissioner Widmyer commented that there should be a summary of the latest CC budget. Something that explains in layman terms what services were expanded, cut back or created during the budget process. In effect she was saying there should be some way for the people being served to know what they were getting for the money spent.

This is a great idea when you consider that the budget is up 16 percent over last year. I don't think people are as concerned about the amount of government spending as they are about what it is being spent on. While the two issues are connected, fact of the matter is that less than half the county budget comes from property taxes. The rest is generated by fees, use taxes and free money from gaming. That said, it is all public money available to serve community needs and desires. Money shouldn't be wasted even in one of the wealthiest counties in West Virginia.

Finally, it would be nice if government officials at every level posted their report card. Set goals and objectives at the beginning of their fiscal year and reported on their progress. To again use Commissioner Widmyer's long standing requirement that other officials provide a work plan with budget submissions so performance can be evaluated, it's time for the CC to do the same.

Time to lead by example or is it going to be "do as I say, not as I do"?

Decisions, decisions

The Backstory

March 7, 2011

At one point or another, everyone has wondered "what would I do with a million dollars?" You know, that what if situation that never really happens. There isn't any right or wrong answer because it is only a daydream, just a little time and reflection to consider priorities.

The thought of sudden wealth generally is based on some potential inheritance from an unknown relative or "when I hit the lottery". Most realize that reality is there won't be any surprise letter about an unknown relative. There won't be that moment standing on a stage with the big lottery winner check. There is a much bigger chance of getting hit by lightning than finding an extra million dollars in the bank account.

Thinking about priorities and the best use of windfall wealth does have a place. Debt reduction, a trip around the world or that opportunity to resolve some genuine needs are all things that need review from time to time. Who knows, maybe lighting WILL strike. It could happen!

Now I know many of you are asking where this is going. What does any of this rambling about planning for sudden unexpected wealth have to do with anything? Good question.

Lightning has struck in Jefferson County. Our County Commission (CC) has hit the lottery! They have found an additional one million dollars in the public bank account. It get's better. That million is just the first check in an annual direct deposit from the WV Lottery Commission.

So what is really happening here? It is "found" money from the new table games revenue. It wasn't fully budgeted last year because no one knew how much additional county revenue (if any) there would be.

There are probably going to be as many ideas and opinions about how this money should be used as there are people reading this story. Tax reduction, pay raises, savings and any number of special interest grants are all on the table. What to do, what to do? I'm sure most of you will be stunned by the next statement.

I have a suggestion for the commissioners (grin)

It may be time to look at something for the greater good. Create something that will leave a legacy. Demonstrate that planning for that unexpected windfall is part of government in a community. An opportunity to make a bold statement.

Our county commission has been talking about two specific needs that impact large portions of the community. It is that daydream about what they would do IF they "hit" the lottery. That day has come. It is time to consider the unthinkable. What would be the best use of "found" money? What would that project or program be to help ALL residents in one way or another without raising any taxes or fees?

Create a budget line item to fund real public health and safety issues.

I'm not talking about one more police car, ambulance driver or nurse at the health department. Those are paid for through current taxes and fees. Two of the biggest issues facing the county are known. One is water infrastructure quality and rates. The second is a second access for thousands of residents along Mission Road.

Are these the only larger than life issues facing the community? They may not be the only ones but they are certainly in the top five.

Government at all levels has demonstrated the savings of unexpected windfall money is really not their specialty. They have also demonstrated that without a plan for the unexpected, money seems to vanish over time.

So what is the line item about? It is about being able to bond for large projects. In order for the CC to tackle large issues there needs to be money. In order to borrow that money there needs to be some guarantee that the lenders will be repaid. This is done by creating a budget line item to guarantee that minimum loan repayment.

Bonds have to be approved by the voters. The first step is for government to plan. It also requires a demonstrated financial commitment. That start would be to dedicate $1,000,000 annual funding required to provide options. The voters will decide what projects are worthy.

Jefferson is in the unique position of having real money to solve real problems. Time to make a bold statement of leadership and commit to government beyond the average.

Advocacy by Government

The Backstory

February 28, 2011

Where is the line? That line between government responsibility, authority and activism is hard to determine. We have all had days when thoughts included "why is government doing this" or "why doesn't government do something about..."

It doesn't make much difference what level of government is being discussed. Virtually everything any level of government does can be seen as necessary by some and over reaching by others.

What should be the federal government role in education? Is state government the best choice in dealing with environmental and public health issues? Is county government responsible for managing growth of towns? Are town governments free to act under the principals of self determination?

I would guess that there are different answers to each of these questions based on where the reader sees the role of government. It is even more important to understand that those answers change based on a specific circumstance.

When government acts or fails to act when faced with some issue isn't really what is happening now days. Government ALWAYS acts.

When issues come before any level of government it seems that body feels obligated to do something. The days of simply stating that some other agency or individual is the proper authority are few and far between.

Jefferson's county commission (CC) has provided some recent examples. Debates over the past few months have included water rate cases, town boundaries, impact fees and the authority of county agencies.

Water rate cases have been joined by the county commission through the prosecutor's office. That action was taken as a result of citizen advocacy requests. The CC joined rate request actions on behalf of rate payers using publicly funded attorneys. The CC also approved funding of "experts" to help an advocacy position on water rates.

An advisory group that has become viewed as a county agency is also generating some debate on the responsibility and authority of government. It also involves water rate issues of publicly regulated utilities.

Now there is another request coming before the county commission to enter another utility related case. It isn't about rates but an investigation (study) regarding the most efficient and cost effective way for a local regulated utility to provide service.

All these water rate and service issues are regulated by state government through the public service commission. There are specific procedures in place to deal with rates and the operation of regulated public utilities.

This single example of county government involvement dealing with public utility issues has caused some questions to be raised. What is the role of local government and their authority?

The most recent information on involvement in rate and regulatory cases came during a legal update at last weeks county commission meeting. The CC members and their legal staff found that there was a public service commission Citizen Advocacy Division (research and legal representation) available to citizens directly involved with public utility issues. They are effective and provided for in formal complaint procedures established to represent ratepayers.

The discussion about formally entering (intervening) in a new PSC case is taking on the issue of authority and responsibility. That specific item will be debated over the next several weeks.

While I have used a specific local government issue to demonstrate choices government make, all levels of government face the same decisions. Managing education, protecting an oyster in Maryland, impact fees in Jefferson County or where a store should be located in Charles Town are all matters of constituent service and community interest.

Remember that line between advocacy and authority? I don't know where it is now but it may be moving toward dealing with those things for which there is authority and away from government advocacy.

County Budget

The Backstory

February 22, 2011

County government is about to enter deliberation on its primary function. How much county property taxes will be and how they are going to be spent.

Our county government budget is really a compilation of several agency budgets. First are called constitutional offices. These are headed by elected officials: the County Commission, Circuit Clerk, Prosecuting Attorney, County Clerk and Sheriff. Each entity creates their own budget for employee salaries and the annual cost of running that service. Several of these entities have multiple functions. The Sheriff, in addition to law enforcement, is also the county Treasurer. County Clerk has financial, record keeping and election functions. County Commission agencies include among others: 911 and addressing, Maintenance, GIS, Impact Fees, Capital Construction Management, Homeland Security, Planning/Zoning/Engineering and County administrative functions. We also have what are called "outside" agencies. Some of these are Council on Aging, Eastern Panhandle Transit Authority, Libraries, Animal Welfare, Historic Landmarks, etc. The final groups seeking to be included for public funding are Non-profit (501) organizations. They are numerous.

Government budgeting is the process of determining a list of necessary items, the cost of those items and sources of money. It sounds simple but there are many variables. Who decides what items are necessary? Is there some magic determination of what level of service is adequate under the category of necessary? Who says "this is the amount of money that is available". The answer to all of these questions is: no one. Issues of need, cost and funding availability must be determined by consensus of county commissioners.

Elected officials have stated how difficult the process is. The decisions are driven by available funds and priorities. Government budgets are not a formula exercise. No actual product is being produced. Revenue is only defined as dollars available. Expenditures are simply a selected funding level for specific services. Will this year any more difficult than another? Statistically, no. There are always more requests for public dollars than projected revenue. It happens every year.

It is difficult to determine what level of service government actually provides. Some are straight forward: number of police officers, efficiency of our court system and public record keeping. Other services aren't so clear: Parks, visitor bureau, libraries, the arts, senior services and planning to name a few. There are also issues that may be identified but remain unfunded. How does one determine how much of something is enough? How much is too much? Where does the money get focused?

There are as many ways to approach the budget process as there are commissioners. On the needs side, fully funding the constitutional offices requests and see what's left. Another option would be across the board percentage cuts due to the entire package of funding requests being more than projected revenue. Yet another approach is to start with the total projected revenue and spread it around, adjusting as they go. In the more recent past there was also a stated position that this mandated annual budget is simply a "draft". Several commented that funding will be adjusted in July IF there are sufficient carry over funds from the current fiscal year.

This year has a few twists. Many property assessments have been reduced. This will cause some tax rates to increase in order for tax revenue to stay at current county levels. Revenues from fees charged for certain government services may also be down. That combined with a first year influx of table games revenue should provide room for wide speculation about projected revenues.

The budgeting process will be interesting. How to balance a general public demand for government reform against building space needs, rainy day funds and interest group pressure for more funding? Maybe this year isn't so different after all.

Government Growth

The Backstory

February 7, 2011

Can you remember a time when candidates didn't talk about controlling the growth of government? I can't. Can you remember a time when public officials actually reduced the size of government? I can't.

So how does this continuous growth happen? An issue comes up in a government meeting. It may be the result of an individual citizen request. More often, a relatively small group of citizens or businesses raise a regulatory issue and ask for action. That action request usually involves less regulation of themselves or more regulation on some person or group. Either way, government officials are being asked to do something other than what is current policy.

What to do? Create an "advisory" group to help the public officials understand a particular concern. This advisory group is generally viewed as a short term committee. It usually has a defined purpose related to some specific issue or action request. So far, so good.

This is where the road has a fork.

The path east has an advisory group meeting a few times, creating a report, presenting options for public officials and then their official action is complete. The group disbands or goes back to being a private gathering of individuals with similar interests. It is a very short path. An issue was brought to public officials. It was determined that more information was needed to make a determination of what (if any) action needed to be taken. Advice was sought and received. It was now time for the public officials to make a decision and move on. So far, so good.

The path west is a little different. An advisory group is selected to give public officials more information on a particular issue or interest group request for action. Sounds the same as the other path so far but this is where the similarity ends.

The issue that has headed down the path west is more political. Members of the public body that created an "advisory" group were divided on an issue being debated. The item brought before the body was by the officials themselves. Each side of the debate had their reason for creating an "advisory" committee. A slim majority of the governing body needed to have more information (report or study) in support of an action. The minority agreed to seek additional information to delay any action at all. Both sides needed something. One, more public support for some political policy action. The other, a mechanism to delay a "no" vote. It is known as "political cover" in the world of government.

The path is now becoming a gravel road. The advisory committee has expanded its mandate from simply providing information on a single issue brought before a public body. The mission is actually to provide information in support of a political position. That is going to require some funding and "administrative" support. That is staff and money for more formal studies. It will also require some type of official title to make the temporary committee officially recognized as in the government tent.

The gravel road is now paved and in the system. A new funded government agency or department has been born

There are many examples of the western path and its impact on the size of government. Nationally there is no better example than the Environmental Protection Agency. West Virginia has "advisory" agencies that have become permanently funded and staffed by the government that initially created them. Local government is also in that same process. "Advisory" individuals and groups continue to be formed. Past temporary functions have grown to significant stature and cost. Some current "advisory" groups are waiting for pavement. A notice was sent out a few days ago that another is requesting gravel.

We live in an area that prides itself on agriculture. It only seems appropriate to point out that "advisory" groups are valuable in producing good organic government decisions. Politics is the fertilizer that makes special interest government agencies grow.

Vacancies, Appointments and Elections

The Backstory

January 24, 2011

So why are we having a special election for governor? Because the person elected to fill that office resigned.

There is always a backstory. The reason to hold this special election in 2011 actually began with the death of Senator Robert C. Byrd. His passing set in motion a series of events that can best be described in a recent WV Supreme Court of Appeals ruling.

The facts of this case as represented by the parties are brief and undisputed. Former Governor Joe Manchin, III, was elected to a second four-year term of office at the general election on November 4, 2008. That term began on January 19, 2009, and is scheduled to end on January 14, 2013.

On June 28, 2010, United States Senator Robert C. Byrd passed away. A special election to fill the Senate vacancy created as a result of Senator Byrd's death was held on November 2, 2010, and former Governor Manchin was elected to fill the Senate vacancy.

On November 15, 2010, former Governor Manchin resigned as governor and was sworn in as United States Senator. His resignation created a vacancy in the office of governor. On the same day that former Governor Manchin resigned, State Senate President and Respondent herein, Earl Ray Tomblin, began to act as governor pursuant to W. Va. Const., art. VII, Sec. 16 and W. Va. Code Sec. 3-10-2.

A question thereafter arose with regard to when a new statewide election must be held under our law to fill the vacancy in the office of governor. The next general election will be held in November 2012. The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel the holding of a new election as soon as practicable in 2011. This Court subsequently issued a rule to show cause returnable before this Court for oral argument to be heard on January 11, 2011.

The sole issue before this Court is narrow and straightforward - when, under our law, shall a statewide public election take place to fill the current vacancy in the office of governor? So why was this matter of when and how to elect a governor in court? The WV constitution and WV code both have specific sections on how and when to fill vacancies. It was in court because elected officials couldn't agree on what those constitutional and legal provisions said.

One point of view represented that the constitution "was enacted at a time when a general election was held annually. This is the reason for the distinction made between a vacancy occurring in the first three years of the term and one occurring in the final year of the term." That statement goes on to explain "that if the vacancy occurred in the first three years of the term, the vacancy simply could be filled in the next general election to occur that same year."

Taking that interpretation would mean that an election to replace the governor (and the statutory acting governor) would be the next general election scheduled for 2012.

Another point of view represented that the WV constitution and WV code said the exact same words but the meaning was different. "that the new election mandated by art. VII, Sec. 16 of the Constitution must occur as soon as is practicable in 2011." That point of view goes on to state " is clear that the arrangement wherein the senate president acts as governor is temporary and that a new election for governor must speedily take place to fill the vacancy when, as in the present case, the vacancy in the governor's office occurs during the first three years of the term."

There is a real backstory here. This is politics. There are a lot of current public officials that want to move up a chair. You hear them talking about "power" and "clout". A special election allows every current elected office holder to run for governor without risking their current position. It will be a full field...

My favorite quote on this whole election requirement controversy is by Delegate Doyle. "Once the court hands down its opinion, all other opinions are irrelevant"

And the court has ruled. There will be a special election in 2011.

Land use regulation

The Backstory

January 16, 2011

Jefferson County adopted its first Subdivision Ordinance in July of 1979. That was followed by a Zoning ordinance July 7, 1988. Both ordinances have been amended several times.

Discussion of development and the future of Jefferson County started to rise in public consciousness. It was the mid to late 1990s. There were several events that brought attention to the issues of population growth during that time. Speculation over new census numbers and a proposed school construction bond were fueling what would become a decade long period of social and political debate. The single issue of that debate was residential growth.

So what made the first decade of this century different? What was the special circumstance that made people take notice? It was Huntfield. That single development application provided a focus point for the entire growth debate. It was a large planned community on 1000 acres near Charles Town. All the issues were represented: Infrastructure, schools, roads, environment and quality of life.

All of the issues and passionate debate seemed to center on a specific theme. The county and towns had land use ordinances to manage growth. Rapid growth of our regional economy and changing attitude of those moving to the area had redefined what rate and type of growth needed to be managed. The ordinances weren't changing accordingly.

Meeting after meeting was filled with people who opposed large residential growth. State and local laws were being tested in the courts. In case after case, the finding was that applications that met the requirements of subdivision and zoning standards must be approved. Denials couldn't be arbitrary or capricious. Public elected officials and appointed agency members were coming under increasing pressure. Activist groups of every stripe were changing from legal filings to political activism.

In 2000 began the era of ordinance rewrite. A comprehensive plan rewrite was the first step. Four years later the document was completed and adopted. Next was the subdivision and zoning ordinance updates. Public discussions were held, consultants hired and planning staff started to expand.

The first blush of actual documents for public review appeared in mid 2006. Full ordinance drafts were being released in June of 2007. There was a flurry of activity as the zoning document took shape. A draft was released in Nov 2007. That went to a series of public hearings. It was quite a time. The meetings were long and tempers were getting short. It was the nature of the beast. One of the items of contention was putting the new zoning regulation on a ballot for voter approval. This item alone caused local and state legislators to amend WV Code in early 2008. The change made provision for citizens to petition the county commission to hold a vote on the new zoning proposal.

All the public comment and various positions of elected officials caused 5 zoning drafts to be released from February through August 2008. The county commission adopted the fifth draft as the new zoning ordinance on October 2, 2008.

They had chosen to move forward with the ordinance without a vote. A citizen group began the petition process and was successful in meeting standards set by the recent WV Code changes. A vote was going to be required. The newly adopted ordinance was suspended, an election was conducted November 7, 2009 and the new zoning proposal was defeated.

There were several other activities designed to "manage" growth during the decade. Impact Fees were enacted and continue. A new subdivision ordinance remains in place. The issue of municipal annexation also continues to be discussed.

Economic conditions in the region have caused a reduction in growth pressure. The general public seems to be tired of high volume divisive debate and single issue officials. Those conditions can't last long. It is time to take advantage of this opportunity. A systematic review of how our community currently operates, the regulations in place and future vision may be in order.

Building on the lessons learned in the first decade of this century will be useful in reestablishing a community that has conversations and consensus in its public discussion.

State Legislature in Session

The Backstory

January 9, 2011

For more than one hundred years the West Virginia legislature has been meeting annually to introduce legislation. It is once again time for our elected state representatives to pack up and head for Charleston. Legislators have been attending monthly committee meetings to prepare. There have been a few local public meetings to get general citizen input. Now it's time for action.

One might think that after 100 years of full legislative sessions that most issues impacting the general public health and welfare would be identified. It might be reasonable to believe that regulations to address those public issues had been implemented and "tweaked" to the point of perfection. Evidently that isn't the case.

More than 20,000 legislative changes and additions (Bills) have been introduced in just the past ten years. Some of these are Bills that repeat year after year looking for support. Some are new based on some act or issue looking for regulatory clarification. Others appear to be (how shall I say this) an act of kindness to some particular constituent or group. Historically, less than ten percent of all introduced legislation will get enacted.

Jefferson County residents currently have five elected representatives in the State legislature, three House of Delegate members and two Senators. That's three out of one hundred state delegates and two of 34 state senators. These people have been selected by voters to make the decisions that representative government requires.

It is every elected official's responsibility to consider how their time and effort as a citizen representative is spent. In order to be effective, our state legislators must strike a balance between public issue resolution and political power struggles that have become part of our system. The next 60 days will be a challenge.

There are some major debates that will come up during this legislative session.

Public issue items include ongoing resolution of pension plan funding, educational issues and federal mandates. State budget related to tax collection and spending is always an item of contention. More requests for public funds, tax reductions and continued programs than can possibly be done.

Political issues will focus on the power struggle of elected officials and those that would like to become one. The first will be resolving how to deal with a dozen people that would like to be governor. This is a procedural happening that will impact ALL of our elected officials. They will be required to choose sides. Pick the "wrong" political side and your power will be reduced to sitting in the corner with the microphone switch removed. Pick the "wrong" public opinion side and your reelection hopes could fade. The debate positions? Hold a special election for governor and then another election for governor in a year. Follow the procedure in place and elect the new governor once at the regular election in 2012.

We should all be aware of what issues our elected officials are acting on. It is unreasonable to expect everyone to be totally up to speed on the history, facts and technical detail of every decision that comes before an elected official. Legislators get tugged at from every direction. Politics, lobbyists, special interests, other government agencies and their own personal beliefs all influence regulatory and spending decisions. That said, if a citizen has strong feelings or a specific opinion about government actions they should let their officials know. I certainly do.

If you have difficulty finding contact information for Delegates Doyle, Lawrence and Householder or Senators Snyder and Unger send the Spirit an email or call.

Most Interesting Story of 2010

The Backstory

December 27, 2010

The most interesting story of 2010? There were so many to choose from.

The expansion and renaming of Charles Town Races and Slots. It is now Hollywood Casino at Charles Town Races. Expansion of the Federal facility along route 340. The opening of a 4 lane route 9 between Charles Town and Martinsburg. American Public University expansion in Charles Town. A continued expansion of Summit Point Raceway.

There were also stories about the businesses that didn't work out. The water bottling plant application that was rejected. Foreclosures taking their toll on our local economy. Hundreds of jobs that were lost due to the housing industry collapse.

Infrastructure projects like the mountain water system, flowing springs waste water treatment plant, continuing upgrade needs at all the municipal facilities and energy upgrades (PATH) were regularly in the news. The rapid increase in utility bills continues to be a very important issue.

Government taxing, provision of services and budgeting at every level have been getting more and more attention. Local property tax systems that don't appear to be transparent, spending decisions that seem random at best and regulatory initiatives that make little sense. State government isn't any better. Federal government leaves most people I know with a feeling of helplessness. Government at all levels seems to be getting further and further from the people and duties it is supposed to represent.

Virtually everyone has lost someone close to them this year. I know I have. The community has also lost some leaders. Local, state and national government also saw the end of an era with the passing of Senator Byrd.

My favorite local story of 2010 was the election.

There are many things that impact individual, family and community quality of life. Day in and day out, government has become the biggest single factor. It is hard to think of something that isn't connected to local, state or federal government policy. Schools, health, safety, taxes, jobs and finance are all directly or indirectly controlled by government at some level. While those may seem like big issues that government might be useful for, let's look a little more of the list.

Window shutters must be painted an approved color. Grass and fences will be a prescribed height. Everyone must buy government approved health insurance. All Jefferson county farmers must take measures to reduce stream pollution no matter where they are or what they are doing now. The list is endless.

There is one more thing that government does. It sets the tone or mood of those that it is supposed to represent. If elected officials are prone to argue, be aggressive and refuse to compromise it sets the tone for all related public discussion.

For the past 10 years, Jefferson County has had a single political issue, residential development and growth. The aggressive and uncompromising public attitude of elected officials and those running for office set the tone and mood for this community. Battle lines were drawn with unjustified attacks on business and individuals. This "leadership" position became the character of our community. Progress on other important public issues suffered because of it.

Local political races with only one or two exceptions were much more issue oriented this time around. The personal aggression and hard line position comparisons weren't as great as in years past. Those that choose to continue that attitude of negativity paid for it at the polls.

This most recent local election may be the beginning of a movement away from confrontation. It may be the public simply stating that they are tired of constant arguing and uncompromising public officials at every level.

Just a few words to all elected and appointed officials: You are there to serve the community, not control it. Discuss issues with passion and civility. Compromise brings closure and most importantly? Always consider how your actions will set an example for the community's mood.

Rubbing the Lamp

The Backstory

December 13, 2010

Many of you have heard of Aladdin. His fictional story was told as an Arab folktale of Aladdin and the magic lamp from One Thousand and One Nights. That story of Aladdin was added and first published in a western version about 1704. It is a wonderful story about the boy who went from rags to riches, marries the Emperor's daughter and lives happily ever after.

The whole cycle of success was based on his good fortune of magic rings and lamps. Rub those symbols of power and a genie would appear to grant wishes. These wishes were in groups of three. They were also restricted to the person that held the lamp.

This children's story suspended the reality of our human condition. It relied on people that hold power in their hand to be thoughtful. Literal granting of any careless request could have powerful and very different outcome from the intent. For the past three hundred years that concept of thoughtless use of three wishes has become the basis for countless jokes. I'm sure you have all heard "the law of unintended consequences".

Local residents actually share many situations similar to those in the story of Aladdin. Each resident is the potential holder of a magic lamp. That magic is in the form being able to choose elected officials through voting. The ability to summon and command an elected official is restricted to those that vote. Voters hold the lamp.

Consider elected officials as the genie. They have the ability to implement wishes. This implementation is done through actions that create laws, regulation, policy and taxes. Just as in the story of Aladdin, some genies are more powerful than others but they all have some.

Many benefits and obstacles to quality of life are a direct result of government actions. It is important to remember that elected officials only take action when told to do so. It is true that all voters hold the potential power over elected officials but just holding the lamp isn't enough. Those same officials have to be summoned and told what to do before taking action.

Over the past several months, some residents have been summoning their elected officials. Each resident was given a wish. Many never used their power to communicate their desire with their representative. Others did respond as a command for action. Clearly some desires were better thought out than others.

So what makes the next month so important? Officials at all levels are getting "wishes" from individuals, organizations and interest groups. Many of these wishes will be treated as commands for action. Everyone should be aware that real life and government are not that Arabian Nights fable. There seems to be a much higher likelihood conflicting requests will cause wishes to be wasted. Rags to riches and living happily ever after are not something that "just happens".

Municipal, County and State government are gearing up for an intense regulatory and budget cycle. Perhaps this coming year will be the time that our "genies" will display some common sense and judgment. Make sure the wishes are well thought out and reasonable before taking action. That would be much better than going down the reelection route of attempting to act on every command and pass the law of unintended consequences.

Safety VS Freedom

The Backstory

December 6, 2010

Last week... Where is the line between safety and freedom?

U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights: Fourth amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".

"better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone, 1760 was one of many famous quotes defining presumption of innocence as a principle in Ancient, European and US legal proceedings.

We are moving from a set of principles that were so clearly stated in defense of individual liberty and freedom. There is one reason that quickly comes to mind. The Constitution and subsequent laws have "changed". Words are the same but their original meaning and purpose has evolved.

The Constitution was written to protect individual liberty and safety from unreasonable government actions. It was a virtual guarantee that personal rights must be respected. Laws would be just and that process would prevail. Our laws were first written to define unacceptable social behavior. It was then up to the legal system to resolve disputes. That system was also responsible for providing safety by removing those that had committed violent acts from the general public.

Over time, government at every level has taken on many more roles and responsibilities than were originally contemplated. This has been done with the consent of the governed. Citizens are willing to trade personal liberty and certain freedoms for a perception of safety. That safety may be economic or physical, but abdicating to government is certainly the direction we are headed.

Homeland security and the latest Transportation Security Administration (TSA) air travel procedures are a good example. The general public has accepted the presumption that every person wishing to fly is guilty of being a terrorist until proven otherwise. In any circumstance other than an airport, searches of the type now being conducted wouldn't be allowed without "probable cause" or consent.

The "War on Drugs" has also evolved to unique suspension of basic process. What started as criminalization of manufacture and distribution has moved to a much broader definition. "Intent to deliver" based on quantity and "possession" of specific listed drugs has become criminal. It is hard to justify in my mind. It becomes even more difficult when the presumption of innocence and probable cause principles are applied. Laws criminalizing self destructive behavior are difficult to understand.

Many of these government activities are more political than actual public welfare practices.

Profiling was an accepted law enforcement and terrorist identification process. It is still a valuable tool. Abuse of the legitimate profiling process has lead to it becoming politically incorrect. Targeting specific groups for intense investigation in the hope of finding some crime has been committed is far different from compiling specific actions and traits that are common to those that commit certain crimes. That abuse has caused much of the current guilty until proven innocent circumstance being used. Everyone must be treated as guilty to prove that "profiling" isn't being done.

This subject isn't simply something for National debate. It is real and right here in the Panhandle. Governments are creating new regulations every day. In some cases, local law enforcement may be using covert tracking techniques without court review. Federal government is mandating procedures that control local education and utility rates. The list goes on.

Where is the line between safety VS freedom? That is the line you will have to draw.

TSA, Security and Freedom

The Backstory

November 29, 2010

Mission statement: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) protects the Nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce.

Mission statement: Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) overriding and urgent mission is to lead the unified national effort to secure the country and preserve our freedoms.

Mission statement: The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is to enforce the controlled substances laws and regulations of the United States and bring to the criminal and civil justice system of the United States, or any other competent jurisdiction, those organizations and principal members of organizations, involved in the growing, manufacture, or distribution of controlled substances appearing in or destined for illicit traffic in the United States.

Let's get to the "backstory". Stay with me, this will be local before it's over.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has been in the news lately. TSA was created in 2001 and moved to its current structure under Homeland Security in 2003. It was a direct result of the commercial airline hijacks that became the 911 attack. The beginning of "war on terror". Their recent implementation of full body scans and "pat downs" caused a media stir during the Thanksgiving air travel season. It turns out that all the negative media hype about their security practices was more acceptable to the general flying public that one might think, or was it? Polls indicate that a significant majority of the flying public is willing to give up a right to personal privacy in exchange for perceived safety. That all are treated equally as potential terrorists seems to be acceptable.

I have had personal conversations with friends that are frequent fliers. It verifies the polls. They don't like the body scans and potential "pat downs". It may be somewhat uncomfortable and demeaning but they feel safer while flying. It's ironic that both Homeland Security and Transportation Security Authority mission statements include "preservation of freedom" and "freedom of movement".

Let's go a little further back, same topic. The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) was created in 1973. It was the agency to direct the "war on drugs". No one paid much attention until 1986. Mandatory minimum sentence for drug offenses was passed by Congress. That was in conjunction with the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. This marked the day that victims of drug addiction became criminals. Compassion took a back seat to broken families and overcrowded jails. Rule of Law was suspended to include "they might steal" mentality.

DEA makes no claims about "freedom". They are simply another government agency devoted to enforcement of politically proper positions. The low hanging fruit are drug users, victims of addiction and those unable to defend themselves. The iron hand of enforcement starts there.

Make no mistake. I personally believe that drug addiction and substance dependence are an absolute formula for destructive personal behavior. Is being a user and addicted a crime against society? Not unless they rob a store, break into my house, assault me on the street or any other physical violence inflicted on another. Those are actual crimes. The law already covers that.

Where is the line between safety and freedom? That is the line you will have to draw next week. We'll be talking about political correctness, security and the law. Thought for consideration...

U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights: Fourth amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".

How does this get local?

News Report October 28, 2010: A GPS tracker was placed in (name) vehicle, which was followed by officers from the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department over several weeks, police said. Detective Harrison advised Cpl. Tabler to notify Harrison if any burglaries were reported the evening of Oct. 6 based on suspicious stops (name) car had made during the day. The investigation of (names) started on Sept. 17, and the investigation initially was concerned with the illegal transporting of controlled substances into the state, according to the criminal complaint.

Chesapeake Bay Update, Part 3

Legal authority and Local/State Options, The Backstory

November 22, 2010

It was the 60s when "flower power", "love" and anti-war demonstrations were reaching their zenith. President Richard M. Nixon needed to show support for environmental policies enacted by Congress. The term "conservation" was replaced with "environmentalism". Congress sent the President a remarkable bill known as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It was signed into law January 1, 1970.

The Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established by Executive order. Its mission was to administer and recommend National policy on environmental issues. Ironically, the EPA (formerly called Council of Environmental Quality) was charged with reviewing environmental impact studies which were required of all federal agencies planning projects with major environmental impacts. On December 2, 1970 the EPA was born. Fast forward 40 years. Environmental regulation and the EPA have grown.

EPA is currently requiring that West Virginia, and specifically the Eastern Panhandle, take action to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment discharge to local streams and subsequently the Potomac River. This is being done under the pretext of a 30 year old program called Chesapeake Bay Restoration. This action is being taken (according to EPA statements) under the authority of the Clean Water Act (1972 and 1987).

Fact VS perception determines legal authority, or does it?

Perception: The EPA can require Jefferson County, Eastern Panhandle and West Virginia commit to the extinction of job creation, family budget and small farms through arbitrary regulations. This can be done under the Chesapeake Bay Restoration program and a claim that actions are legally supported by the Clean Water Act.

Fact: EPA authority to levy and enforce water quality standards is limited to direct discharges of pollutants by "point sources". Point sources are waste water treatment plants and storm water management systems. "...U.S. EPA has no regulatory authority over nonpoint sources, so it could not force a state to require that those Best Management Practices (BMP) be applied by normal farming operations or other nonpoint sources." "First, water quality standards (WQS) consistent with the statutory goals of the CWA must be established. Then water bodies should be monitored to determine whether the WQS are being met." "Numeric nutrient water quality standards will drive water quality assessments and watershed protection management." "The two most common causes of impairment, nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and clean sediments, are parameters for which EPA and most states do not currently have numeric Water Quality Criteria (WQC)." These are all quotes from the EPA Clean Water Act introduction summary.

Let's summarize. The EPA claims to have authority in their oral presentation (and threats) to have enforcement authority of draconian nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient run-off standards by virtue of the Clean Water Act. Their own site explains that they do not have authority over anything but permitted waste treatment plants and some storm water management permits. Even these areas of regulation are required to be reasonable and attainable. It would seem that EPA claims of authority are verbal while their actual limited authority is written.

It is difficult to explain how the current situation is going to affect Jefferson and the Panhandle. How is anyone able to combine all the issues and bring residents to the point of understanding? The freedom in quality of life and individual choice combined with devastation of family finances through service rate and tax increases caused by these programs is staggering. It is the responsibility of local officials to get involved.

Every resident doesn't need to know every detail of the regulations that are proposed. They do need to let their elected officials know that something is wrong. It is up to the elected officials to get educated and represent their constituents. This is serious!

Local/State options: Governor, now Senator Manchin, sued the EPA over the Cap and Trade regulations proposed to destroy West Virginia's southern economy. Current Chesapeake Bay proposals are no less damaging to the economy and life quality of the Eastern Panhandle. Utility rates will sky rocket. New employers will not be able to facilities for employees. Current businesses won't be able to expand.

Every elected official should hear the statements of Bob Tabb and Cam Tabb. "We will be good neighbors and do what we can". "Show us the data and give credit for what we have done". These were public comments at the November EPA hearing in Martinsburg. It is important that those interested hear their words. Bob Tabb is WV Deputy Commissioner of Agriculture and Cam Tabb is a well connected and dedicated community member-farmer.

Local/State official actions? Get informed, represent your community and just say "NO".

Chesapeake Bay Update, Part 2

Nutrient Trading, Oysters and "Legal Authority", The Backstory

November 15, 2010

When you hear someone talk about "nutrient trading", your first question should be "is that like cap and trade?" If the answer is "no, this is a win-win for our farmers, streams and Chesapeake Bay" you are about to enter a world of make believe.

That whole win-win thing indicates that there is no loser. But there are plenty of losers.

A nutrient trading winner fits into categories like: A farmer who has been using his land irresponsibly. Someone who owns or is illegally dumping into a stream that is exempt from current water quality standards. And especially, a commercial oyster fisherman who wants to be rewarded for over harvesting that natural resource to the point of endangered species status.

If you aren't in one of the winner categories, you're a loser. How? Let's take a look.

Nutrient cap and trade is a simple concept but very complicated in detail.

Nutrients are created by various human and natural processes. Nitrogen and phosphorus are two of these nutrients that are required for plant growth. Some of these nutrients find their way to collector streams, underground aquifers and air. They are then moved and may form higher concentrations that tend to alter the eco system balance. When this concentration occurs and combines with other factors, issues may develop that cause undesirable changes. Too much of one thing and not enough of others is the general condition.

Nutrient cap and trade is a proposed weight on virtually all panhandle residents to balance nature. I'll use old scales for reference. Think of two plates on either side of a pivot point. Balance is maintained by both plates having similar "weight" applied to each. If one side is too heavy or too light, something has to be removed or added. That action could be taken on either side of the pivot.

In this specific case, the Federal EPA has determined that the scales are out of balance. There is too much nitrogen and phosphorus relative to the factors that had previously "balanced" the Bay eco system. Decades ago oysters and seasonal flooding were key factors in algae and bottom habitat control.

Nutrients entering the bay from West Virginia are down from 30 years ago according to a recent EPA spokesperson statement. The most significant change that has occurred during the past 30 years is a decimated oyster population from over harvest and the resultant increase in algae. The oyster population is only 1 percent of what it was 50 years ago. There is very little left to control algae growth.

The EPA in its infinite politically-driven wisdom has determined that they will starve the algae into submission by reducing nitrogen entering the Bay system. That will also require starving economic development and family farm agriculture throughout the Eastern Panhandle.

Back to the scales. EPA and some local officials believe the nutrient side has become too heavy for the control side. The logic seems to be that taking off weight from the nutrient side hasn't worked fast enough over the past 30 years to bring the system back in balance. In order to speed up the failed process, EPA is ordering even more restrictive failed policy. Direct action through a 5 year oyster harvest ban is not being considered as a natural balance solution. They are going to pile agriculture regulations, utility rate increases, home owner mandates and tax increases on the control side of that scale. That weight will be measured in your limited job opportunities and increased tax dollars.

The EPA is forcing more nutrient control despite all indications that it isn't working to restore the Bay. These harsher controls are being placed on our local farmers who already employ best environmental practices. They're being placed on every eastern panhandle citizen who is on a public water/sewer system through bills for upgrading treatment plants. That tab is expected to be over $200 million.

Oh, by the way there still hasn't been any "good science", "all options" or "best science" of an action/result presented in support of a stated Bay goal.

Legal authority and Local/State government options will be next week's final chapter.

Chesapeake Bay Update, Part 1

The Backstory

November 8, 2010

Jefferson County has the distinction of being West Virginia's primary location for more than Civil War battles. Many of you may know that Jefferson County is bordered by two rivers, the Potomac and Shenandoah. This simple geographic fact has also created another distinction for Jefferson. We have become the front line for West Virginia's participation in Chesapeake Bay Restoration. This year you will be hearing a lot more about it. The deadlines for action have arrived... Back Story April 18, 2010:

www.fredblackmer.com/cbay

In that article from six months ago, I gave a history and overview of how West Virginia and Jefferson County became part of the Chesapeake Bay Restoration program. There was also a suggestion that local residents and elected officials get involved. That time has come.

Last week, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gang came to town. It was stop 17 of 18 scheduled presentations across six states over the past months. It was also only days before the public comment period was ending on new regulations. The purpose of the meeting was billed as "listening" by the EPA to comments regarding their proposed regulations. This included recently published remarks from the EPA about their dislike of West Virginia's draft plan for compliance.

Trust me, the EPA wasn't here to "listen". They were here to tell residents and local government what they wanted done. Unattainable standards were written without regard for current practices. Regulations that would bankrupt the wealthiest of communities were threatened. Restrictions that would end any hope of economic development or jobs were stated as something reasonable and necessary. And all of this was in the name of water quality improvement for Chesapeake Bay.

Oh, these guys were good. "Best science", "good science", "pound for pound", "cooperative effort" "calculated loading" and "increased property values". The list of benefits for doing "the right thing" seemed endless. I was beginning to feel positively giddy as patriotism and charity for my fellow man coursed through my veins. Surely they would end with data on specific pollution measurements, graphs depicting how "good science" had created a link between WV pollution, proposed corrective action and obvious "best science" benefit. There would certainly be a power point slide indicating ALL the factors related to Bay restoration and how everything possible was being done. The head EPA speaker even said "27 years later WV, you are sending us cleaner water..." But "we're asking for more help because the bay still hasn't gotten to a healthy water body". You would think everyone in the room was going to get some kind of award.

The mood quickly changed. There was a noticeable chill in the room when the upbeat turned to apprehension. The speaker gave a precisely planned pause followed by "EPA strongly prefers to achieve the necessary pollution reductions through the state plans rather than federal actions because the states have more flexibility and can achieve reductions from a wider range of sources than EPA."

That previous statement is political spokes flak for "we aren't sure that the EPA has the authority to force these regulatory standards on the states but we can make you wish you had adopted them." It was at this very point in the meeting that every farmer, business person, local official, and land owner began to feel uncomfortable. The ax was getting ready to fall.

No more talk of voluntary this or goals that. It was a clear message that WV could write its own regulations as long as they were as or more restrictive to residents than the EPA "goals". And if there was any question who was in charge "legal authority" was mentioned several times.

It is hard to understand how something that was started by some oystermen and politicians in Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia some 27 years ago is now going to have a direct impact on every resident of Jefferson County, but it surely will. Farmers, open land owners, public utilities, rate payers, businesses and anyone with a septic system or yard will be directly impacted by any number of these new requirements. Next week Nutrient Trading, Oysters and "Legal Authority".

Oh, by the way there never was any "good science", "all options" or "best science" of an action/result presented.

Election Day Plus 1

The Backstory

November 1, 2010

Running for local public office is an experience I will never forget. It is a process that creates some of the highest of highs and lowest of lows. Old friendships are tested, new friends are found and people you may never meet have an opinion of you. Reasons for becoming a candidate are also tested. Issues and positions that sounded great with a few neighbors may not be important in another area.

Message is probably the single most important factor in an election. That said, the best message may not win an election. Getting that information to the people that will vote is what wins elections. The hardest worker during a campaign can prevail at the polls with the weakest qualifications. It is just the way our system works. One thing is for sure. Without residents that are willing to become candidates we would be in a very different situation. There can't be any real representative government unless there are people and ideas to choose from.

Over the years I have become more convinced that there are no winners or losers in elections. One candidate simply gets more votes than the other. Open discussion of issues and qualifications of candidates themselves creates awareness. That simple practice of message prioritization and choice provides the checks and balances required for responsive local government.

A simple acknowledgement to all those that became candidates in this election is in order. The community was served by those that provide checks and balances through choice. It is now time for those that were elected to represent their neighbors, follow the law and weigh every resident's concerns. Those that have been elected should no longer be special interest candidates. They have given a glimpse of core beliefs. Now the job of consensus government begins.

Good Government

The Backstory

October 24, 2010

"... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed..." In Congress, July 4, 1776. And the great experiment of our form of government began. Out with the king and in with elected officials.

Now that "in with elected officials" didn't happen overnight. There was still that whole war thing that had to be fought. It took seven years following the signing of the Declaration of Independence (1776) to finish our war with the British (1783). Another five years before there was a Constitution of the United States (1788) and three years after that before the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The federal government was born with a set of rules limiting its authority.

In the beginning, local and state governments really had all the responsibility for creating laws for social and public welfare. Those governments are closest to being what Abraham Lincoln spoke to in one of the most famous policy speeches of all time. "...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Government "of the people, by the people, for the people" was also a concern of the creators of our Federal Constitution. That original document was meticulously drafted to establish specific authority. The first ten amendments (Bill of Rights) were added to ensure that citizens were further protected from government. Protection from government was a big issue then, just as it is now.

Our first U.S. Presidential election under the constitution was won by George Washington. The U.S. population at that time was estimated at 3 Million. Election rules under the original constitution were a little different then than they are now. As a matter of fact, more than half of the seventeen constitutional amendments after the Bill of Rights have to do with how officials are elected and who can vote. The vote total in Washington's election? 69 for and 0 against. It is easy to see why framers of constitutional representative government were very aware of establishing limits on the authority of "elected" officials.

In West Virginia, state and local governments are much the same. Our State has a constitution establishing authority, limits to that authority and how representatives are elected by citizens. Towns or municipalities have charters. These are much the same as constitutions. Charters describe the form of government, specific authority and how representatives are elected. Counties have neither a charter nor constitution. They have only the structure and authority delegated to them by the state.

The biggest problem with representative government is the election process. It is all too common that potential representatives ask to be chosen based on all the new and wonderful things they are going to do. And who are they going to do those things for? They are going to do things for the people that vote. And who votes? It certainly isn't the majority of people that could vote. I don't believe there is a single representative of Jefferson County at the county or state level that has been elected by a majority of citizens over 18 years of age. There probably aren't even any that have received a majority of those that are registered to vote. One current official wasn't even elected by a majority of people that voted. Modern government at every level is nothing more than minority special interests being herded to a representative that promises the most in exchange of their vote.

What is "good" government? It is one that truly represents all residents within the boundary of authority. Every issue that a constituent raises is not necessarily something that needs some grand government solution. When a problem or controversy is placed in front of our public officials, their questions always pertain to "what do we do about this?" It seems as though individual complaints or special interest funding requests somehow become a priority public welfare crisis. First and foremost, officials at every level should ask themselves "is this relevant to our authority and public welfare?" That should lead to another option for our electeds: Do nothing. Just say NO.

Who gets my vote? The person who vows to do nothing in office beyond their strict constitutional responsibilities, the one that considers taking more offensive than giving and the one who will save more than just my tax dollars. They'll save my freedom.

If you don't vote, you don't matter.

School Levy

The Backstory

Spirit of Jefferson Column

October 18, 2010

It is one of those rare instances when residents can vote on how much to pay toward public education. So how do you decide to vote yes or no on the school levy? Education property tax, construction bonds, levies, county government property tax and municipal property taxes are all on a single tax bill. What makes the levy different than any other tax or fee? Better go back to what these all are.

The basic education property tax rate is actually calculated and set by the WV state board of education. There are two components that create the tax rate. First: the total assessed value of taxable property in WV. That is compiled from each of the 55 county assessor reports. Second: the state minimum level of service. That level of service calculation is made through a seven step process. All of the factors are formula derived and equal statewide.

WV has determined that there are minimum ratios per student for teachers, service personnel and administrators. Minimum pay levels for those positions have also been established. Transportation, students per square mile, substitutes, nurses and growth are also items considered. It should be understood that a basic level of public education is funded by state formula. State funding of school operations comes down to a fixed allocation per student. Education property tax assessment rates constitute a portion of that funding. Every taxable property in WV pays the same rate by class. It is called "local contribution". The rest of the state minimum funding comes from other sources.

Just to mention some data on hand, in 2008 the Jefferson Board of Education (JCBOE) had a budget of some $80 Million. Local contribution education property taxes generated less than $39 Million. State funding from additional revenue sources were $30 Million. Levy and Federal funding covered the rest. Local education property taxes contributed less than 55 percent of the JCBOE budget.

Back to the tax bill... School construction bonds, county government tax rates and municipal tax rates are animals unto themselves. Bonds pay for bricks and mortar. They are single voter approved expenditures that have nothing to do with educational day to day costs. County government sets its own tax rate to fund constitutional government services and various politically inspired expenditures. Municipal tax additions are much the same.

So what is the School Levy about? It is simply an opportunity for the community to say that "we want better than the state minimum standard" to educate our children.

To be fair, West Virginia as a state is spending more on per student education than the wealth of its residents would suggest. It is above the National median and in the top 35 percent of states. This is all happening while WV is ranked 49th in household income. West Virginians know that education is the answer to economic development and a better quality of life. We just "get it".

Enter the "school levy".

This additional education tax, surcharge or voluntary contribution is a local statement that education is important to this community. It also provides an opportunity to tell the world that state "minimum standards" are not good enough for this community. A basic educational standard funded by state tax revenue is good but allowing voters to demonstrate that "minimum isn't enough" is great!

Keep the levy issue to its core facts. All the money raised stays here. It provides additional funding that can't be covered by "minimum state standards". It is a proportionate tax that makes those most able to pay, and their less fortunate neighbors, equal participants in generational opportunity. The levy provides funding that a quality basic education needs. Our future can't be wagered on minimum standards in a society based on the politics of poverty and chance.

So what do we do? This county may have the largest diversity of wealth and disadvantaged in WV. Virtually everyone knows that education is the key to social and economic betterment. If you hold a perception of personal success, it was created by the benefit of education. That feeling of hopelessness some in our community may have due circumstance can only be mitigated by the choices and opportunity that education provides.

Logic says vote yes on the levy and vote "show me" on the elected officials that determine how that money is spent.

Political Capital

The Backstory

October 4, 2010

Next week at this time, the polls will be open for voting. Many of you know who is on the ballot, some may know issues that the candidates are talking about and a few are thinking "an election about what?"

It isn't easy to be an informed voter, trust me. Having been actively involved in local issues and public policy debate over the past eighteen years, I still have trouble figuring out how to cast my vote in some contests. If someone isn't a single issue voter or straight ticket party voter, candidate evaluation is difficult these days. Many of the candidates haven't been active in the community prior to running for office. Many voters haven't been here long enough to tell fact from fiction in candidate statements. Then there are the incumbents that know how getting elected works. Throw in the cost of a real campaign and you are lucky if you get any information of value.

I have often been told that my expectation for public officials is too high. That is why I'm disappointed in their performance. My expectation is that public officials will do the job they are elected to. I expect them to evaluate different points of view and act responsibly. I expect them to create only those taxes and regulations that benefit their entire constituency. Laws and taxes that only apply to a few always create a negative reaction for me. If those expectations are too high then I'm guilty as charged.

The biggest problem I see in public officials and their challengers around election time is the need for excitement. If there isn't something that stirs the blood of voters it must be created. When was the last time you heard an incumbent say "this job isn't that difficult" or a challenger say "everything is going pretty well"? How about "non tax revenues are allowing me to fund a lot of special interest items" My current favorite? Jobs. Everyone is going to create jobs. Not just any job but "high paying, good jobs". Should be interesting to see how that works out.

It's the things that candidates aren't talking about and I wonder why? Then I answer my own question. They aren't exciting. State and county government need to do something about their employee compensation and post employment benefits. Studies and debate have gone on for years without resolution. Waste water treatment facility efficiency and capacity need to be addressed in order to comply with impending federal regulation.

Last but certainly not least, government at all levels needs to do their specific job and get out of the way of others doing theirs. Candidates who say they simply want to do what is required for the general public welfare are probably the best. The problem is that they can't get elected. It isn't exciting. The person that makes promises may not be running for a position that has authority to keep the promise. That really doesn't matter. It fills the voter with anticipation of some action on their particular issue.

A politician gains political capital by virtue of his or her position and also by pursuing popular policies, achieving success with initiatives, performing favors for other politicians, etc. or so says Wikipedia. Gathering "political capital" is how candidates get elected and reelected. It is a method of raising or promising to act on certain issues to excite constituents. It is also collected and spent through give and take support of small items. It is always easier to do many very simple things for a few people than difficult tasks requiring broad consensus.

As negative as this all may sound, there is still one truth that is the most important item in this process of representative government. Learn what you can about the candidates and issues, choose the person that is most like you and remember that "if you don't vote, you don't matter".

Boards, Agencies and Commissions

The Backstory

September 26, 2010

Jefferson County has quite a few appointed boards and agencies. There are 24 listed on the county web site. They have one thing in common. The county commission appoints some or all of their members. Size, function and authority of these committees vary greatly.

West Virginia has a certain government structure that delegates authority. Local government can only do those things that are specifically delegated to them. That is where local government boards, agencies and commissions begin. State legislators delegate authority to county and town governments. Local government in turn creates appointed boards, agencies and commissions to manage certain areas of public concern. In most cases, it is as an advisory body. In others, authority seems much more than simply offering opinions to elected officials.

One of our higher profile boards is the county planning commission (PC). Perception of authority and function is totally dependent on who is asked. It ranges from those who think the planning commission can write, adopt and enforce land use regulation to those that feel the body is simply an administrative function processing building permits. This wide range of opinion is not just held by people in the checkout line at Walmart. County Commissioners and the people they appoint don't all agree on the planning commission's actual role. WV law states "A planning commission has only those powers, duties and jurisdiction as given to it in the ordinance creating it." Simple to understand, maybe not. Actual authority is to administer the ordinances and advise the county commission on planning matters. Every person involved seems to have a different opinion of what those words actually mean. Authority to enact new land use regulations or changes remains with the county commission elected officials.

Another board with very different authority and function is Parks and Recreation. State law established the option for county government to create a Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC). "The county court of any county is hereby authorized and empowered, by order entered of record, to create a county parks and recreation commission for the purpose of establishing, improving, developing, administering, operating and maintaining a county public parks and recreation system or public recreational facilities." The law goes on to say that once this PRC has been created, "Any parks and recreation commission created by a county court pursuant to the authority of this article shall be a public corporate body with perpetual existence and a corporate seal." PRC also has total control of land, programs and revenue donated or earned. The power and authority of this particular board seems to come from the absence of an oversight provision. Once created and appointments are made the county elected officials have little authority in operations.

The third example is the Public Service District (PSD). This board is authorized and approved by the WV Public Service Commission. Its purpose is to operate and plan various water and waste water infrastructure in the county. WV law states the job of board members. "The board of such districts shall have the supervision and control of all public service properties acquired or constructed by the district, and shall have the power, and it shall be its duty, to maintain, operate, extend and improve the same, including, but not limited to, those activities necessary to comply with all federal and state requirements, including water quality improvement activities." What makes this different from the other two is county involvement. County officials appoint the three board members. There is little or no county authority after that. The PSD and its board become a local function managed by state officials and regulation.

Appointments to all of these "volunteer" boards are important. Those appointed generally reflect the basic views or issues of the county commission majority that appoints them. While most boards and agencies do not have total autonomy in operation, several influence quality of life, services and infrastructure.

You don't need to be on every board or agency and watch their every action. You do need to indicate what is important in overall policy. That is done by voting for those that are most like you. They will be the ones making board appointments.

"If you don't vote, you don't matter"

Jefferson County's HR director

The Backstory (flash back)

September 20, 2010

(The bulk of this story ran on June 30, 2010. Recent events regarding employee classifications, insurance, pay and policy have made this as relevant today as it has been in the past.)

Last Thursday the county commission (CC) was scheduled to address agenda item 12: Employee Policies and Procedures Work Session - (Tim Boyde, County Administrator and Stephanie Grove, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney)... That was last week.

We need to go back in time at this point. The date is November 9, 2006. Commissioners are being addressed by Ms. Birnbach. She is the management consultant hired by the CC. The one year draft management study and recommendations were complete. A statement from CC minutes of that meeting end her appointment with "Ms Birnbach also recommended that the commission consider hiring a Human Resources Manager." I reviewed the webcast of that meeting. Her recommendation was more than to consider creating an HR position. It was several minutes of reasoning for the importance and urgency of taking that action.

Now it's April 19, 2007. The CC has an agenda item before the body. Hire Human Resources Director Discussion and also set a date of July 1, 2007. Commissioner Surkamp opens the item with a motion. That motion was to advertise for and hire a Human Resources Director July 1, 2007. It was clear during the discussion following the motion that the new HR position had been approved and funded in the 07-08 county budget. This was simply the act of advertising that position.

June 14, 2007. CC minutes read IN RE: Human Resources Director Work Session to Review Applicants. Again I went to the webcast for more information. It was stated that there had been sixty-nine (69) applications to date. The CC appointed itself as the committee to review applications and reduce the number to ten. Commissioners weren't comfortable having others narrow the field prior to selection. I have no idea what happened to the HR manager hiring process after that.

Various staff and organizational issues continued through 2008. 2009 had the same start. Pay, structure, benefits and job predictability were frequent topics for county employees and elected officials.

August 13, 2009, Agenda Item 10: Department Head Employee Evaluation (County Administrator). Forty seconds into the item a motion was made by commissioner Widmyer to hire Dave Hammer as outside counsel for the commission on this matter. It was almost instantly seconded by commissioner Surkamp. After 8 or 9 minutes of discussion, the final motion and vote was approved on a split 3-2 vote. That action needed to be redone the following week due to questionable procedures used. It was also the beginning of a subsequent firing and replacement of the county administrator. Who voted for what and the political intrigue is not my issue in this message. It is an example of the chilling message sent to all employees regarding employment stability when rules and procedures do not exist.

...Now to this Thursday's meeting. Agenda item 11: Tim Boyde, County Administrator and Stephanie Grove, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney- Personnel Policy Discussion - Personnel Policy Discussion- Employee Handbook- Issue Resolution- Compensatory Time- Hours of Work- Supervisor Responsibilies- Classification Plan- Calculation of Compensation.

Issues of pay, insurance, new departments, title changes, organizational charts, job descriptions and even what agencies specific commissioners are assigned as liaison come up frequently in weekly meetings.

These most recent meeting agendas simply highlight a continuing need. The most contentious issues that have been taking up county time and money for the past months or years have involved the structure of county government and its employees: Pay equity, salaries, health benefits, management charts, department interaction and simple lack of a trusted place employees could go for information or guidance. People who have chosen to serve as local government workers shouldn't have to be in constant limbo regarding the most basic terms of their employment or the next political whim of some elected official.

It is time for this CC to do the right thing. Hire an HR director.

Campaign Tax Talk

The Backstory

September 13, 2010

It's that time of year. Elected officials and candidates are talking about fiscal responsibility. So what is fiscal responsibility in government budgeting and spending?

Let's start out with a simple truth. Government and private sector economics are very different.

Private sector businesses create a palate of goods and/or services. They then calculate a price for that palate which considers the true unit cost of production, how many people might be willing to pay for it and how much must be included for overhead/profit. Those considerations are used to set a retail price. Price, cost of production and overhead can be adjusted in an attempt to alter the number of people that may be willing to buy the product/service. When cost of unit production and calculated retail price is less than what people are willing to pay, the business thrives. It is also very easy to evaluate performance and efficiency. Customers drive all actions of managers and results are very clearly identified.

Government finance works much differently. First, elected officials determine how much money they can gather. Taxes for this, fees for that and "other sources". A few real numbers, random estimates and projections are close enough. It doesn't need to be much more than an educated guess. Once that revenue amount is set, elected officials determine how it is going to be spent. Some spending is mandated by law. Other funding levels are simply a personal choice of those in public office. Need more money to balance the revenue and spending? Increase a tax, fee or "other sources" projection.

It is common to hear talk about how much lower local taxes are than in surrounding areas. It is just as common to hear that taxes are too high. Both are probably true. It is all connected to what is being provided for the money being spent. Current officials often say they are "holding the line" or making "tough choices" in spending decisions. Candidates say tax cuts or more efficient government is the key. Both groups make their statements under the banner of "fiscal responsibility".

Here are a few guidelines that may help evaluate statements or actions of government officials and candidates over the next several months.

Current officials should be able to list what specific public services are being provided and is the cost and level of those services appropriate for current needs. Are you satisfied that basic government functions are being fully addressed before discretionary spending is approved? Are officials learning and changing when new circumstances develop? Is local government behavior setting an example that best represents the community?

Ask candidates to be specific. What are their priorities? If tax cuts are suggested is there a plan to adjust spending or revenues accordingly? Does more efficient government mean cutting the size or increasing some service without growing the system? Do their interests match authority of the office they are running for? How will their election benefit the community? If a person is running for a 2, 4 or 6 year public office and is all about a single issue, that probably isn't going to work out too well.

In the world of politics and public officials, character counts. If promises seem too good to be true, they probably are. Someone that is mean spirited or overly aggressive will remain that way. And the most important thing to remember? If you don't vote, you don't matter.

Old Standard, part duex

The Backstory

September 6, 2010

Old Standard Quarry redevelopment still appears in some papers and blogs. It also continues to take up time at government meetings. The same items are being brought up over and over. You have all heard about traffic, view sheds, historic sites, environmental concerns, project design, and "local control". Misrepresentations through a lack of understanding or by design are creeping in to the current CC campaign.

Time to talk about the bigger issue: What caused a need for brownfield (commercial property) legislation?

I wrote a story about this project several weeks ago. It mentioned that the most recent project approval wasn't circumvention of local authority but an appeal of a local decision. I still believe in that assessment.

The WV legislature granted local government control of land use policy. County and town elected officials can create virtually any land use or design standards they like. There are provisions for residents to challenge entire documents through referendum. There is little an individual land owner can do to challenge restrictions and decisions of those elected officials.

Courts have ruled on enforcement and meaning of certain portions of land use law over the years. Jefferson's land use cases before circuit and state courts are legendary. Some have made it to federal courts. That trip through the legal system works well when an applicant for some allowed use gets turned down. That same court system has also been used when a project is approved and a citizen or group feels the decision was wrong based on the standards in place. It is an appeal process available for decisions that may or may not be contrary to current regulations.

That whole court thing works well as an appeal process for one simple reason. There is a third party process designated to resolve issues between applicants or citizens and local government decision makers. It only applies to compliance with existing land use regulations.

The Old Standard request was for a change in land use regulation. In order for the project to move forward, a change in individual land use standards needed to happen. The ordinance allowed for requesting a change based on project merit. It was then up to the CC to approve or reject the application. Guidelines for a finding on the application were of a discretionary nature. In the case of Old Standard, the CC denied a requested zoning designation change. The problem for the applicant wasn't that no reasons were given, but more that there wasn't a workable appeal process to challenge those reasons.

The situation wasn't unique to this single project. Legislators indicated that Jefferson County and the Old Standard application aren't the reason new state procedures were introduced and passed. They were done for two other jurisdictions that had local land use regulations. Specifically they were Morgantown and Charles Town. WV Code was amended to provide an appeal process of local decisions.

We need to clarify one thing right now. The newly added procedure clearly stated it was intended to follow a local government action, not bypass it. Specific statements in the law and its implementing rules leave no doubt.

"8.2. Criterion for determining whether but for designation of the site as a brownfield economic development district the proposed economic development would not be possible include, but are not limited to:
8.2.1. Rejection of the applicant's land use proposal by the local officials who would otherwise need to approve the proposal.
8.2.2. The reason(s) for rejection of the applicant's proposal given by the local land use officials, if any reason(s) were provided in writing."

The next section is further reinforcement of the law's intended use as an appeal of local official actions.

"8.4. Criterion for determining whether the applicant has attempted to work in good faith with local officials in regard to land use include but are not limited to:
8.4.1. The land use plan submitted to local officials.
8.4.2. Any revised land use plan submitted to local officials.
8.4.3. That the land use plan(s) submitted by the applicant was rejected or tabled by the local officials, or the local officials refused to consider the land use plan."

Easy come, Easy go, East come...

The Backstory

August 30, 2010

A million here, a million there and pretty soon you're talking real money. Well at least it is to most of the people I know. Local government seems to be a little different. I guess the question is what needs to be done to earn it and how much is enough?

Easy come: Back in 1995, the State of West Virginia offered Jefferson County government a cut of video lottery revenues. It was a new program and no one really knew how much money it would generate. Revenue projections were fairly modest by current standards. All that needed to be done to earn the money was to have county voters approve the games.

Easy go: County voters said "no thanks".

Easy come: In 1997, there were several issues going on in the county. Growth was starting to be discussed. Charles Town Races was in serious financial difficulty and data about what other counties were receiving from video lottery started getting attention. County voters approved video lottery in Jefferson County. The money began to flow.

That first year's revenue was about $392,000. Doesn't sound like much but the county budget was less than $5.5 Million. Second year revenue was over $800,000. It was getting local attention. Citizen groups and more importantly municipalities wanted a piece of the action. Requests started coming in for financial support.

Towns were the first to force the funding issue. They wanted to buy police cars and fix buildings. They also wanted the county government to pay for it from the new gaming revenue. County government wasn't eager to support those requests. County Commissioners (CC) believed that the money should be spent on "one time" capital costs. The money would be held and only budgeted the following year when the exact amount in hand was known. That approach would prevent future budget problems.

The CC held firm. The towns went to our State legislators (Manuel and Doyle) to change WV Code regarding distribution of gaming revenues. A deal was struck and the towns were now going to get 50 percent of everything over $900,000 the county might receive. It turned out to be the deal of the century for towns.

As the years went by revenues grew and local county and town governments were awash in cash. By 2007, the county and town governments were splitting more than $7 million dollars annually.

Easy come: Also in 2007, the State of West Virginia offered Jefferson County government a cut of table games revenues. It was a new program and it was never clear what the new gaming operations would generate. It was a "best guess" prediction. All that needed to be done to earn the money was to have county voters approve the games.

Easy go: County voters said "no thanks". There must be a "better deal".

So our legislators went to work. As it turns out, very little effort was required on their part. Other portions of the state wanted revenue that Charles Town Races would add to the "kitty". The better deal was to add a designated piece of the take to local schools (BOE). Also added was some language about how much the towns would get directly. It was a no brainer for the rest of this state's legislators. The BOE and towns would get money that was restricted to capital spending. The state would actually save that money in future project costs (also funded by table games revenue) so it was a wash. Has to do with matching funds.

Easy come: With the "new deal" in place and a two year time restriction between elections up, in 2009 county residents approved table games in Jefferson County. The payout was going to begin in time for the new fiscal year.

Easy go: It seems the timing for licensing and local government revenues hit a glitch. The specific section of law written for Jefferson had a provision that would start funding in the following fiscal year. In 2010, lawyers for the lottery commission sent a note explaining when funds for local government would be released and it wasn't good news. The dust up started. Our CC had already budgeted projected funds, towns were waiting and Jefferson's BOE was already getting checks. Who knew?

Easy come: A few hours and a few phone calls later, the law had been revisited. The money would flow. One state legislator is quoted explaining the whole thing. "The lawyers were wrong".

Easy go: It will be interesting to see where the money ends up. Don't you just love politics? If you don't vote, you don't matter.

Every Vote Counts

The Backstory

August 22, 2010

That person is going to win, another has no chance. I don't like any of them, it's too negative. The group over in (pick a location) controls everything and changing one person won't make any difference. The polls say the race is over based on a nationwide sampling of 501 random phone calls. The kids have soccer practice and it's only a primary.

Does any of this sound familiar to you? I know you are probably thinking this is just going to be another of those moral or patriotic obligation pieces. There is something to the grander good, freedom isn't free or it's your duty. But this is about reality.

Every day of your life "someone" decides what you are going to pay in taxes. Someone also decides what non-profit groups you will support, where your kids will go to school, what products you will subsidize, how high your grass can be and even which people get killed to protect your freedom. The list is virtually endless. Do you know what all of those "someones" have in common? They got at least one more vote than someone else.

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

"That person is going to win by a landslide. A vote one way or the other isn't going to make any difference". The fact of the matter is that all elections are one vote at a time. Landslide wins are just one candidate getting one person to vote for them. They just get more individuals.

Local elections have had some VERY close outcomes. A few years ago, the 56th delegate district race was decided by three votes. A county commission race was decided by fifty votes. The most recent county commission election saw a person elected with less than fifty percent of the vote.

Let's get back to the reality of how your vote counts.

Modern politics is very simple. Individuals run for office on a single issue that they hope appeals to one more person than their opposition. It's called a platform. It may be promises of more or better services, supporting historic preservation, creating jobs or protection from the boogie man (that's something or someone clearly demon possessed). My personal favorite is a laundry list of promised spending on constituent desires without any tax or fee increases.

Constituents can be individuals or organizations. Fact of the matter is that every individual or group is a "special interest". Every candidate relies on individuals or groups of individuals to get elected.

A definition is in order here. Constituent: one who authorizes another to act as agent.

Another way of saying special interest is constituent. Voters elect someone to be their "agent". Voters expect their "agent" to give them some benefit. That benefit could be financial, social, safety or quality of life vision. Elected officials serve at the pleasure of those that selected them as an agent. Quite simply put, people run for office to control other people's lives and please their constituents.

So why is it important to vote and how does your vote count? If you want to have any meaningful consideration by a public official, you need to be a constituent. Virtually every first time candidate for office focuses on issues raised by those people most likely to vote. That same list of people most likely to vote is even more important to incumbents running for reelection.

So how do you and your family get on that most likely list? How do you get meaningful access to elected officials? How do you exercise control over your agent? Living in an elected official's district isn't enough. You need to have the "voted" box checked on your voter registration card.

There are some absolutes in life. You have heard some of them. Death, taxes, law of unintended consequences and no good deed goes unpunished to name a few. There is one more. It applies to government making decisions every day about you and your family's life.

"If you don't vote, you don't matter."

Christmas in August

The Backstory

August 15, 2010

'Twas the day before Thursday and all through the county, our people were giddy with visions of bounty; Requests were placed on the agenda with care, in hopes that motions would soon fill the air; Residents were nestled all snug in their chairs, with visions of wealth that would end all their cares.

As dawn broke over this day long awaited, the meeting room's space filled with the elated; I tuned in the webcam to hear all the views, but listened half hearted not expecting much news; then over the speakers there came so much chatter, I began to wonder what was the matter?

When what to my wondering senses should hear, not one but five purveyors of cheer; each offering a gift more grand than the last, why wasn't more of this done in the past? More rapid than lawsuits the proposals each came, they were shouted each touted and called out by name: Now trucks! Now parks! Now funds galore! On studies! On buildings! What are tax dollars for!

As dollar bills before a strong wind fly, when they meet an obstacle, mount up to the sky. So up the list these proposals each flew, with a handful of spreadsheets supporting them too. The commissioners all began to giggle with glee, as each seemed to think this all could be free.

It was then in a twinkling I heard someone say, we might have to do some of these on another day. As I struggled to hear who would say such a thing, it could only be someone who had an ear ring. With a voice of conviction and a twist of his head, soon told the commissioners there was nothing to dread. They spoke a few words, then went straight to their work, and filled all requests including a perk. With the money all spent and hands in the air, they leapt up from the table with nary a care.

But I heard them exclaim as they vanished from view, Merry Christmas to all and vote for us too.

(This article is a local issue parody roughly following "Twas the night before Christmas" written by Clement Clark Moore)

Old Standard

The Backstory

August 8, 2010

Which one of these accounts represents a July meeting on the Old Standard Quarry development application?

1. Next item on the agenda: a decision on Old Standard Quarry's commercial development application. This body has reviewed the applicant's documents and considered public testimony as prescribed in WV Code. It is our determination that the applicant has met standards of submission including administrative, design, financial, economic development and environmental consideration. It is also our finding that this project will not be in the best interest of...

Project application is DENIED

2. Next item on the agenda: a decision on Old Standard Quarry's commercial development application. This body has reviewed the applicant's documents and considered public testimony as prescribed in WV Code. It is our determination that the applicant has met standards of submission including administrative, design, financial, economic development and environmental consideration. It is also our finding that this project will be in the best interest of...

Project application is APPROVED

 

They both do.

 

The real story here is not what happened at either of these meetings. It is what happened between the meetings and where they took place. The first meeting was held in Charles Town, July 2007. The second was held in Charleston, July 2010.

Between these two meetings, the WV Legislature created a new section of law. It actually established authority for owners of former coal mine or quarry properties to apply for designation as "Brownfield Economic Development District". This would allow development of the property with approval of WV Development Office (WVDO).

In many parts of the state this wouldn't be an issue. Probably wouldn't even make the news let alone be controversial but it is here. The effect of this legislation was to create an appeal process for specific development applications that have been denied by local government. That is actually one of the specific items required for state consideration for approval. The applicant needs to show that local government was aware of the project and consulted by virtue of a formal denial of the application.

Jefferson County's CC and PC have made several statements regarding the Old Standard situation. Both groups are saying that they were not consulted on the project and were circumvented for approval. That particular position isn't exactly true but isn't exactly false. Both groups were aware of the project details and rejected it. Their actions or authority weren't "circumvented" but "appealed". They are right that there was no notice of the appeal.

Old Standard representatives maintain they have simply followed the law. They felt that the original denial wasn't based on fact or good faith negotiation. They simply appealed the local government action as outlined in "current" WV Code. Now to be fair, if Old Standard interests weren't involved in new legislation, they certainly had to be pleased when they heard about it.

All parties involved with this are likely trying to gain some technical advantage to solve a political problem. You can be sure that the CC, PC, DOH, DEP, WVDO, Legislators and Old Standard are fully engaged in the next step of this process.

I would like to close with the clearest statement in WV Code 5B-2-6a that will have the least impact on this issues resolution. "The decision of the development office in regard to an application is final".

County Courthouses

The Backstory

August 1, 2010

In 2006 there was an urgent county need for new court and administrative space. Several factors had to be considered. The desired location was in the county seat's historic downtown. There was also the issue of money.

Action needed to be taken. Circumstances had reached a critical level. Court space scheduling, administrative office space and essential document storage became unacceptable. Even the county commission (CC) had space needs. Meetings were being held in temporary leased rooms.

The CC had to generate space needs assessment. Everyone knows that identifying a problem or need is the first step in finding a solution. Once that step was complete, several items had to be addressed. How much would the required space cost? Traditional historic considerations needed to be involved in building design. Funding sources had to be identified. This would be a major undertaking for a small community.

A group led by county commissioners took on the challenge; it was after all their job. Several things were going to be done at the same time. Justify the structure needs, create a satisfactory design for the town, find a funding plan and get community "buy in" on the project.

State requirements for court space and county admin requirements turned out to be 45,000 square feet. A design proposal fitting historical traditional surroundings was agreeable to the community. A cost estimate of $10 million dollars was presented.

Everything was in place except the funding. There were no capital project savings accounts or non tax revenue sources available to be tapped. So where would the money come from? How does a rural community get a 45,000 square foot, $10.5 million dollar judicial and administrative complex built? They drop reelection special interest spending and put the available tax dollars into their resident's needs. It was taken care of through grants, low interest loans and local budget guarantees.

That county's court responsibilities and administrative public employees moved in to the new facilities last week.

You haven't missed an announcement of Jefferson's successful new project. The story (up to this point) has actually been about Morgan County. They have a population of 16 thousand plus and twice Jefferson's land area.

Let's go back and start over.

In 2002 there was an urgent county need for new court and administrative space in Jefferson. Several factors had to be considered. The desired location was in the county seat's historic downtown. There was also the issue of money. Sound familiar?

We'll talk about the similarities and differences between Morgan and Jefferson. Both needed a 40,000 square foot facility. Both have a historically sensitive design and both had an estimate of $10 million dollars. The differences are worthy of note. Jefferson has three times the tax base, $7 million in a construction savings account and $5 million a year in gaming revenue checks. Jefferson also has the same opportunity for grant, low interest state loans and state court funding.

Other major differences? Jefferson has known of this need since 2002 and is still debating resolution. Morgan had their court house burn down in 2006 and moved in to the new facility last week.

This story isn't as much about a court house as it is about choices a local government makes. Local government, especially at county levels, has the responsibility of providing public services to their tax paying residents. The greatest general category is safety. This category includes a working court system to deal with those that break the law.

Jefferson is probably the wealthiest per capita county in West Virginia. We have millions in non-tax dollars for all sorts of things. Gaming revenue is over $5 million a year. Impact fees of more than a million a year. Hotel taxes of more than a million a year.

I need to remind everyone that this story isn't about a court house, it's about choices. There are examples everywhere about responsible government. They do their job, pay their employees a living wage and fulfill obligations to provide services.

Why can't we do that here???

Impact Fees Part 3 of 3

The Backstory

July 19, 2010

Today's county impact fees have evolved since original implementation. There are more of them, the dollar amounts have risen and how they should be spent has changed. We should take a brief step back just for clarification.

Jefferson has multiple impact fees. It isn't a single fee divided among several categories of service. Each individual fee was created by passage of a specific ordinance. "Schools" was the first of four. That was followed by "law Enforcement", "Fire-EMS" and "Parks-Recreation".

Fee collection practices have remained unchanged even thought the dollar amount has gone up. County building permit applications require a receipt for the payment of "impact fees" prior to final permit issuance. The amount of those fees is determined by the impact fee coordinator. General fee schedules are approved by the county commission (CC).

Calculation of the fees has always been more art than science. You will hear about statistics and formulas, but at the end of the day it all comes down to how high each fee can be before it triggers a legal action. Remember the phrase "legally defensible"?

Impact Fee policy for distribution of collected funds seems to have changed since 2004. When fees were first approved, there was a very real concern that legal challenges would be filed. That caused officials to be cautious with fee calculation and what would qualify for funding. Politics and time issues have caused these changes.

Initially, school impact fee distribution was based on a detailed formula that allocated fees in much the same way they were calculated. A certain portion of the fee was designated for each type of school based on the projected demand from each additional housing type. That is to say on average, a new house would require some set percentage of elementary, middle and high school capacity. The single collected fee would be distributed accordingly toward those projects. It wasn't long before the politics of money standing still forced a policy change. The county board of education put significant public pressure on county government officials to use impact fee funds far in excess of the original calculation for high school construction. It was up to the fee coordinator to change policy and facilitate the political situation. The checks were written.

Time itself has also caused policy to be changed but not in the way you might think. This isn't a case of experience and changes in enabling legislation somehow causing modest adjustments over time. Deadlines for spending collected fees caused policy changes. State law that established some ground rules for collection and spending of fees contains the "time" problem. That specific provision stated "impact fee receipts shall be expended within six years of receipt thereof..." This provision was placed in the enabling legislation to prevent excessive fee collection.

You will remember that the school fees started in 2004, Law, Fire-EMS and Parks fees started in 2005. By 2008 some issues began to emerge. School and Law were finding qualified projects to spend money on. That wasn't the case with Fire-EMS and Parks. Those two categories were struggling to come up with projects that were capital in nature and were a direct result of growth. If policy wasn't changed on what qualified for funding with collected fees by 2010-2011, some money would have to be returned to those residents that had paid the fees. Anyone that currently owns a house built after January 2004 might have been eligible for a check.

Spending policy started to include replacing playground equipment at existing parks, lawn mowers and vehicles. An ambulance was approved for an organization that didn't provide transport service. Replacement equipment was also working its way up on the fee funding list. Also gone was any requirement for actual data to support funding requests connecting needs to growth.

So here we are. Our County Commission is going to look at the fees and see what changes should be made. The benefit from fees, how they are calculated and all the other considerations of affordable housing, tax assessment increases and legacy costs of service expansion should be on the table. The level of fees placed on commercial development should also be a factor.

The question should be not how much the fee is, but how much is the right fee.

Impact Fees Part 2

The Backstory

July 11, 2010

Jefferson County officials and the community generally seemed to agree that school construction was the greatest need during a period of substantial residential growth. The possibility that some of that cost could be shifted from traditional public funding to a new home "impact fee" became reality. How much that fee would be was the challenge.

In order to understand Impact Fee calculations, there are a few basic items that have to be considered. West Virginia law establishes some specific guidelines for calculation of the amount of fees, who pays them and what they can be spent on. The key here is that the law sets some general standards and guidelines but no formulas or a specific method of determination.

There are many subtle considerations that contribute to calculating the amount of an Impact Fee. Some are well defined while others seem nothing more than speculation or opinion. It is this mix of specifics and generalities that create difficulty. They also provide controversy.

Calculation of a school impact fee was step one. State law indicated that there were four major items to consider. The first three include current level of service, cost of expanding facilities and proportionate share of each new housing unit of that cost. The fourth was something that is very important. Impact Fees could only be collected and spent on new facilities. They could not be spent on additional operational or maintenance costs associated with the expanding school system. Those costs are included in every property owner's taxes which are paid by old and new alike.

Level of Service: A baseline had to be established as to what educational facilities were in place. This item was determined to be the inventory of space and seats in existing schools at the time fees were being enacted. Some of the terms being used were average class size, auditoriums, gyms and square foot per student. Much of this discussion was complicated by the extensive use of temporary classrooms (trailers) at many of the schools.

Cost of Expanding Facilities: Construction costs are a moving target at best. School projects are difficult for several reasons. Elementary, middle and high school costs tend to be different. Designs, inclusion of various amenities and class size are all variables. Recent projects had helped to get some idea of construction costs. There were also size-cost guidelines in a State Board of Education document called "Handbook on Planning School Facilities" (SBP 6200). Turning this data into a single number that could be used in the Impact Fee formula was critical.

This was a point in time where local elected officials and a citizen committee really did an exceptional job. The County Commission delegated this calculation to the Board of Education. In March of 2003 that process produced documentation validating the proposed cost per student number to build additional facilities for new students. That "cost per seat" number was accepted by government officials, community and development interests. It became the single fixed point that allowed all other ideas and proposals to be judged.

Proportionate Share: This issue was critical in determining how much the fee per new home would be. The math was simply to take the cost of a school seat multiplied by the projected average number of new students per house based on historical data. It is important to recognize the number wasn't a head count of actual occupants in a particular house. Selecting what that per house student number should be, turned out to be one of the biggest challenges. Everyone seemed to have a method of calculation. Each produced a different result. Estimates of students per housing unit ranged from .24 to .70 and more. This spread in calculation results and methods became the focus of heated debates for months. Thousands of dollars per house were involved. In the end, a compromise number of .50 was chosen. It seemed this was the best way to deal with those that wanted the highest number possible and those that might go to court if the number was too high. Remember that the term "legally defensible" was a very real consideration.

This example has been about how School Impact Fees were first implemented. Subsequent fees went through a similar process. Next week will be where we are currently with all fees and their distribution.

Impact Fees Part 1

The Backstory

July 4, 2010

It was the turn of the century, 2000. We had survived Y2K. It was time to get back to business. The past few years had been about authorizing video lottery machines, what to do about overcrowding at Jefferson high, and a new 1000 acre subdivision application known as "Huntfield". New development, the need to address school capacity and years of neglected infrastructure could no longer be ignored.

Schools were the most urgent item. The past decade had seen a series of proposals to "fix" the high school. Expansion of the existing facility or construction of a second high school each had very passionate supporters. All schools seemed to be having space issues. Something needed to be done. Jefferson's Board of Education (BOE) decided to put a high school construction bond issue up for vote. The plan was to use state school funding to add a building at Jefferson HS and use the bond issue to finance construction of a second HS. The bond was voted down by a substantial margin. This was the event that really got Impact Fees on everyone's radar. Public interest in Impact Fees had really taken hold. It was one of the major debate points on who should pay for school construction.

WV State law had authorized counties to enact impact fees several years earlier. Our state legislators and County Commission (CC) began to move forward on implementation. Jefferson had met several of the requirements. That is because much of the process was written specifically for here. We had a five year sustained growth rate, land development ordinances, comprehensive plan and zoning. Enactment of building codes and the creation of a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) were the two remaining hurdles. It would also require a better understanding of how and what Impact Fees really were.

Earlier attempts at moving toward adopting Impact Fees had been problematic. These things aren't as clearly defined as one might think. Most discussion of Impact Fees, their amounts and how the calculations are done usually include the term "legally defensible". Most enabling law points toward some type of calculated need caused by new development and a calculated fee that is directly associated to that development. Another sticking point was how these collected fees could be distributed. Add to that the overlap of services and conflicting tax authority between towns and county governments and the opportunity for misinterpretation of expectations can be substantial.

Coincidentally, the "Listener" email list started about this same time. That was soon followed by "Open Jefferson" or "OJ" as it is more commonly known. These two lists opened up the community to opinions of every stripe on virtually every issue. It wasn't long before special interests, candidates and elected officials started monitoring the sites and using them to generate support of some type.

By Summer in 2002, several issues were fighting for space on newspaper front pages. Route 9 construction plans, a new School Board slate had been elected and "growth" became a topic at virtually every public meeting. Polarization of public debate had started to really take on a tangible smell and flavor. That polarization was being defined with virtually every policy decision tested as pro or anti growth.

2002's election campaign season was really the beginning of single issue candidates and their issue was growth. The winning BOE candidates won on restrictive growth policies and Impact Fees. The winning CC candidates also won on new restrictive growth policies and Impact Fees. All prerequisites for Impact Fees had been accomplished by the time 2002's winning CC candidates took office in 2003. Technical detail of how fees were calculated, how much they would be and how they would be distributed still remained.

Consultants were hired and numbers were generated. Controversy surrounded virtually every aspect of the fees. The calculation, amount and how they would be distributed were all being debated. Interaction with the towns was also an unresolved issue. School officials wanted the money to start flowing immediately. Towns wanted resolution to the issues of authority for collection. The public wanted the fees in place as soon as possible with the belief high costs would slow development and provide money for services already suffering from past neglect.

That pressure resulted in a school Impact Fee being approved for implementation on Jan 26, 2004. Law enforcement, Fire-EMS and Parks would follow in 2005.

Next week, unresolved issues following enactment and the calculations.

HR Director

The Backstory

June 27, 2010

Last Thursday the county commission (CC) was getting ready to address agenda item 13: Organizational Chart and CC Staff Job Descriptions. A few minutes into the item it happened...

We need to go back in time at this point. The date is November 9, 2006. Commissioners are being addressed by Ms. Birnbach. She is the management consultant hired by the CC. The one year draft management study and recommendations were complete. A statement from CC minutes of that meeting end her appointment with "Ms Birnbach also recommended that the commission consider hiring a Human Resources Manager." I reviewed the webcast of that meeting. Her recommendation was more than to consider creating an HR position. It was several minutes of reasoning for the importance and urgency of taking that action.

Now it's April 19, 2007. The CC has an agenda item before the body. Hire Human Resources Director Discussion and also set a date of July 1, 2007. Commissioner Surkamp opens the item with a motion. That motion was to advertise for and hire a Human Resources Director July 1, 2007. It was clear during the discussion following the motion that the new HR position had been approved and funded in the 07-08 county budget. This was simply the act of advertising that position.

June 14, 2007. CC minutes read IN RE: Human Resources Director Work Session to Review Applicants. Again I went to the webcast for more information. It was stated that there had been sixty-nine (69) applications to date. The CC appointed itself as the committee to review applications and reduce the number to ten. Commissioners weren't comfortable having others narrow the field prior to selection. I have no idea what happened to the HR manager hiring process after that.

Various staff and organizational issues continued through 2008. 2009 had the same start. Pay, structure, benefits and job predictability were frequent topics for county employees and elected officials.

August 13, 2009, Agenda Item 10: Department Head Employee Evaluation (County Administrator). Forty seconds into the item a motion was made by commissioner Widmyer to hire Dave Hammer as outside counsel for the commission on this matter. It was almost instantly seconded by commissioner Surkamp. After 8 or 9 minutes of discussion, the final motion and vote was approved on a split 3-2 vote. That action needed to be redone the following week due to questionable procedures used. It was also the beginning of a subsequent firing and replacement of the county administrator. Who voted for what and the political intrigue is not my issue in this message.

...back to Thursday's meeting. The conversation quickly evolved into who works for who. Discussion of shifting personnel supervision and what individual or group should evaluate certain employees was debated. Issues of pay were raised, new departments, title changes, organizational charts, job descriptions and even what agencies specific commissioners were assigned as liaison. It was really a step toward restoring the very organizational structure that had been dismantled by the CC over the past several years.

This most recent meeting simply highlights a continuing need. The most contentious issues that have been taking up county time and money for the past months or years have involved the structure of county government and its employees: Pay equity, salaries, health benefits, management charts, department interaction and simple lack of a trusted place employees could go for information or guidance. People who have chosen to serve as local government workers shouldn't have to be in constant limbo regarding the most basic terms of their employment or the next political whim of some elected official.

It is time for this CC to do the right thing. Hire an HR director.

Planning and Studies

The Backstory

June 21, 2010

Last week the County Commission (CC) needed to take an action. It was something few people would have taken much interest in. That was until a little confusion over study names caused a question to be asked.

Study: a systematic search for the truth or facts about something. That "about something" is the critical part of a study definition.

The County Commission (CC) discussion was about a small transportation related grant of some sort that had to be used for funding a study. It couldn't be used for any actual action or improvement. As the conversation between commissioners was going on, several traffic trouble spots along county roads were mentioned. Final action was taken to recommend directing the funding toward a study of Route 340 along its entire length through Jefferson County. It was suggested the study focus should be on safety aspects.

Now it is true that the WV department of transportation currently has years of data on Route 340 traffic counts and accidents but another one can't hurt. The important part here is that the "about something" was established for the study to focus on. That is how truth and facts are generated to help officials determine a course of action to address specific goals. In this case, the CC wanted to have a single road studied to determine traffic safety issues and possible corrective actions.

Planning: the act or process of making or carrying out plans; specifically: the establishment of goals, policies, and procedures for a social or economic unit.

Planning and studies. We hear these words used constantly in local government. During that county commission discussion, Jim Surkamp asked a question that was profound in its simplicity. "Maybe I'm missing something; I just feel like Commissioner Widmyer is always referring to this 340 corridor study, I really want to know what that means".

Commissioner Surkamp's question was caused by the lack of "about something" in our planning process. His reference was to a study related to land use planning along a section of Route 340 that has been talked about for quite a while. It wasn't because two proposed studies have similar names. There are key differences between the two similarly named studies mentioned during the CC meeting. It isn't just that one is about traffic safety and the other about land use policy. It is much more fundamental.

Jefferson County has spent countless thousands of dollars, intellectual capital and social conflict in the name of "planning". Planning by its very definition requires the establishment of specific goals and objectives. There has always been the background street talk that some officials aren't publicly honest about their goals and agendas. Maybe it is time for the public and elected officials to answer Commissioner Surkamp's very basic question regarding policy statements. "I really want to know what that means".

Executive Sessions

The Backstory

June 14, 2010

Remember when you used to whisper something to someone when you were a child? If the whisper was followed by "don't tell Mom" it usually meant you were doing something you weren't supposed to.

Local government and their agencies have developed a similar pattern of behavior. It is becoming all too common for elected and appointed bodies to discuss public policy issues without allowing public oversight. This is done by closing meetings from public view. That type of meeting is called an "executive session".

Federal and State law are pretty clear about the obligation of governing bodies to operate in open session. There are very few exceptions. Most deal with specific personnel matters or contract details that might negatively impact fair competition. The other exception is intended to allow private updates and advice on specific legal actions.

The very nature of closed door meetings makes it difficult for residents to know if there is justification. It should also make residents question why policy matters should be discussed behind closed doors. When the general public and media are excluded from government deliberations, it becomes very difficult to determine how and why decisions are made.

West Virginia law states: The Legislature hereby finds and declares that public agencies in this state exist for the singular purpose of representing citizens of this state in governmental affairs, and it is, therefore, in the best interests of the people of this state for the proceedings of public agencies be conducted openly, with only a few clearly defined exceptions. The Legislature hereby further finds and declares that the citizens of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the governmental agencies that serve them. The people in delegating authority do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for them to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments of government created by them. West Virginia's Supreme Court spoke to the matter of attorney-client privilege and litigation in an opinion known as Peters VS Wood County: Such executive session may be closed to the public only when the following statutory requirements are met: 1) a majority affirmative vote of the members present of the governing body of the public body, as required by West Virginia Code Sec. 6-9A-4; 2) the notice requirements as found in West Virginia Code Sec. 6-9A-3 shall be followed; and, 3) the written minutes requirements as found in West Virginia Code Sec. 6-9A-5 shall be followed. However, a public agency is not permitted to close a meeting that otherwise would be open merely because an agency attorney is present.

The next time you hear a local governing body go into "executive session" by a motion using the phrase "Peters VS Wood County" or "pending litigation" ask yourself a question:

Why are they whispering and why can't they tell Mom...

Regulations That Don't Regulate

The Backstory

June 7, 2010

On May 25, 2010 the Jefferson County Planning Commission approved a request to have the County Commission authorize $1000 to appeal a court ruling. The thousand dollars is to pay an attorney to file their appeal for free. So what's this all about? We have to start several years ago.

A subdivision request was delivered to the county planning/zoning director in June of 2004. It was called Faraway Farms (FAF). The process involved determination of some scoring criteria and issuance of a conditional use permit. If the project met criteria it would move on to public hearings and the next set of approvals. It is a long process. This went on until August of 2005. The Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) denied the application based on lot size and traffic issues. The applicant felt they had met their requirements according to county regulation. Off to Circuit Court we go...

West Virginia 23rd Judicial District Circuit Court upheld the BZA finding in September 2007. A ruling simply stating that "While on appeal there is a presumption that a board of zoning appeals acted correctly, a reviewing court should reverse the administrative decision where the board has applied an erroneous principle of law, was plainly wrong in its factual findings, or has acted beyond its jurisdiction". This decision was then appealed by the applicant to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals (WVSCA). Jefferson County land use cases were routinely going to Charleston at this point. It didn't make much difference if it was the applicant, citizen activists or a public body, all roads lead to the WVSCA. That is where final decisions were being made.

And then it happened. The WVSCA overturned the Circuit Court ruling in March of 2008. "In this case, the BZA simply did not have the authority to reject FAF's application for a permit under the amended Ordinance because it was not in effect at the time the permit was requested. Furthermore, the evidence in the record shows that FAF satisfied all of the requirements necessary to obtain the permit. Consequently, we must reverse the decision of the circuit court which affirmed the BZA's decision and direct the Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Commission to issue the permit to FAF". "Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the final order of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County entered on September 18, 2006, is reversed. This matter is referred back to the Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Commission with directions to immediately issue the conditional use permit requested by FAF".

Enter the Planning Commission (PC). You would have thought that someone stole their dog. The West Virginia Supreme Court couldn't tell them what to do. They were the Jefferson County Planning Commission! It was a sight to behold. Their feelings had been hurt. The entire group went "rogue".

How do we appeal, and how do we stop the insult to our ego? We will have our appointed lawyers tell us what to do. That is what they are there for. And so they did. Unfortunately the PC got the advice but it wasn't what they wanted to hear. The advice was simple. First: Issue the permit as directed by the highest court in WV or face the consequences. Second: there weren't any grounds for appeal so get over it.

That clearly wasn't what they were looking for. Step one was to start looking for another lawyer, one that would take their money and fight to the death (for the money). Step two was to keep their actions from the county commission until it was too late to stop them on their quest for "justice and revenge". The found their man, a freedom fighter from Morgantown.

So here we are. Thousands of dollars, three lost appeals (including the United States Supreme Court) and running out of places to drop paper, the freedom fighter is advising them they aren't done. Let's try a different federal court of appeals.

Only two members of the current planning commission were there when this all started yet the band plays on. Will this be the time our county commissioners finally say "STOP, I mean it this time".

Oh, the thousand dollars? The lawyer is doing the paper drop for expenses. His work is for free.

A PC Legal Action

The Backstory

June 14, 2010

On May 25, 2010 the Jefferson County Planning Commission approved a request to have the County Commission authorize $1000 to appeal a court ruling. The thousand dollars is to pay an attorney to file their appeal for free. So what's this all about? We have to start several years ago.

A subdivision request was delivered to the county planning/zoning director in June of 2004. It was called Faraway Farms (FAF). The process involved determination of some scoring criteria and issuance of a conditional use permit. If the project met criteria it would move on to public hearings and the next set of approvals. It is a long process. This went on until August of 2005. The Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) denied the application based on lot size and traffic issues. The applicant felt they had met their requirements according to county regulation. Off to Circuit Court we go...

West Virginia 23rd Judicial District Circuit Court upheld the BZA finding in September 2007. A ruling simply stating that "While on appeal there is a presumption that a board of zoning appeals acted correctly, a reviewing court should reverse the administrative decision where the board has applied an erroneous principle of law, was plainly wrong in its factual findings, or has acted beyond its jurisdiction". This decision was then appealed by the applicant to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals (WVSCA). Jefferson County land use cases were routinely going to Charleston at this point. It didn't make much difference if it was the applicant, citizen activists or a public body, all roads lead to the WVSCA. That is where final decisions were being made.

And then it happened. The WVSCA overturned the Circuit Court ruling in March of 2008. "In this case, the BZA simply did not have the authority to reject FAF's application for a permit under the amended Ordinance because it was not in effect at the time the permit was requested. Furthermore, the evidence in the record shows that FAF satisfied all of the requirements necessary to obtain the permit. Consequently, we must reverse the decision of the circuit court which affirmed the BZA's decision and direct the Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Commission to issue the permit to FAF". "Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the final order of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County entered on September 18, 2006, is reversed. This matter is referred back to the Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Commission with directions to immediately issue the conditional use permit requested by FAF".

Enter the Planning Commission (PC). You would have thought that someone stole their dog. The West Virginia Supreme Court couldn't tell them what to do. They were the Jefferson County Planning Commission! It was a sight to behold. Their feelings had been hurt. The entire group went "rogue".

How do we appeal, and how do we stop the insult to our ego? We will have our appointed lawyers tell us what to do. That is what they are there for. And so they did. Unfortunately the PC got the advice but it wasn't what they wanted to hear. The advice was simple. First: Issue the permit as directed by the highest court in WV or face the consequences. Second: there weren't any grounds for appeal so get over it.

That clearly wasn't what they were looking for. Step one was to start looking for another lawyer, one that would take their money and fight to the death (for the money). Step two was to keep their actions from the county commission until it was too late to stop them on their quest for "justice and revenge". The found their man, a freedom fighter from Morgantown.

So here we are. Thousands of dollars, three lost appeals (including the United States Supreme Court) and running out of places to drop paper, the freedom fighter is advising them they aren't done. Let's try a different federal court of appeals.

Only two members of the current planning commission were there when this all started yet the band plays on. Will this be the time our county commissioners finally say "STOP, I mean it this time".

Oh, the thousand dollars? The lawyer is doing the paper drop for expenses. His work is for free.

County Fire Services

The Backstory

May 23, 2010

Jefferson County government provides funding for a portion of firefighting costs. That does not mean that there is a direct provision of firefighting services by county government. Confused yet? You're not alone. So how is fire service provided in Jefferson County?

Community fire protection, or more appropriately, firefighting has been a volunteer operation for centuries. Neighbors have been helping neighbors put out unwanted or unintended fires of all sizes and types. It was simply the thing to do. That tradition continues today.

In many rural areas, neighbors just help one another when the need arises. Publicly funded professional paid fire companies serve densely populated needs. Most areas in the United States are served by some combination that falls between the two extremes. Those include "all volunteer" civic groups or some mixture of paid and volunteer personnel. Necessity determines the type of organization. Jefferson County falls into the "all volunteer" category for firefighting. Citizens rely on organized civic groups to respond when needed. This type of situation is the way 70% of firefighting is provided in the US.

Firefighting is a dangerous and expensive activity. Training reduces some of the risk. That training is actually required now for people that are members of an organized group. Regulations and common sense clearly dictate that education/training make any physical endeavor more efficient and safe. It is never without risk.

The greatest cost volunteer organizations face is the equipment needed for personal protection and systems required to put out fires. Protective equipment for a firefighter can be several thousand dollars. Operating expenses for administration and rolling stock constitute a large expenditure. A fire truck with all its equipment might be hundreds of thousands of dollars. A place to house and store all the items until they are needed could cost a million dollars or more.

Jefferson County government helps cover some of these expenses. There are no earmarks as such. The county has no authority over how funds are spent.

For the past decade or more, county government has fulfilled its obligation to participate in provision of fire protection by contract. An agreement has been signed by all county volunteer fire departments to provide fire fighting services. Last year the signed contract amount was $25,000 to each individual fire company. We have 7 companies operating in the county now for a total of $175,000. It is a very simple procedure. Or is it? The County Commission may also pay additional monies to the departments. The total 2009 budget amount for fire companies? $460,000 plus. That comes out to about $65,000 per company. This year, the proposed county contribution is $45,000 per company. Probably what the commission felt it could afford over the recurring contract price.

That may sound like the local government is paying a large share of fire company costs. It depends who you ask. Each of the seven companies has a budget. Each has a unique level of capability. They are all funded at the same level. So what portion of county fire protection is funded by county tax dollars?

Look at two examples. Citizen Volunteer Fire Department annual budget indicates revenue of about $350K. Our county contribution is 13% of total revenues. Smaller companies like Bakerton and Middleway, without established revenue streams, may view the county portion as a much larger percentage of their operational funds. Independent Volunteer Fire Department is the other extreme. County government's portion of their budget is only about 7%. Independent has annual revenue of $900,000. Friendship in Harpers Ferry, Blue Ridge and Shepherdstown Departments are somewhere in between.

So who funds the lion share of local volunteer fire departments? It depends on the department. The money comes from fees for service, fund raising activities and donations. Some is provided through local, state and federal funding. Impact Fees are another potential funding source. There is no proportionate formula.

Still confused about government providing fire protection? You're not alone.

Jefferson County and a Bay

The Backstory

April 18, 2010

Jefferson County has the distinction of being West Virginia's primary location for more than Civil War battles. Many of you may know that Jefferson County is bordered by two rivers, the Potomac and Shenandoah. This simple geographic fact has also created another distinction for Jefferson. We have become the front line for West Virginia's participation in Chesapeake Bay Restoration. This year you will be hearing a lot more about it. The deadlines for action have arrived.

It is hard to understand how something that was started by some environmentalists and politicians in Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia some 27 years ago is now going to have a direct impact on every resident of Jefferson County, but it surely will. The original three states and DC set some goals and regulations dealing with sewer and storm water discharge into the Bay and its tributaries. The original group of states bordered the Bay directly. They created a commission that included the Federal EPA and environmental advisory groups. That commission's executive council (governors, EPA director and 21 politicians/bureaucrats) set goals for a 40 percent reduction of pollutants by 1992. The goals weren't met so the time line was extended. Fast forward to June 28, 2000, the Chesapeake Bay Program partners signed the new Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. Tributaries became a major focus with larger areas needed to compensate for the failed original goal compliance.

So how can a three state agreement to improve Bay water quality morph to include West Virginia? The EPA changed from an advisory partner to an enforcement agency. It brought pressure on New York, Deleware and West Virginia to become "headwater partners". West Virginia signed that agreement in 2002. It was touted as an obligation to "voluntarily" maintain and protect the Potomac watershed. There were no particular standards. It was more of a large government working group. Progress was slow and pressure was growing to make headway on reducing nitrogen levels throughout the larger Chesapeake Bay water shed. Political interest was high but so were the costs. The EPA set some dates for action plans. If those plans weren't submitted by the states and approved by the EPA there would be consequences. First the EPA would impose standards. Second and most problematic were penalties that could be imposed by the Federal agency if new state standards weren't met.

The deadline for action plans is at hand. West Virginia is now in the unenviable position of being required to create rules and regulations that will cost the state through its residents "hundreds of millions of dollars" and require a 5-15 year funding program. What makes all this critical is the specter of Federal regulation that might be even more restrictive and expensive. EPA spokespersons have also stated that compliance might be forced by any number of methods. Withholding of Federal permit approvals, delay of grant funding and even road construction funds are on the table to force compliance.

Jefferson County is ground zero for these new state regulations. Impact on the Bay and its tributaries is measured by nutrient volume produced and the distance from the Potomac and Shenandoah rivers. Farmers, open land owners, public utilities, rate payers, businesses and anyone with a septic system or yard will be directly impacted by any number of these new requirements. Every resident and business will be paying for these new requirements. Local and state officials are creating these regulations and the fees-taxes to pay for them as I type. Nutrient reduction programs or cap and trade concepts are in final draft. Tax options to fund reductions are also being finalized for presentation to the legislature. Local appointed officials from Charles Town, Ranson and County PSD are engaged in these discussions. County Commissioners are also becoming interested. This is a critical issue.

Maybe it is time to ask those in public office or running for public office their position on what proposed regulations mean to the economic future of this county. You might also ask them their position on how to fund these Bay restoration requirements. Start with some of the current options being considered: Lottery revenue, fertilizer tax, and a toilet paper tax.

County Commission Elections

The Back Story

April 12, 2010

Jefferson County residents are now accepting applications for the job of Public Policy Director. Two successful applicants will serve on a five member board for the period of six years. All board members are allowed to reapply at the end of their term. Residency in the Shepherdstown or Charles Town Magisterial district is the single qualification. Job duties are listed in West Virginia's Constitution and WV Code.

Applicants representing the Republican and Democrat political parties will be reviewed by a peer selection committee May 11, 2010 for further consideration. Any county resident that meets the residency requirement may apply through August of 2010. Final selection will be announced November 2, 2010.

Does this sound more like a job application than political elections? I hope so. It is important that candidates and voters selecting two people for the County Commission know what the job actually is.

The authority and duties of a County Commission are identified in the West Virginia Constitution. Additional clarification has been made in WV Code.

Residents will be going to the polls May 11th to select finalists for two positions on the County Commission. There is also the opportunity for other candidates to file as "no party affiliation" or "independent". This is done through a petition process. That window doesn't close until August. The general election will be November 2, 2010. Learn about the candidates, their issues and their job. Go out and vote in the May and November elections. If you don't vote in May, your choice may not be available in November.

I have created "Fred's List" of county commission duties from WV Constitution and WV Code sections. I intend to measure County Commission candidates by simply placing their issues, priorities and statements next to that list to see if they somehow fit together.

Fred's List:

1. Maintain custody and protect documents of record. (through the County Clerk)
2. Oversee and certify county elections
3. Determine essential government services and budget tax revenues to fund them.
4. Handle probate and estate matters
5. Conduct the Board of Equalization and Review for citizen property tax appeals.

That's it. Not that simple but this is the list. I am not going to say that there aren't extensions of these 5 items. The land use Genie is out of the bottle. It continues to be an issue that elected officials will have to deal with. That doesn't mean that it needs to get more complicated. It means that elected officials will have to find a way to create goals and simplify regulation. Hopefully, they will establish consensus goals first. Talk of jobs, education and infrastructure are current topics. They are legitimate if a connection can be made to duties and authority.

I want to leave you with a powerful movie quote. Policy and the spending of public tax revenues is determined through the voice every citizen's place in the government process. "If you don't vote, you don't matter."

County Legal Needs

The Back Story

April 3, 2010

Government by definition is about exercising authority and control over people. Governing has relied on force to impose that control throughout history. There are numerous examples both great and small. Armies or legions of the Roman Empire were created for more than common defense from foreign invaders. They were tasked with physical enforcement of one citizen group's authority over another. The Romans also had gladiators waving fearsome weapons. They fought from fear, not principle. One of their many purposes was to represent power by force. Government had the ability to determine who would be free to watch or who would be forced to fight. The subtlety of being someone watching the battle or being forced into the battle at a whim of political opinion wasn't lost on citizens. Intimidation by threat of physical force is a powerful tool of control.

Jefferson County government has become much the same. Many of you will say the statement is outrageous, there is no similarity and what does this possibly have to do with legal needs?

The armies and legions have been replaced by boards and enforcement agencies. Those have become the instruments of one group's authority over another. The gladiators are now waving law books and briefs. Not as bloody, but just as fearsome. These new gladiators also seem to fight based more on fear than principle. It isn't all that uncommon for our county commission to choose others to be thrown into the arena of battle for political reasons.

Legal needs are the real issue here. Several months ago, there were some criminal accusations raised over actions of a few regarding election law violations. This legal process required an investigation followed by the County Prosecutor reviewing the information for potential court action. The prosecutor asked to be excused from the proceeding. It was based on fear that one of the accused (a sitting county commissioner) might reduce his budget or negatively impact his staff. He felt he couldn't do his sworn duty to uphold the laws of West Virginia based on fear of local government retaliation. Another resent action involved local government using assistant prosecuting attorneys to bring accusations of wrong doing against a local business. There were no criminal charges, simply accusations. These attorneys felt obligated to represent the commission's views based on similar fear. That folks is a climate of intimidation.

So who represents citizen interests when local officials can't be prosecuted, private citizens are harassed and public attorneys can't give sound legal advice to public bodies? There are plenty of anecdotal stories of an increased legal aggressiveness in county government. There is also a growing list of actions that show local government penchant for initiating legal proceedings to be more than anecdotal. The Jefferson County Commission should do one simple thing; hire an attorney to represent them in an attorney client relationship. Local county government will then be free to litigate openly on any issue. The public will know how much time and money is being spent in those efforts and that decisions are the sole responsibility of 5 commissioners. It is the right thing to do.

Final Budget

The Back Story

March 28, 2010

Jefferson has completed its annual budget. Elected officials have stated how difficult the process was this year. The decisions were driven by available funds and priorities. Government budgets are not a formula exercise. No actual product is being produced. Revenue is only defined as dollars available. Expenditures are simply a selected funding level for specific services. Was this year any more difficult than another? Statistically, no. There were more requests for public dollars than there was revenue. This happens every year.

It is difficult to determine what level of service government actually provides. Some are straight forward: number of police officers, efficiency of our court system and public record keeping. Other services aren't so clear: Parks, visitor bureau, libraries, the arts, senior services and planning to name a few. There are also issues that may be identified but remain unfunded. How does one determine how much of something is enough? How much is too much? Where does the money get focused?

Comparisons of similar circumstance may be useful. Berkeley and Jefferson counties operate under similar laws. They also are as close in regional circumstance as can be reasonably expected. The noticeable difference is in population. Berkeley has almost exactly twice the population. It also has the largest town in the region. Some might think that Martinsburg somehow makes the counties too different to compare. That factor actually makes the comparison quite possible. Fifteen percent of Jefferson's population lives in Ranson/Charles Town. The same percentage of Berkeley residents live in Martinsburg. The mix of urban, small towns and rural is very similar.

Per capita spending is one measure of comparison. Jefferson's total budget is about $384 dollars per person. That compares to $229 in Berkeley. Spending is based on available funds. Jefferson has the advantage of higher assessed property values and Gaming revenues. That accounts for most of the disparity in per capita funding availability. Another point of comparison isn't so much the actual dollar amount but percentage of a budget spent on certain items. Both counties spend about 15 percent of available funds on sheriff-law enforcement. They both spend roughly 5 or 6 percent on their land use/engineering departments. Both spend 5 or 6 percent on the prosecuting attorney's office. There are many similarities in priority. There are also some significant differences. The most noticeable is that Jefferson spends 8 times as much as Berkeley on its communication center line item, an actual difference of $1.6 Million dollars. Berkeley spends 9 times as much as Jefferson on the senior citizen line item. These comparisons show that there are significant differences in how much is being spent on a per capita basis. It also indicates that required priorities as a percentage of budgets are actually quite similar. Discretionary spending is diverse.

Jefferson County as a whole seems to envision itself as being progressive, something of a leader in social and public policy. Does that carry over in prioritization of public services, projects for the greater public good and amount of funding? It seems that traditional funding priorities remain even though non-traditional opportunities exist: Financial investment toward solving the mountain water system issue, engaging in a partnership with WV DOH building the bridge to provide a second access for a few thousand residents on the Blue Ridge and creating a strategy for funding compliance with new EPA water quality standards are but a few of the greater good projects available. Wealthy governments have the ability to think beyond traditional. Is it Jefferson's time to truly lead?

Mountain Water System

The Back Story

March 21, 2010

Rejection of a grant funding application request was more than a vote. It was more than a simple action regarding the decade long water problem facing residents of Keys Ferry Acres, West Ridge Hills and Harpers Ferry Campsites. It was a statement by our majority county commission. Some background may help understand a difference between the item voted on and what message was actually sent.

In the early 1970s, central water systems in three subdivisions were having significant problems. Volume, quality and dependability were all inadequate. These systems were owned and maintained by the people that were developing the projects. Regulation and standards were not what they are today. Even those relatively loose standards were not being met. The West Virginia Public Service Commission (PSC) and Department of Health were seeking some way to get the systems improved. They believed that by restricting new water system connections in the subdivisions, project owners would improve central utilities. Building moratoria were placed on the three projects. That action didn't work. 28 years later, the moratoria are still in place and the problem hasn't been taken care of. There have been several subsequent owners and operators of the central water systems: private businesses, public agencies, publicly regulated businesses and the current public/private partnership. All of these efforts faced one common problem. How to fund needed upgrades and still keep customer rates within reason?

The late 1990s brought a second issue into the solution. Development.

Jefferson county land values began to increase dramatically due to development pressure coming from the Washington DC metro area. The water systems' condition and the moratoria were now becoming more public. New people moving into existing houses were dissatisfied with the service. Land owners wanted the building moratoria lifted in order to take advantage of the increased land values in the entire county. There were several modest proposals to improve the systems but none resolved all the issues. Funding was still the final deal breaker. During this time there was also an increasing debate about development in general. It wasn't about how to develop, what rate to expand or even where. The issue became black and white to those involved. One group believed they had the right to build anywhere current regulations allowed. The other group didn't like the regulations because they allowed houses to be built anywhere. The battle lines were drawn. The battlefield became county commission elections and agency appointments. Unfortunately, the residents that depend on these water systems have been caught in this cross fire.

Are you starting to wonder what this vote on a grant to help fund water system improvements has to do with the development issue? The system improvement has finally reached a point of being technically and financially viable. That viability is based on grants, zero interest loans and a $12 dollar monthly customer fee. The financial aspect has always been the problem with providing safe and dependable water to those that need it. Remember when I said earlier that there were moratoria on building in these subdivisions until the water system is replaced?

The issue before the Jefferson county commission was simply to allow submission of a grant request. That grant was part of funding needed to make improvements to the substandard mountain water systems. Thursday's county commission vote was 4-1 to reject application for a $1.5 million dollar grant. The action will have a chilling effect on the remaining grant and loan applications. Kill the money, kill the project, kill the development.

Budgets

The Backstory

March 15, 2010

Jefferson's County Commission is nearing the end of its annual budget process. Our county government budget is really a compilation of several agency budgets. First are called constitutional offices. These are headed by elected officials: the County Commission, Circuit Clerk, Prosecuting Attorney, County Clerk and Sheriff. Each entity creates their own budget for employee salaries and the annual cost of running that service. Several of these entities have multiple functions. The Sheriff, in addition to law enforcement, is also the county Treasurer. County Clerk has financial, record keeping and election functions. County Commission agencies include among others: 911 and addressing, Maintenance, GIS, Impact Fees, Capital Construction Management, Homeland Security, Planning/Zoning/Engineering and County administrative functions. We also have what are called "outside" agencies. Some of these are Council on Aging, Eastern Panhandle Transit Authority, Libraries, Animal Welfare, Historic Landmarks, etc. The final groups seeking to be included for public funding are Non-profit (501) organizations. They are numerous.

Government budgeting is the process of determining a list of necessary items, the cost of those items and sources of money. It sounds simple but there are many variables. Who decides what items are necessary? Is there some magic determination of what level of service is adequate under the category of necessary? Who says "this is the amount of money that is available". The answer to all of these questions is: no one. Issues of need, cost and funding availability must be determined by consensus of county commissioners.

There are as many ways to approach the budget process as there are commissioners. That was demonstrated at last week's budget meetings. On the needs side, one commissioner suggested fully funding the constitutional offices first and see what's left. Another said that there should be across the board percentage cuts due to the entire package of funding requests being more than projected revenue. Yet another suggested starting with the total projected revenue and spread it around, adjusting as they go. There was also a stated position that this mandated annual budget is simply a "draft". Several commented that funding will be adjusted in July IF there are sufficient carry over funds from the current fiscal year.

The wild card in all these positions involves politics and "projections". Political considerations are high on the list for determining needs and the levels of service. Cost and Revenue projections are where the real horse trading takes place. Here are some examples.

On the cost side, there is a projection that employee health and retirement benefit costs will increase by roughly 30 percent. That was based on the best information available. It also is a significant expense. How to create less expense to balance revenue projections? Simply make a statement that "we will try to negotiate the rate down with the provider". The new cost increase projection is now 25 percent! The same type of thing is being done on the revenue side. That example is the new table game revenue projection. No one really knows how much money the county will receive from that activity. The current place holder is $150,000. Should the commission need more "projected" revenue to balance the cost of their collective needs, they can simply raise that place holder to as much as $1,000,000.

The next few days will determine the type, level of services and funding risk our county faces in the coming year.