Wednesday, July 31, 2019
Thursday, July 18, 2019
2019-07-16 - Service Authority Meeting Notes
by Neil Richard
The Service Authority Board of Directors held a special meeting on July 16, 2019. The meeting was held at the County's Fire, Rescue, and Emergency Services Company 1 while the Board Room was being renovated. The meeting began at 6:32pm.
Shortly after the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance, Mike Bennett, Chair, made sure the doors were not locked so members of the public could get into the meeting.
There were no amendments to the Agenda.
There was no Public Comment.
Christopher Werle reported that he attended the joint work session with the Board of Supervisors and the Economic Development Authority (EDA) on June 20th. He also attended a meeting on June 28th with Hazel Homes to discus the potential capacity of Hopyard Farm Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) as well as the potential increase in flow from Oakland Park WWTP should the facility be decommissioned.
Richard Granger reported that he attended the joint meeting on June 20th as well.
Cathy Binder also said she attended the joint meeting on June 20th as well as other meetings with Bennett who could probably provide a better update than her.
Mike Bennett reported he attended the joint meeting as well. He also attended a meeting regarding the Potomac Landing development on June 21st and went to the Town Hall hosted by Jeff Bueche on June 27th. At the Town Hall, he said that Yvonne Richard shared information about several potential grants that could be used at Ralph Bunche that would help the Ralph Bunche Arts and Humanities Center with their project as well as help the Service Authority increase their service in the area. Bennett said he asked Weakley to look into the grant programs. Bennett said he attended the meeting with Hazel Homes on the 28th and participated in a conference call on July 1st with Schnabel Engineering and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Bennett said Schnabel will be conducting the Environmental Analysis (EA) for the riverbank stabilization project instead of FEMA because they can do it faster. He said Schnabel is running into a few issues with other agencies not wanting to believe they have FEMA approval to do the EA. Also on July 1st, Bennett attended a joint meeting with Naval Support Facility Dahlgren, King George County, and the Service Authority. Bennett said the idea behind the meeting was to see how the three entities could join forces in certain areas. As an example, he said with the purchasing of chemicals, they could get a better price. He did say that the base would continue to operate their water and waste water facilities. Bennett said the Service Authority was a small part of the discussion but he felt the idea was sound enough to consider including Colonial Beach, Fort A. P. Hill, and Caroline County to increase savings. He said it may also serve as a template of cooperation with the base with regards to other issues and that it may take six months to a year before any project is brought to fruition. On July 15th, Bennett met with the Hampton Roads Sanitary District and Tri-County/City Soil and Water to conduct their first round of testing in Fairview Beach to determine the source of the water contamination. Bennett said they tested about 15 locations, including a Service Authority manhole. He said they were shocked at how much "stuff" was going through the manhole but they felt it would serve as a good data point when determining the source of the contamination. Bennett said that it will take some time to process the tests and get results. He said that when tests were done in November, it was during a very wet period of time and there were several streams flowing. He said with this most recent test, things were much drier so fewer samples were collected than they had hoped for. He felt this may help determine if the surface water was the source of the contamination. Bennett said that out of nine Virginia Department of Health (VDH) tests done so far this year, there have been three advisories for the Potomac River. He said for the four weeks in June, there were no advisories so there may be a correlation between wet weather and the contamination. Bennett also participated in a conference call with Davenport and Associates earlier in the morning. [EDITOR'S NOTE - Neil Richard, a co-founder of Project94, is the spouse of Yvonne Richard.]
The Consent Agenda was approved.
The County Attorney, Eric Gregory, had no report.
Davenport and Associates representatives Kyle Laux and Griffin Moore then began their presentation on the search results for a flexible line of credit for the Service Authority. With Moore doing most of the talking during the short presentation, the results looked promising. Moore said that several banks returned proposals however many of them would require the Service Authority to draw down or borrow the full amount of $15 million. He also said several of them had higher than desirable interest rates or a delay in prepayment. In the end, the proposal from Atlantic Union looked the most promising with a fixed interest rate of 2.399%, which was lower than the planned rate of 3%. Included in their proposal was no minimum draw down or loan amount and treated it as a truly flexible line of credit. Additionally, Atlantic Union proposed no minimum withdrawal amount and would allow a prepayment at anytime with no penalty. Moore said that other banks, such as BB&T and Capital One, had higher interest rates, flexible interest rates, or required the full $15 million to be taken out even if it wasn't needed. The next step, said Moore, was to have the Board of Directors and the Board of Supervisors approve a resolution for the line of credit at their August meeting. In concert with this was the debt restructuring process. Both the line of credit and the debt restructuring should be complete by the end of August.
Bennett asked if the stock market would have lower rates in the future, as it seems to be indicated recently. Laux said that they may be able to go back to the bank and get a lower rate if rates do drop. He said that within the last week, it seems that the Fed will take rates down but said the short answer was that if there's a rate decrease before closing, they can certainly go back to the bank. Bennett asked if the current rate of 2.399% was locked in with the bank and Laux said it was. Bennett asked if the maturity date in five years would be for the entire loan amount and what would the Service Authority do if they couldn't pay for it with the cash they had on hand. Laux said the intent was to draw on the line of credit over time and then at the end of five years, use long term financing. He also said that grant funding and other evolutions in the capital program may reduce how much is necessary to finance on a long term basis. Bennett reiterated that the big ticket item was the potential decommissioning of the Purkins Corner and Oakland Park WWTPs, at roughly $9.7 million, as well as bringing pump stations into compliance. He said it won't be hard to spend the money on capital improvements and repairs. Bennett said he was really impressed with Davenport's work and felt they really "nailed it." He said a year ago he wasn't sure "banks would offer us $15 let alone $15 million."
Bennett asked for a motion to approve the plan to allow Davenport to move forward with Atlantic Union. The Board approved but made it contingent on legal review and the Board of Supervisors approval of their moral obligation.
Next on the Agenda was a discussion about the rate section of the Service Authority's regulations. Eric Gregory, County Attorney, explained that in years past, the Board would approve of new rates then amend the regulations to include those new rates. He said this was not a legal requirement but rather a hold over from previous Boards. He continued by explaining that the Board could amend the regulations to remove certain sections. This would result in it no longer being necessary to add an extra step in the process. Gregory was careful to explain that the change would not impact the public hearings that would still remain in place any time a rate change was made. Bennett added that it would also save time and money by not requiring staff to create an additional public notice. Bennett asked how much it would save and Weakley said over $2,000 just in ad expenses. Bennett said he gets in trouble when he says it but he felt like it was a "no brainer" in making this change. He said amending the regulations would also help save time and money when changing the connection fees as they are also included in the old process. Gregory said the desire was to not eliminate the whole section in the regulations but "rather to surgically excise what isn't needed" and to leave what was still necessary. Bennett said that during the joint meeting with the Supervisors and EDA, they discussed how difficult it was to find comparable connection fee rates from surrounding areas. He said his goal was to instead make it easier for people to find. Granger asked if there would be no public hearings for rate increases and Gregory said the public hearing would still remain in place and that public access and transparency would still be there. Bennett said it was essentially removing a second step that wasn't needed. With that, consensus was reached to move forward.
Next was Jonathon Weakley's discussion on fat, oil and grease. He said the industry acronym was FOG and that many jurisdictions have a FOG ordinance or FOG permit in place but King George does not. He said that FOGs will cause problems at WWTPs like clogs in the pipes and overflows at pump stations. Weakley wouldn't name any specific customer but said there was one customer that was the only one served by a pump station and it was repeatedly a source of issues. He said the FOGs inside the pump are often bad enough the pump has to be chiseled out. Weakley said that the initial plan is to simply educate customers on what can and can't be put down the drain as well as what de-greasers, cleaners, and traps are recommended. He said it wasn't a revenue program but more of an education program. Weakley said he was sensitive to the cost burden it would place on businesses but said that there's also a cost burden to the Service Authority in treating the FOG at the WWTP. He said his goal wasn't to come out swinging and label it as enforcement but rather to raise awareness. Bennett asked him to coordinate with Dr. Neiman Young, County Administrator, and the Economic Development Department to ensure it doesn't create too many issues for businesses. Granger asked if large residential areas could be the cause of high FOG levels at WWTPs and Weakley said it was in some cases but usually FOGs came from restaurants. He said de-greasers can be added. Bennett mentioned grease traps and Dr. Young said they are required but there was no "teeth" to enforcement according to the Community Development Department. Weakley added that the local Health Department is also involved but agreed that there needed to be more teeth in enforcement. With that, consensus was reached.
Weakley then updated the Board on his changes and additions to the job descriptions. Bennett and Werle agreed that he didn't need Board approval for what he wanted to do and it was more of an update than a request for permission. Weakley said he wanted to streamline some positions at the manager level and create positions below that. He said it would put similar jobs on the same level and provide room for advancement from within the department. Weakley said that the County's Human Resources Department has already approved all of the changes. Bennett said that the money for the newly created positions was already in the budget and there was a desire to promote from within. He said this not only allows for people to move up in their career but also allows the Board to do some succession planning in case somebody wants to leave the Service Authority.
Weakley then, as he usually does every meeting, shared his General Manager's report. Once a month he also shares the Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total Phosphorus (TP) measurements for each WWTP. With number steadily dropping to within permitted levels, Weakley shared with the Board that the staff at the Dahlgren WWTP has found the best "recipe" to get ideal numbers and it was reflected in the amounts he shared. Dahlgren WWTP has a TN limit of 3.0 mg/L and the June measurement was down to 2.4 mg/L. Although the yearly average is slightly above permitted levels at 4.3 mg/L, he said there were still six months to go and the recipe is locked in. All of the other WWTPs were operating within permitted levels except for Purkins Corner which had a yearly average TN of 10.7 mg/L. The permit limit is 10.0 mg/L. Weakly said staff was still working to get under permit levels and that some of the higher numbers were due to faulty equipment that has been replaced. Bennett asked if the improvements at Dahlgren were because of chemistry or equipment and Weakley said both.
Continuing his report, Weakley said maintenance work has already begun on the water towers and he was pleased by what he saw when he went to inspect their work. He said the Service Authority has been in contact with Dr. Benson, Superintendent of Schools, to keep him informed and that the crews on site felt they may be finished sooner than expected. Regarding the My Place Hotel being constructed in Dahlgren, Weakley said Mr. Murphy submitted the necessary "like place" usage from a My Place Hotel in Lebanon, Tennessee. Bennett asked and Werle confirmed that the hotel is already booked for the first year with 100% occupancy. Bennett said he wanted to make sure the hotel in Tennessee was not operating at 50% occupancy when data was collected and wanted to make sure the Service Authority got viable information to plan for full occupancy. Weakley said they should be able to extrapolate from the data to predict the correct amounts for Dahlgren. Weakley said he was working towards a more formal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the school system regarding the owner/agent agreement. He said he found nothing on file, nothing signed, and no record of one other than an incomplete draft from former management. Gregory said he had no immediate thoughts on the MOU but would certainly like to discuss it with Weakley.
With that, the Board entered into Closed Session at 7:50pm and invited Gregory, Young, and Weakley to attend. They returned from Closed Session at 8:57pm and adjourned immediately after.
Meeting Attendees:
Christopher Werle (Board of Directors)
Jonathon Weakley (General Manager of Service Authority)
Richard Granger (Board of Supervisors)
Michael Bennett (Chairman, Citizen)
Cathy Binder (Board of Supervisors)
Neiman Young (County Administrator)
Eric Gregory (County Attorney)
Absent:
Ruby Brabo (Board of Supervisors)
Meeting Agenda
Next Meeting:
The Service Authority will next meet on August 6, 2019 at 6:30 pm at the Revercomb Building.
Previous Meeting:
Read about the previous Service Authority Meeting.
SUBSCRIBE OR DONATE
You can subscribe via email here. You can make a charitable donation here.
The Service Authority Board of Directors held a special meeting on July 16, 2019. The meeting was held at the County's Fire, Rescue, and Emergency Services Company 1 while the Board Room was being renovated. The meeting began at 6:32pm.
Shortly after the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance, Mike Bennett, Chair, made sure the doors were not locked so members of the public could get into the meeting.
There were no amendments to the Agenda.
There was no Public Comment.
Christopher Werle reported that he attended the joint work session with the Board of Supervisors and the Economic Development Authority (EDA) on June 20th. He also attended a meeting on June 28th with Hazel Homes to discus the potential capacity of Hopyard Farm Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) as well as the potential increase in flow from Oakland Park WWTP should the facility be decommissioned.
Richard Granger reported that he attended the joint meeting on June 20th as well.
Cathy Binder also said she attended the joint meeting on June 20th as well as other meetings with Bennett who could probably provide a better update than her.
Mike Bennett reported he attended the joint meeting as well. He also attended a meeting regarding the Potomac Landing development on June 21st and went to the Town Hall hosted by Jeff Bueche on June 27th. At the Town Hall, he said that Yvonne Richard shared information about several potential grants that could be used at Ralph Bunche that would help the Ralph Bunche Arts and Humanities Center with their project as well as help the Service Authority increase their service in the area. Bennett said he asked Weakley to look into the grant programs. Bennett said he attended the meeting with Hazel Homes on the 28th and participated in a conference call on July 1st with Schnabel Engineering and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Bennett said Schnabel will be conducting the Environmental Analysis (EA) for the riverbank stabilization project instead of FEMA because they can do it faster. He said Schnabel is running into a few issues with other agencies not wanting to believe they have FEMA approval to do the EA. Also on July 1st, Bennett attended a joint meeting with Naval Support Facility Dahlgren, King George County, and the Service Authority. Bennett said the idea behind the meeting was to see how the three entities could join forces in certain areas. As an example, he said with the purchasing of chemicals, they could get a better price. He did say that the base would continue to operate their water and waste water facilities. Bennett said the Service Authority was a small part of the discussion but he felt the idea was sound enough to consider including Colonial Beach, Fort A. P. Hill, and Caroline County to increase savings. He said it may also serve as a template of cooperation with the base with regards to other issues and that it may take six months to a year before any project is brought to fruition. On July 15th, Bennett met with the Hampton Roads Sanitary District and Tri-County/City Soil and Water to conduct their first round of testing in Fairview Beach to determine the source of the water contamination. Bennett said they tested about 15 locations, including a Service Authority manhole. He said they were shocked at how much "stuff" was going through the manhole but they felt it would serve as a good data point when determining the source of the contamination. Bennett said that it will take some time to process the tests and get results. He said that when tests were done in November, it was during a very wet period of time and there were several streams flowing. He said with this most recent test, things were much drier so fewer samples were collected than they had hoped for. He felt this may help determine if the surface water was the source of the contamination. Bennett said that out of nine Virginia Department of Health (VDH) tests done so far this year, there have been three advisories for the Potomac River. He said for the four weeks in June, there were no advisories so there may be a correlation between wet weather and the contamination. Bennett also participated in a conference call with Davenport and Associates earlier in the morning. [EDITOR'S NOTE - Neil Richard, a co-founder of Project94, is the spouse of Yvonne Richard.]
The Consent Agenda was approved.
The County Attorney, Eric Gregory, had no report.
Davenport and Associates representatives Kyle Laux and Griffin Moore then began their presentation on the search results for a flexible line of credit for the Service Authority. With Moore doing most of the talking during the short presentation, the results looked promising. Moore said that several banks returned proposals however many of them would require the Service Authority to draw down or borrow the full amount of $15 million. He also said several of them had higher than desirable interest rates or a delay in prepayment. In the end, the proposal from Atlantic Union looked the most promising with a fixed interest rate of 2.399%, which was lower than the planned rate of 3%. Included in their proposal was no minimum draw down or loan amount and treated it as a truly flexible line of credit. Additionally, Atlantic Union proposed no minimum withdrawal amount and would allow a prepayment at anytime with no penalty. Moore said that other banks, such as BB&T and Capital One, had higher interest rates, flexible interest rates, or required the full $15 million to be taken out even if it wasn't needed. The next step, said Moore, was to have the Board of Directors and the Board of Supervisors approve a resolution for the line of credit at their August meeting. In concert with this was the debt restructuring process. Both the line of credit and the debt restructuring should be complete by the end of August.
Bennett asked if the stock market would have lower rates in the future, as it seems to be indicated recently. Laux said that they may be able to go back to the bank and get a lower rate if rates do drop. He said that within the last week, it seems that the Fed will take rates down but said the short answer was that if there's a rate decrease before closing, they can certainly go back to the bank. Bennett asked if the current rate of 2.399% was locked in with the bank and Laux said it was. Bennett asked if the maturity date in five years would be for the entire loan amount and what would the Service Authority do if they couldn't pay for it with the cash they had on hand. Laux said the intent was to draw on the line of credit over time and then at the end of five years, use long term financing. He also said that grant funding and other evolutions in the capital program may reduce how much is necessary to finance on a long term basis. Bennett reiterated that the big ticket item was the potential decommissioning of the Purkins Corner and Oakland Park WWTPs, at roughly $9.7 million, as well as bringing pump stations into compliance. He said it won't be hard to spend the money on capital improvements and repairs. Bennett said he was really impressed with Davenport's work and felt they really "nailed it." He said a year ago he wasn't sure "banks would offer us $15 let alone $15 million."
Bennett asked for a motion to approve the plan to allow Davenport to move forward with Atlantic Union. The Board approved but made it contingent on legal review and the Board of Supervisors approval of their moral obligation.
Next on the Agenda was a discussion about the rate section of the Service Authority's regulations. Eric Gregory, County Attorney, explained that in years past, the Board would approve of new rates then amend the regulations to include those new rates. He said this was not a legal requirement but rather a hold over from previous Boards. He continued by explaining that the Board could amend the regulations to remove certain sections. This would result in it no longer being necessary to add an extra step in the process. Gregory was careful to explain that the change would not impact the public hearings that would still remain in place any time a rate change was made. Bennett added that it would also save time and money by not requiring staff to create an additional public notice. Bennett asked how much it would save and Weakley said over $2,000 just in ad expenses. Bennett said he gets in trouble when he says it but he felt like it was a "no brainer" in making this change. He said amending the regulations would also help save time and money when changing the connection fees as they are also included in the old process. Gregory said the desire was to not eliminate the whole section in the regulations but "rather to surgically excise what isn't needed" and to leave what was still necessary. Bennett said that during the joint meeting with the Supervisors and EDA, they discussed how difficult it was to find comparable connection fee rates from surrounding areas. He said his goal was to instead make it easier for people to find. Granger asked if there would be no public hearings for rate increases and Gregory said the public hearing would still remain in place and that public access and transparency would still be there. Bennett said it was essentially removing a second step that wasn't needed. With that, consensus was reached to move forward.
Next was Jonathon Weakley's discussion on fat, oil and grease. He said the industry acronym was FOG and that many jurisdictions have a FOG ordinance or FOG permit in place but King George does not. He said that FOGs will cause problems at WWTPs like clogs in the pipes and overflows at pump stations. Weakley wouldn't name any specific customer but said there was one customer that was the only one served by a pump station and it was repeatedly a source of issues. He said the FOGs inside the pump are often bad enough the pump has to be chiseled out. Weakley said that the initial plan is to simply educate customers on what can and can't be put down the drain as well as what de-greasers, cleaners, and traps are recommended. He said it wasn't a revenue program but more of an education program. Weakley said he was sensitive to the cost burden it would place on businesses but said that there's also a cost burden to the Service Authority in treating the FOG at the WWTP. He said his goal wasn't to come out swinging and label it as enforcement but rather to raise awareness. Bennett asked him to coordinate with Dr. Neiman Young, County Administrator, and the Economic Development Department to ensure it doesn't create too many issues for businesses. Granger asked if large residential areas could be the cause of high FOG levels at WWTPs and Weakley said it was in some cases but usually FOGs came from restaurants. He said de-greasers can be added. Bennett mentioned grease traps and Dr. Young said they are required but there was no "teeth" to enforcement according to the Community Development Department. Weakley added that the local Health Department is also involved but agreed that there needed to be more teeth in enforcement. With that, consensus was reached.
Weakley then updated the Board on his changes and additions to the job descriptions. Bennett and Werle agreed that he didn't need Board approval for what he wanted to do and it was more of an update than a request for permission. Weakley said he wanted to streamline some positions at the manager level and create positions below that. He said it would put similar jobs on the same level and provide room for advancement from within the department. Weakley said that the County's Human Resources Department has already approved all of the changes. Bennett said that the money for the newly created positions was already in the budget and there was a desire to promote from within. He said this not only allows for people to move up in their career but also allows the Board to do some succession planning in case somebody wants to leave the Service Authority.
Weakley then, as he usually does every meeting, shared his General Manager's report. Once a month he also shares the Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total Phosphorus (TP) measurements for each WWTP. With number steadily dropping to within permitted levels, Weakley shared with the Board that the staff at the Dahlgren WWTP has found the best "recipe" to get ideal numbers and it was reflected in the amounts he shared. Dahlgren WWTP has a TN limit of 3.0 mg/L and the June measurement was down to 2.4 mg/L. Although the yearly average is slightly above permitted levels at 4.3 mg/L, he said there were still six months to go and the recipe is locked in. All of the other WWTPs were operating within permitted levels except for Purkins Corner which had a yearly average TN of 10.7 mg/L. The permit limit is 10.0 mg/L. Weakly said staff was still working to get under permit levels and that some of the higher numbers were due to faulty equipment that has been replaced. Bennett asked if the improvements at Dahlgren were because of chemistry or equipment and Weakley said both.
Continuing his report, Weakley said maintenance work has already begun on the water towers and he was pleased by what he saw when he went to inspect their work. He said the Service Authority has been in contact with Dr. Benson, Superintendent of Schools, to keep him informed and that the crews on site felt they may be finished sooner than expected. Regarding the My Place Hotel being constructed in Dahlgren, Weakley said Mr. Murphy submitted the necessary "like place" usage from a My Place Hotel in Lebanon, Tennessee. Bennett asked and Werle confirmed that the hotel is already booked for the first year with 100% occupancy. Bennett said he wanted to make sure the hotel in Tennessee was not operating at 50% occupancy when data was collected and wanted to make sure the Service Authority got viable information to plan for full occupancy. Weakley said they should be able to extrapolate from the data to predict the correct amounts for Dahlgren. Weakley said he was working towards a more formal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the school system regarding the owner/agent agreement. He said he found nothing on file, nothing signed, and no record of one other than an incomplete draft from former management. Gregory said he had no immediate thoughts on the MOU but would certainly like to discuss it with Weakley.
With that, the Board entered into Closed Session at 7:50pm and invited Gregory, Young, and Weakley to attend. They returned from Closed Session at 8:57pm and adjourned immediately after.
Meeting Attendees:
Christopher Werle (Board of Directors)
Jonathon Weakley (General Manager of Service Authority)
Richard Granger (Board of Supervisors)
Michael Bennett (Chairman, Citizen)
Cathy Binder (Board of Supervisors)
Neiman Young (County Administrator)
Eric Gregory (County Attorney)
Absent:
Ruby Brabo (Board of Supervisors)
Meeting Agenda
Next Meeting:
The Service Authority will next meet on August 6, 2019 at 6:30 pm at the Revercomb Building.
Previous Meeting:
Read about the previous Service Authority Meeting.
SUBSCRIBE OR DONATE
You can subscribe via email here. You can make a charitable donation here.
Friday, July 12, 2019
Board of Supervisor Travel - Part 9 - Conclusion
by Neil Richard
In doing the research for this topic, there were many hands trying to steer the proverbial tiller towards finding wrong-doing. I am proud to say that although those voicing concern had very loud voices, everything presented in the final product is based on verifiable facts. There is a paper trail for nearly everything we found and those items that didn't have a paper trail were not necessarily worrisome.
The biggest, and most obvious, conclusion from the research is that Ruby Brabo's travel far exceeds that of her peers. For better or worse, her travel Expenses for the total 18 month period we focused on were $10,314.88. The combined total for the other six Supervisors in office during that same time period totaled $9,633.25. Brabo's Reimbursement amounts, money the County repaid her for expenses she incurred, are even more skewed with $511.77 for the other six Supervisors compared to her total of $4,642.76. While numbers are important, the volume of paperwork was what really drove the conclusion home. Some Supervisors had expenses that only required a few sheets of paper to print their documentation while Brabo paperwork took an entire ream of paper to print.
The second, almost as big, conclusion from the research is one that firmly rooted in my opinion. For those unfamiliar with the history of Brabo and the potential merger of L. E. Smoot Library into the Central Rappahannock Regional Library (CRRL) system, I encourage you to read my Opinion article here. I only mention this article because it shows, in my opinion, that Brabo has a tendency to overstate or exaggerate certain things. In her numerous comments during Board meetings, Brabo has stated that the National Association of Counties (NACo) and Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) have reimbursed the County for some of her travel but not all. While this may be true to the letter, I feel it adds further proof to her inclination to overstate the facts. NACo only reimbursed the County for $595.32 in travel expenses. The remaining $950.27 NACo paid went directly to Brabo as she was the one that incurred the expenses. I was able to verify that Brabo did pay for those items with her personal credit card. While I can't fault her for asking for reimbursement for travel expenses, I feel like the bottom line is being whitewashed a little too much.
Editor's Note: In an effort to hear directly from the National Association of Counties on the topic of travel reimbursement, we asked them a few questions. They did not respond to our email with answers.
Outside of these two overarching conclusions, there are other tidbits and anomalies that were discovered. Mileage Reimbursement cost more than Airline Reimbursement by about $100. There were nearly $1,100 in Parking fees paid alone. John Jenkins traveled the least and only incurred a paltry $515.00 in expenses. Both Jenkins and Richard Granger incurred no travel costs in the first half of 2018. Over $9,000 was spent on VACo and nearly $6,000 was spent on NACo (that's net, after factoring in the Repayments NACo made). A few receipts were lost but nothing that raised alarm. A few math errors were made but, again, nothing that raised concerns. There were rumors of Supervisors flying First Class but there was no evidence to support this. Jeff Bueche did repay the County for his wife's portion of the hotel bill. Although other Supervisors showed more than one adult in a room with only one bed, there are no records of them paying the County for the spouse's share of the bill.
In looking to the future of travel for the Supervisors, they have agreed upon a much larger travel budget than in the past. In further crunching the research results, the Supervisors should come in under budget in the next fiscal year. This is assuming they stick to their yearly average travel of nearly $17,000 that they've had over the past 18 to 24 months and don't add anything major to their travel itinerary. You can view their updated Travel Policy here.
I feel like the constant questions from citizens have forced the Supervisors to look closer at their travel and realize that their constituents will hold them accountable. John Jenkins' idea to post travel expenses publicly is a great step in the direction of having an open and easily accessible government. Regardless of where you stand on more or less travel for Supervisors, I feel that they do bring good things to the County by traveling to various conferences and seminars. Where the line should be drawn between too much travel and not enough travel is up to the voters to determine.
One final note about all of this research. In order to obtain the FOIA information from the County, we had to pay $459.21 in fees. Thankfully, a citizen was willing to cover most of those costs with a $300 donation. If you feel the research we've done was valuable enough to warrant a donation, regardless of how large or small it is, we would certainly appreciate it. Because we are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit as recognized by the Internal Revenue Service, we are not in it to make money and we are legally barred from being political. You can donate by using the PayPal button on top of our page or clicking here.
Continue reading:
In doing the research for this topic, there were many hands trying to steer the proverbial tiller towards finding wrong-doing. I am proud to say that although those voicing concern had very loud voices, everything presented in the final product is based on verifiable facts. There is a paper trail for nearly everything we found and those items that didn't have a paper trail were not necessarily worrisome.
The biggest, and most obvious, conclusion from the research is that Ruby Brabo's travel far exceeds that of her peers. For better or worse, her travel Expenses for the total 18 month period we focused on were $10,314.88. The combined total for the other six Supervisors in office during that same time period totaled $9,633.25. Brabo's Reimbursement amounts, money the County repaid her for expenses she incurred, are even more skewed with $511.77 for the other six Supervisors compared to her total of $4,642.76. While numbers are important, the volume of paperwork was what really drove the conclusion home. Some Supervisors had expenses that only required a few sheets of paper to print their documentation while Brabo paperwork took an entire ream of paper to print.
 |
| 18 months of travel documents for Brabo (left) and the other six Supervisors (right). Banana for scale. |
The second, almost as big, conclusion from the research is one that firmly rooted in my opinion. For those unfamiliar with the history of Brabo and the potential merger of L. E. Smoot Library into the Central Rappahannock Regional Library (CRRL) system, I encourage you to read my Opinion article here. I only mention this article because it shows, in my opinion, that Brabo has a tendency to overstate or exaggerate certain things. In her numerous comments during Board meetings, Brabo has stated that the National Association of Counties (NACo) and Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) have reimbursed the County for some of her travel but not all. While this may be true to the letter, I feel it adds further proof to her inclination to overstate the facts. NACo only reimbursed the County for $595.32 in travel expenses. The remaining $950.27 NACo paid went directly to Brabo as she was the one that incurred the expenses. I was able to verify that Brabo did pay for those items with her personal credit card. While I can't fault her for asking for reimbursement for travel expenses, I feel like the bottom line is being whitewashed a little too much.
Editor's Note: In an effort to hear directly from the National Association of Counties on the topic of travel reimbursement, we asked them a few questions. They did not respond to our email with answers.
Outside of these two overarching conclusions, there are other tidbits and anomalies that were discovered. Mileage Reimbursement cost more than Airline Reimbursement by about $100. There were nearly $1,100 in Parking fees paid alone. John Jenkins traveled the least and only incurred a paltry $515.00 in expenses. Both Jenkins and Richard Granger incurred no travel costs in the first half of 2018. Over $9,000 was spent on VACo and nearly $6,000 was spent on NACo (that's net, after factoring in the Repayments NACo made). A few receipts were lost but nothing that raised alarm. A few math errors were made but, again, nothing that raised concerns. There were rumors of Supervisors flying First Class but there was no evidence to support this. Jeff Bueche did repay the County for his wife's portion of the hotel bill. Although other Supervisors showed more than one adult in a room with only one bed, there are no records of them paying the County for the spouse's share of the bill.
In looking to the future of travel for the Supervisors, they have agreed upon a much larger travel budget than in the past. In further crunching the research results, the Supervisors should come in under budget in the next fiscal year. This is assuming they stick to their yearly average travel of nearly $17,000 that they've had over the past 18 to 24 months and don't add anything major to their travel itinerary. You can view their updated Travel Policy here.
I feel like the constant questions from citizens have forced the Supervisors to look closer at their travel and realize that their constituents will hold them accountable. John Jenkins' idea to post travel expenses publicly is a great step in the direction of having an open and easily accessible government. Regardless of where you stand on more or less travel for Supervisors, I feel that they do bring good things to the County by traveling to various conferences and seminars. Where the line should be drawn between too much travel and not enough travel is up to the voters to determine.
One final note about all of this research. In order to obtain the FOIA information from the County, we had to pay $459.21 in fees. Thankfully, a citizen was willing to cover most of those costs with a $300 donation. If you feel the research we've done was valuable enough to warrant a donation, regardless of how large or small it is, we would certainly appreciate it. Because we are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit as recognized by the Internal Revenue Service, we are not in it to make money and we are legally barred from being political. You can donate by using the PayPal button on top of our page or clicking here.
Continue reading:
Thursday, July 11, 2019
Board of Supervisor Travel - Part 8 - John Jenkins
by Neil Richard
Editor's Note: As a brief reminder, the results below are broken down into different categories and time frames. The three main time frames are:
The major categories are Expenses, Reimbursements, and Repayments. Within the Expenses and Reimbursement categories, the data is further broken down into Transportation, Food, Lodging, Registration Fees, and Unknown. Transportation is further broken down into Gas, Tolls, Taxis, Parking, Mileage, and Airlines.
Additionally, there are special notes for data related to Virginia Association of Counties (VACo), National Association of Counties (NACo), and Anomalies. Anomalies are data points that raise questions about their veracity, missing receipts, or calculation errors.
$250.00 Registration Fee for the 2017 VACo Annual Conference.
Reimbursements
None.
Repayments
None.
Anomalies
None.
$40.00 Registration Fee for the 2018 VACo County Official's Summit and $225.00 Registration Fee for the 2018 VACo Annual Conference.
Reimbursements
None.
Repayments
None.
Anomalies
None.
In an effort to hear directly from the Supervisors on the topic of travel, we asked them a few questions. John Jenkins did not respond to our email.
Continue reading:
Editor's Note: As a brief reminder, the results below are broken down into different categories and time frames. The three main time frames are:
- July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017
- January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018
- July 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018
The major categories are Expenses, Reimbursements, and Repayments. Within the Expenses and Reimbursement categories, the data is further broken down into Transportation, Food, Lodging, Registration Fees, and Unknown. Transportation is further broken down into Gas, Tolls, Taxis, Parking, Mileage, and Airlines.
Additionally, there are special notes for data related to Virginia Association of Counties (VACo), National Association of Counties (NACo), and Anomalies. Anomalies are data points that raise questions about their veracity, missing receipts, or calculation errors.
July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017
Expenses$250.00 Registration Fee for the 2017 VACo Annual Conference.
Reimbursements
None.
Repayments
None.
Anomalies
None.
January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018
John Jenkins had no travel expenses, reimbursements, or repayments during this six month period.July 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018
Expenses$40.00 Registration Fee for the 2018 VACo County Official's Summit and $225.00 Registration Fee for the 2018 VACo Annual Conference.
Reimbursements
None.
Repayments
None.
Anomalies
None.
18 Month Grand Total
Expenses totaled $515.00.Supervisor's Response
In an effort to hear directly from the Supervisors on the topic of travel, we asked them a few questions. John Jenkins did not respond to our email.
Continue reading:
Wednesday, July 10, 2019
Board of Supervisor Travel - Part 7 - Jim Howard
by Neil Richard
Editor's Note: As a brief reminder, the results below are broken down into different categories and time frames. The three main time frames are:
The major categories are Expenses, Reimbursements, and Repayments. Within the Expenses and Reimbursement categories, the data is further broken down into Transportation, Food, Lodging, Registration Fees, and Unknown. Transportation is further broken down into Gas, Tolls, Taxis, Parking, Mileage, and Airlines.
Additionally, there are special notes for data related to Virginia Association of Counties (VACo), National Association of Counties (NACo), and Anomalies. Anomalies are data points that raise questions about their veracity, missing receipts, or calculation errors.
$402.81 in hotel charges from the Omni in Hot Springs, VA for the VACo conference. $30.00 Registration Fee for an appreciation breakfast with the Fredericksburg Regional Chamber of Commerce and $250.00 for the 2017 VACo Annual Conference. Three more Fredericksburg Regional Chamber of Commerce events with Registration Fees totaling $120.00
Reimbursements
$265.79 for Mileage to three meetings, one of which was the VACo conference.
Repayments
None.
Anomalies
There is a listing for "Expenses for 2017 Annual VACo Conference" with an amount of $840.04. There were no attached receipts. It's not clear if this was related to the hotel stay at the Omni or not. Additionally, the final bill from the Omni was for $1,611.24 but only $402.81 was charged to the County. We assume this is because the deposit of $402.81 was paid prior to the July 1, 2017 time frame we set for our data request. As for the other half of the total bill, $805.62, it appears Howard shared a room with another adult. We assume the County accounted for the other half of the bill by charging the amount to Howard's wife. We base this on the bill stating it was for "2 Adults" and "1 King Bed."
Reimbursements totaled $265.79.
In an effort to hear directly from the Supervisors on the topic of travel, we asked them a few questions. Jim Howard did not respond to our email.
Continue reading:
Editor's Note: As a brief reminder, the results below are broken down into different categories and time frames. The three main time frames are:
- July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017
- January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018
- July 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018
The major categories are Expenses, Reimbursements, and Repayments. Within the Expenses and Reimbursement categories, the data is further broken down into Transportation, Food, Lodging, Registration Fees, and Unknown. Transportation is further broken down into Gas, Tolls, Taxis, Parking, Mileage, and Airlines.
Additionally, there are special notes for data related to Virginia Association of Counties (VACo), National Association of Counties (NACo), and Anomalies. Anomalies are data points that raise questions about their veracity, missing receipts, or calculation errors.
July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017
Expenses$402.81 in hotel charges from the Omni in Hot Springs, VA for the VACo conference. $30.00 Registration Fee for an appreciation breakfast with the Fredericksburg Regional Chamber of Commerce and $250.00 for the 2017 VACo Annual Conference. Three more Fredericksburg Regional Chamber of Commerce events with Registration Fees totaling $120.00
Reimbursements
$265.79 for Mileage to three meetings, one of which was the VACo conference.
Repayments
None.
Anomalies
There is a listing for "Expenses for 2017 Annual VACo Conference" with an amount of $840.04. There were no attached receipts. It's not clear if this was related to the hotel stay at the Omni or not. Additionally, the final bill from the Omni was for $1,611.24 but only $402.81 was charged to the County. We assume this is because the deposit of $402.81 was paid prior to the July 1, 2017 time frame we set for our data request. As for the other half of the total bill, $805.62, it appears Howard shared a room with another adult. We assume the County accounted for the other half of the bill by charging the amount to Howard's wife. We base this on the bill stating it was for "2 Adults" and "1 King Bed."
January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018
Jim Howard ended his term on December 31, 2017. Therefore, he is not going to show in the second six-month block of our three major time frames from January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018.July 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018
Jim Howard ended his term on December 31, 2017. Therefore, he is not going to show in the third six-month block of our three major time frames from July 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018.18 Month Grand Total
Expenses totaled $1,642.85.Reimbursements totaled $265.79.
Supervisor's Response
In an effort to hear directly from the Supervisors on the topic of travel, we asked them a few questions. Jim Howard did not respond to our email.
Continue reading:
Tuesday, July 9, 2019
Board of Supervisor Travel - Part 6 - Richard Granger
by Neil Richard
Editor's Note: As a brief reminder, the results below are broken down into different categories and time frames. The three main time frames are:
The major categories are Expenses, Reimbursements, and Repayments. Within the Expenses and Reimbursement categories, the data is further broken down into Transportation, Food, Lodging, Registration Fees, and Unknown. Transportation is further broken down into Gas, Tolls, Taxis, Parking, Mileage, and Airlines.
Additionally, there are special notes for data related to Virginia Association of Counties (VACo), National Association of Counties (NACo), and Anomalies. Anomalies are data points that raise questions about their veracity, missing receipts, or calculation errors.
$250.00 Registration Fee for the 2017 VACo Annual Conference. Although fellow Supervisor John Jenkins registered for the event, Richard Granger went instead and took advantage of the cheaper hotel at the Warm Springs Inn at a cost of $260.68.
Reimbursements
None.
Repayments
None.
Anomalies
None.
$225.00 Registration Fee for the 2018 VACo Annual Conference. The hotel fee for this conference was $305.73.
Reimbursements
None.
Repayments
None.
Anomalies
The total bill for the stay at the Omni in Hot Springs, VA was $1,222.92. As we've seen in other hotel bills, it appears the charge of $305.73 was a deposit.
* When it comes to the discussion and implementation of travel costs for the Board of Supervisors, how would you best explain it to a community member?
During the development of the budget for the county each fiscal year the BOS will discuss expected travel expenses. Each board member submits a list of expected travel expenses and then the board as a whole will vote on what to approve.
As board members travel on county business they will submit receipts to be reimbursed for travel that was approved. If there is an unexpected conference or activity that was not approved during the budget cycle a board member can request additional funds be made available to support. If the board votes to approve then the requesting board member will be reimbursed for that travel expenditure. If at any time a board member exceeds there travel allotment without majority consent from the board then reimbursement is not provided.
* How much of your job requires travel?
The county has representation on a number of boards and commissions in the region. Some of these boards and commissions are supported by board members. The board comes to a consensus on which members will support which boards and commissions. While I travel regionally to attend the meetings I assume you are inquiring about required travel that would be applicable for reimbursement. Strictly speaking I would say that our job does not "require" any travel in that sense. With that said I do feel that there are times where it is in the best interest of the county to have supervisors travel to attend meetings. In particular I feel attending Virginia Association of County (VACO) meetings is important because VACO represent, promote and protect the interests of counties.
* What are the benefits of using county resources for travel to outside organizations?
The main benefit is that when board members travel to outside organizations the interests of King George County are represented. This ensures that the counties voice is heard.
* Would you say the new plan for travel reimbursements is a good working plan or should it be tweaked a bit more to allow for county growth and development or other reasons?
I believe that the plan the BOS put in place is a good working plan. As the county grows and evolves future boards can always revisit the policy and update as needed.
* If any, what do you feel you have brought back to the county through your travels?
I attend VACO meetings and in particular serve on the Education Steering Committee. When I attend these meetings I represent the county and work to help craft the stance that VACO provides to the state legislature to meet our counties needs from an educational perspective.
* Do you have any comment on the concerns raised about the overall quantity of travel?
No Comment. But I encourage all citizens to reach out to board members with any comments or concerns that they may have.
* Do you feel you travel too much, too little, or just enough?
I recognize that travel reimbursement comes from the tax payers. I take that very seriously and en-devour to limit my travel to those activities that I believe will really be of value to the county. Personally I believe I travel just enough.
Editor's Note: As a brief reminder, the results below are broken down into different categories and time frames. The three main time frames are:
- July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017
- January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018
- July 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018
The major categories are Expenses, Reimbursements, and Repayments. Within the Expenses and Reimbursement categories, the data is further broken down into Transportation, Food, Lodging, Registration Fees, and Unknown. Transportation is further broken down into Gas, Tolls, Taxis, Parking, Mileage, and Airlines.
Additionally, there are special notes for data related to Virginia Association of Counties (VACo), National Association of Counties (NACo), and Anomalies. Anomalies are data points that raise questions about their veracity, missing receipts, or calculation errors.
July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017
Expenses$250.00 Registration Fee for the 2017 VACo Annual Conference. Although fellow Supervisor John Jenkins registered for the event, Richard Granger went instead and took advantage of the cheaper hotel at the Warm Springs Inn at a cost of $260.68.
Reimbursements
None.
Repayments
None.
Anomalies
None.
January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018
Richard Granger had no travel expenses, reimbursements, or repayments during this six month period.July 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018
Expenses$225.00 Registration Fee for the 2018 VACo Annual Conference. The hotel fee for this conference was $305.73.
Reimbursements
None.
Repayments
None.
Anomalies
The total bill for the stay at the Omni in Hot Springs, VA was $1,222.92. As we've seen in other hotel bills, it appears the charge of $305.73 was a deposit.
18 Month Grand Total
Expenses totaled $1,041.41.Supervisor's Response
In an effort to hear directly from the Supervisors on the topic travel, we asked them a few questions. Below is their unedited response.* When it comes to the discussion and implementation of travel costs for the Board of Supervisors, how would you best explain it to a community member?
During the development of the budget for the county each fiscal year the BOS will discuss expected travel expenses. Each board member submits a list of expected travel expenses and then the board as a whole will vote on what to approve.
As board members travel on county business they will submit receipts to be reimbursed for travel that was approved. If there is an unexpected conference or activity that was not approved during the budget cycle a board member can request additional funds be made available to support. If the board votes to approve then the requesting board member will be reimbursed for that travel expenditure. If at any time a board member exceeds there travel allotment without majority consent from the board then reimbursement is not provided.
* How much of your job requires travel?
The county has representation on a number of boards and commissions in the region. Some of these boards and commissions are supported by board members. The board comes to a consensus on which members will support which boards and commissions. While I travel regionally to attend the meetings I assume you are inquiring about required travel that would be applicable for reimbursement. Strictly speaking I would say that our job does not "require" any travel in that sense. With that said I do feel that there are times where it is in the best interest of the county to have supervisors travel to attend meetings. In particular I feel attending Virginia Association of County (VACO) meetings is important because VACO represent, promote and protect the interests of counties.
* What are the benefits of using county resources for travel to outside organizations?
The main benefit is that when board members travel to outside organizations the interests of King George County are represented. This ensures that the counties voice is heard.
* Would you say the new plan for travel reimbursements is a good working plan or should it be tweaked a bit more to allow for county growth and development or other reasons?
I believe that the plan the BOS put in place is a good working plan. As the county grows and evolves future boards can always revisit the policy and update as needed.
* If any, what do you feel you have brought back to the county through your travels?
I attend VACO meetings and in particular serve on the Education Steering Committee. When I attend these meetings I represent the county and work to help craft the stance that VACO provides to the state legislature to meet our counties needs from an educational perspective.
* Do you have any comment on the concerns raised about the overall quantity of travel?
No Comment. But I encourage all citizens to reach out to board members with any comments or concerns that they may have.
* Do you feel you travel too much, too little, or just enough?
I recognize that travel reimbursement comes from the tax payers. I take that very seriously and en-devour to limit my travel to those activities that I believe will really be of value to the county. Personally I believe I travel just enough.
Continue reading:
Monday, July 8, 2019
Board of Supervisor Travel - Part 5 - Jeff Bueche
by Neil Richard
Editor's Note: As a brief reminder, the results below are broken down into different categories and time frames. The three main time frames are:
The major categories are Expenses, Reimbursements, and Repayments. Within the Expenses and Reimbursement categories, the data is further broken down into Transportation, Food, Lodging, Registration Fees, and Unknown. Transportation is further broken down into Gas, Tolls, Taxis, Parking, Mileage, and Airlines.
Additionally, there are special notes for data related to Virginia Association of Counties (VACo), National Association of Counties (NACo), and Anomalies. Anomalies are data points that raise questions about their veracity, missing receipts, or calculation errors.
$295.00 Registration Fee for the 2018 VACo County Supervisors' Forum. There was also a $515.00 Registration Fee for a NACo conference. This NACo conference also had an associated hotel bill of $1,245.59 from the Kimpton Carlyle Hotel in Dupont Circle in Washington DC. Meals for this conference were billed at $32.80. Another hotel bill for a different conference cost $233.51. The Omni in Hot Springs, VA charged $406.56.
Reimbursements
Parking fees of $159.30 were reimbursed for the NACo conference in DC.
Repayments
None.
Anomalies
The total Omni bill was $1,626.24. While it appears to be common practice to charge a deposit of one quarter the total bill, the anomaly on this bill is that it was for two adults. Bueche would later repay the County $400.00 for the "spouse charge" of this VACo conference hotel bill. This repayment is not listed here or in the next six month period as it wasn't made until late February 2019. It is also $6.56 short of the actual amount owed.
$225.00 Registration Fee for the 2018 VACo Annual Conference. The County paid $304.73 for the hotel for this conference. $73.24 was paid for a meal at the conference in Hot Springs, VA. $613.46 was paid for a VACo conference. $295.00 was paid for a VACo course called "2019 Virginia County Board Chairpersons' Institute."
Reimbursements
None.
Repayments
None.
Anomalies
Although the County paid $304.73 for the VACo conference hotel, there are no accompanying receipts. The County paid $613.46 for a "VACo Conference" but a note says they are "waiting for receipt." The cover sheet for the Chairpersons' Institute shows "C. Binder" but the receipt with it shows Jeff Bueche was the one registered.
Reimbursements totaled $159.30.
In an effort to hear directly from the Supervisors on the topic of travel, we asked them a few questions. Below is their unedited response.
* When it comes to the discussion and implementation of travel costs for the Board of Supervisors, how would you best explain it to a community member?
The Policy was born of Citizens reaching out to there Supervisors and on social media, raising questions of why the travel, how much does this cost, is there any oversight, etc. We looked at these concerns and realized the Supervisors did not have a policy.
After multiple drafts and one on one conversations with each of my colleagues on the Board, the Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted a formal Travel Policy Amendment to provide full transparency and accountability to the Citizens of King George. See Below:
10. Board of Supervisors
a) Official travel subject to County funding by any member of the Board of Supervisors must be submitted via a spend plan to be approved by a majority of the Board of Supervisors prior to the adoption of the operational budget. Each Supervisor will provide their spend plan to the Board for consideration, to include location, duration, purpose, benefit to the County and an estimated cost for each expected travel occurrence. The spend plans will be discussed for adoption or denial during a budget work session or regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors. This process is to provide full transparency to the public on Supervisor travels for engagement with our local, regional, and national partners.
b) A Supervisor travel budget spending cap must be adopted by the BoS for each fiscal year. Should the cap be exhausted, any future travel subject to County funds must be previously approved by a majority of the Board of Supervisors during a regular meeting of the Board. Justification of said travel shall be provided to the Board in a public forum for full transparency to the public. In the event travel is not pre-approved by the Board of Supervisors, said travel, if conducted, is not subject to reimbursement.
* How much of your job requires travel?
There is actually no requirement per say, however each Supervisor has "collateral" duties and serves on committees throughout the region which do have direct and indirect implications on King George County.
* What are the benefits of using county resources for travel to outside organizations?
Since the approval of our Travel Policy Amendment, I've been asked how can I justify to the taxpayer Section c) " The Board of Supervisors will also appoint an elected official to serve as a liaison to the Virginia Association of Counties (VACO) and the National Association of Counties (NACO). This position will require additional travel outside the region and additional costs incurred......"
It simply boils down to there are things NACO and VACO lobby for that I support and things I firmly stand against. They have positions that can benefit King George and positions that could possibly be detrimental to King George. I rather have a seat at the table and have a voice in support or opposition rather than just a wait, see and react stance. We can't be isolationists, especially in a Dillon Rule State.
* Would you say the new plan for travel reimbursements is a good working plan or should it be tweaked a bit more to allow for county growth and development or other reasons?
I think this plan is sufficient and transparent, but with all policies, we don't know what the future holds and can be amended. With that said, any amendment would take place in an open meeting of the BoS and fully transparent to the citizens.
* If any, what do you feel you have brought back to the county through your travels?
I can give bullets on information I brought back, but I can also speak to what I've contributed to discussions in my travels. Lessons learned from other localities are very useful. These types of things are discussed at NACO and VACO Conferences, Also, this is where we learn of alternate funding sources available to us... ie Grants, etc. It's these travels where we learned of a FEMA Grant which is what's serving as the primary funding source for the Fairview Beach Shoreline Restoration Project. It's travels and meetings that recently brought Grant possibilities for decommissioning project of the Service Authority to the attention of Ms. Brabo who just briefed the KGSA. There are many examples of things brought back to the County, but to summarize It's about building contacts and gaining resources, we are making regional connections. With all that said, there are many things placed upon us from other Govt entities, State and Federal. I personally have met with our State elected Officials in Richmond to discuss pending legislation and the unintended consequences to KG County and some that would greatly benefit the County. Just this past month, I traveled to Tappahannock to meet with Secretary Jennings and elected officials from the region to discuss the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and the implementation of the Phase III Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP).
Below is the post report I made, which I feel conveys why I feel we must be engaged , which does take travel. From 10 April:
Good meeting this afternoon with the Tappahannock Region Local Government Rountable hosted by the Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC) whose purpose is to advise the Chesapeake Executive Council, on how to effectively implement projects and engage the support of local governments to achieve the goals of the Bay Agreement.
As our representatives for all things related to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and the implementation of the Phase III Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP), I was vocal about my concerns of unintended consequences to King George County. I voiced my belief that there is a very fine line between appropriate and responsible regulation and over regulation. I am of the mindset that this WIP is straddling the line. I have concerns with the cost of implementation that will fall to us locally, the impact on all future economic development, impact to our agriculture community (farms) and the overall requirements to reach the "goals".
There was a time when the Chesapeake Bay needed intervention. I acknowledge the situation was dire. It was and is a major economic driver , HOWEVER, after years of Regulatory oversight and implementations, grasses in the bay are at a level not seen in decades and the blue crab is back thriving in its waters. This observation I shared was confirmed by Secretary Jennings. The initial Phases worked. Its then that I offered up that it is an appropriate time to take pause as current regulations have shown significant improvements to the Bay. I do not believe Phase III is necessary at this point and has many consequences to rural localities. In truth, I was in the minority with my opinion, BUT, everyone seemed to share the same concerns on cost to localities. More and more, financial burdens are being shifted from the Fed, the State and Regulatory Agencies such as the EPA with no oversight.
This was one of 10 such roundtables conducted throughout the State. I believe they are listening and have gained some insight to local concerns and am hopeful they will give proper consideration
* Do you have any comment on the concerns raised about the overall quantity of travel?
Some travel may or may have not been justifiable in the past, that's for each independently elected Supervisor to justify to their constituents. However, under the new policy, ALL travel with an associated cost to the County is pre-approved in the budget process by individual trip and with an estimated cost provided.
* Do you feel you travel too much, too little, or just enough?
Just enough. For transparency, my travel budget for next year is set not to exceed $2,750.
Editor's Note: As a brief reminder, the results below are broken down into different categories and time frames. The three main time frames are:
- July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017
- January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018
- July 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018
The major categories are Expenses, Reimbursements, and Repayments. Within the Expenses and Reimbursement categories, the data is further broken down into Transportation, Food, Lodging, Registration Fees, and Unknown. Transportation is further broken down into Gas, Tolls, Taxis, Parking, Mileage, and Airlines.
Additionally, there are special notes for data related to Virginia Association of Counties (VACo), National Association of Counties (NACo), and Anomalies. Anomalies are data points that raise questions about their veracity, missing receipts, or calculation errors.
July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017
Jeff Bueche was elected in November 2017 and didn't take office until January 1, 2018. Therefore, he is not going to show in the first six-month block of our three major time frames from July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018.January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018
Expenses$295.00 Registration Fee for the 2018 VACo County Supervisors' Forum. There was also a $515.00 Registration Fee for a NACo conference. This NACo conference also had an associated hotel bill of $1,245.59 from the Kimpton Carlyle Hotel in Dupont Circle in Washington DC. Meals for this conference were billed at $32.80. Another hotel bill for a different conference cost $233.51. The Omni in Hot Springs, VA charged $406.56.
Reimbursements
Parking fees of $159.30 were reimbursed for the NACo conference in DC.
Repayments
None.
Anomalies
The total Omni bill was $1,626.24. While it appears to be common practice to charge a deposit of one quarter the total bill, the anomaly on this bill is that it was for two adults. Bueche would later repay the County $400.00 for the "spouse charge" of this VACo conference hotel bill. This repayment is not listed here or in the next six month period as it wasn't made until late February 2019. It is also $6.56 short of the actual amount owed.
July 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018
Expenses$225.00 Registration Fee for the 2018 VACo Annual Conference. The County paid $304.73 for the hotel for this conference. $73.24 was paid for a meal at the conference in Hot Springs, VA. $613.46 was paid for a VACo conference. $295.00 was paid for a VACo course called "2019 Virginia County Board Chairpersons' Institute."
Reimbursements
None.
Repayments
None.
Anomalies
Although the County paid $304.73 for the VACo conference hotel, there are no accompanying receipts. The County paid $613.46 for a "VACo Conference" but a note says they are "waiting for receipt." The cover sheet for the Chairpersons' Institute shows "C. Binder" but the receipt with it shows Jeff Bueche was the one registered.
18 Month Grand Total
Expenses totaled $4,240.89.Reimbursements totaled $159.30.
Supervisor's Response
In an effort to hear directly from the Supervisors on the topic of travel, we asked them a few questions. Below is their unedited response.
* When it comes to the discussion and implementation of travel costs for the Board of Supervisors, how would you best explain it to a community member?
The Policy was born of Citizens reaching out to there Supervisors and on social media, raising questions of why the travel, how much does this cost, is there any oversight, etc. We looked at these concerns and realized the Supervisors did not have a policy.
After multiple drafts and one on one conversations with each of my colleagues on the Board, the Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted a formal Travel Policy Amendment to provide full transparency and accountability to the Citizens of King George. See Below:
10. Board of Supervisors
a) Official travel subject to County funding by any member of the Board of Supervisors must be submitted via a spend plan to be approved by a majority of the Board of Supervisors prior to the adoption of the operational budget. Each Supervisor will provide their spend plan to the Board for consideration, to include location, duration, purpose, benefit to the County and an estimated cost for each expected travel occurrence. The spend plans will be discussed for adoption or denial during a budget work session or regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors. This process is to provide full transparency to the public on Supervisor travels for engagement with our local, regional, and national partners.
b) A Supervisor travel budget spending cap must be adopted by the BoS for each fiscal year. Should the cap be exhausted, any future travel subject to County funds must be previously approved by a majority of the Board of Supervisors during a regular meeting of the Board. Justification of said travel shall be provided to the Board in a public forum for full transparency to the public. In the event travel is not pre-approved by the Board of Supervisors, said travel, if conducted, is not subject to reimbursement.
* How much of your job requires travel?
There is actually no requirement per say, however each Supervisor has "collateral" duties and serves on committees throughout the region which do have direct and indirect implications on King George County.
* What are the benefits of using county resources for travel to outside organizations?
Since the approval of our Travel Policy Amendment, I've been asked how can I justify to the taxpayer Section c) " The Board of Supervisors will also appoint an elected official to serve as a liaison to the Virginia Association of Counties (VACO) and the National Association of Counties (NACO). This position will require additional travel outside the region and additional costs incurred......"
It simply boils down to there are things NACO and VACO lobby for that I support and things I firmly stand against. They have positions that can benefit King George and positions that could possibly be detrimental to King George. I rather have a seat at the table and have a voice in support or opposition rather than just a wait, see and react stance. We can't be isolationists, especially in a Dillon Rule State.
* Would you say the new plan for travel reimbursements is a good working plan or should it be tweaked a bit more to allow for county growth and development or other reasons?
I think this plan is sufficient and transparent, but with all policies, we don't know what the future holds and can be amended. With that said, any amendment would take place in an open meeting of the BoS and fully transparent to the citizens.
* If any, what do you feel you have brought back to the county through your travels?
I can give bullets on information I brought back, but I can also speak to what I've contributed to discussions in my travels. Lessons learned from other localities are very useful. These types of things are discussed at NACO and VACO Conferences, Also, this is where we learn of alternate funding sources available to us... ie Grants, etc. It's these travels where we learned of a FEMA Grant which is what's serving as the primary funding source for the Fairview Beach Shoreline Restoration Project. It's travels and meetings that recently brought Grant possibilities for decommissioning project of the Service Authority to the attention of Ms. Brabo who just briefed the KGSA. There are many examples of things brought back to the County, but to summarize It's about building contacts and gaining resources, we are making regional connections. With all that said, there are many things placed upon us from other Govt entities, State and Federal. I personally have met with our State elected Officials in Richmond to discuss pending legislation and the unintended consequences to KG County and some that would greatly benefit the County. Just this past month, I traveled to Tappahannock to meet with Secretary Jennings and elected officials from the region to discuss the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and the implementation of the Phase III Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP).
Below is the post report I made, which I feel conveys why I feel we must be engaged , which does take travel. From 10 April:
Good meeting this afternoon with the Tappahannock Region Local Government Rountable hosted by the Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC) whose purpose is to advise the Chesapeake Executive Council, on how to effectively implement projects and engage the support of local governments to achieve the goals of the Bay Agreement.
As our representatives for all things related to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and the implementation of the Phase III Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP), I was vocal about my concerns of unintended consequences to King George County. I voiced my belief that there is a very fine line between appropriate and responsible regulation and over regulation. I am of the mindset that this WIP is straddling the line. I have concerns with the cost of implementation that will fall to us locally, the impact on all future economic development, impact to our agriculture community (farms) and the overall requirements to reach the "goals".
There was a time when the Chesapeake Bay needed intervention. I acknowledge the situation was dire. It was and is a major economic driver , HOWEVER, after years of Regulatory oversight and implementations, grasses in the bay are at a level not seen in decades and the blue crab is back thriving in its waters. This observation I shared was confirmed by Secretary Jennings. The initial Phases worked. Its then that I offered up that it is an appropriate time to take pause as current regulations have shown significant improvements to the Bay. I do not believe Phase III is necessary at this point and has many consequences to rural localities. In truth, I was in the minority with my opinion, BUT, everyone seemed to share the same concerns on cost to localities. More and more, financial burdens are being shifted from the Fed, the State and Regulatory Agencies such as the EPA with no oversight.
This was one of 10 such roundtables conducted throughout the State. I believe they are listening and have gained some insight to local concerns and am hopeful they will give proper consideration
* Do you have any comment on the concerns raised about the overall quantity of travel?
Some travel may or may have not been justifiable in the past, that's for each independently elected Supervisor to justify to their constituents. However, under the new policy, ALL travel with an associated cost to the County is pre-approved in the budget process by individual trip and with an estimated cost provided.
* Do you feel you travel too much, too little, or just enough?
Just enough. For transparency, my travel budget for next year is set not to exceed $2,750.
Continue reading:
Friday, July 5, 2019
Board of Supervisor Travel - Part 4 - Cedell Brooks
by Neil Richard
Editor's Note: As a brief reminder, the results below are broken down into different categories and time frames. The three main time frames are:
The major categories are Expenses, Reimbursements, and Repayments. Within the Expenses and Reimbursement categories, the data is further broken down into Transportation, Food, Lodging, Registration Fees, and Unknown. Transportation is further broken down into Gas, Tolls, Taxis, Parking, Mileage, and Airlines.
Additionally, there are special notes for data related to Virginia Association of Counties (VACo), National Association of Counties (NACo), and Anomalies. Anomalies are data points that raise questions about their veracity, missing receipts, or calculation errors.
$250.00 Registration Fee for the 2017 VACo Annual Conference. $63.10 for gas to drive to and from the VACo conference and $402.81 for the hotel room at the VACo conference.
Reimbursements
None.
Repayments
None.
Anomalies
The total hotel bill at the Omni in Hot Springs, VA was $805.62 but the amount billed was half of that, $402.81. However, the bill did note a "Deposit Transfer" so it's likely that there was a deposit payment made prior to July 1, 2017 and the remaining balance was what was seen in our collection of data.
In an effort to hear directly from the Supervisors on the topic of travel, we asked them a few questions. Cedell Brooks did not respond to our email.
Continue reading:
Editor's Note: As a brief reminder, the results below are broken down into different categories and time frames. The three main time frames are:
- July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017
- January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018
- July 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018
The major categories are Expenses, Reimbursements, and Repayments. Within the Expenses and Reimbursement categories, the data is further broken down into Transportation, Food, Lodging, Registration Fees, and Unknown. Transportation is further broken down into Gas, Tolls, Taxis, Parking, Mileage, and Airlines.
Additionally, there are special notes for data related to Virginia Association of Counties (VACo), National Association of Counties (NACo), and Anomalies. Anomalies are data points that raise questions about their veracity, missing receipts, or calculation errors.
July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017
Expenses$250.00 Registration Fee for the 2017 VACo Annual Conference. $63.10 for gas to drive to and from the VACo conference and $402.81 for the hotel room at the VACo conference.
Reimbursements
None.
Repayments
None.
Anomalies
The total hotel bill at the Omni in Hot Springs, VA was $805.62 but the amount billed was half of that, $402.81. However, the bill did note a "Deposit Transfer" so it's likely that there was a deposit payment made prior to July 1, 2017 and the remaining balance was what was seen in our collection of data.
January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018
Cedell Brooks ended his term on December 31, 2017. Therefore, he is not going to show in the second six-month block of our three major time frames from January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018.July 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018
Cedell Brooks ended his term on December 31, 2017. Therefore, he is not going to show in the third six-month block of our three major time frames from July 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018.18 Month Grand Total
Expenses totaled $715.91.Supervisor's Response
In an effort to hear directly from the Supervisors on the topic of travel, we asked them a few questions. Cedell Brooks did not respond to our email.
Continue reading:
Wednesday, July 3, 2019
Board of Supervisor Travel - Part 3 - Ruby Brabo
by Neil Richard
Editor's Note: As a brief reminder, the results below are broken down into different categories and time frames. The three main time frames are:
The major categories are Expenses, Reimbursements, and Repayments. Within the Expenses and Reimbursement categories, the data is further broken down into Transportation, Food, Lodging, Registration Fees, and Unknown. Transportation is further broken down into Gas, Tolls, Taxis, Parking, Mileage, and Airlines.
Additionally, there are special notes for data related to Virginia Association of Counties (VACo), National Association of Counties (NACo), and Anomalies. Anomalies are data points that raise questions about their veracity, missing receipts, or calculation errors.
One additional note about Ruby Brabo's travel. Due to the complexity and sheer volume of travel that was done, the article below will not be as detailed as it could be. In trying to strike a balance between educating the public on the basics and sharing over 500 sheets of documents, we have tried to find an acceptable middle ground. While it would be unfair to Ms. Brabo to not share the same level of detail we have for her peers, it would also be unfair to the public to require them to wade through pages of information to get to the data they need.
Registration Fees totaled $867.37. These included the Governor's Summit on Rural Prosperity, the 2017 VACo Annual Conference, and a Base Building Outlook meeting in Quantico. Hotel bills were $2,207.71. These included hotels in Coloumbus, Ohio, Decatur, Texas, and Frankfurt, Kentucky. Food expenses were $134.55. Parking fees totaled $311.00. Unknown expenses were $50.42 paid at the Berry Hill Resort in South Boston, Virginia. The receipt does not describe what the expense was for.
Reimbursements
Toll expenses were reimbursed for $24.70. Taxi fees were $79.66. Parking costs were $13.00. Mileage reimbursement was $725.57. Airline fees were reimbursed for $1,025.16, including $412.10 for airfare to the "KACO Conference" in Kentucky and $247.46 for the NACo Fall Board Meeting in Texas. Meals were 32.60.
Repayments
A total of $13.00 was repaid to the County. This repayment was for Parking that was reimbursed for a Leadership Forum Planning Meeting.
Anomalies
One Columbus, Ohio hotel stay in July 2017 during a NACo conference shows two adults on the bill. The stay at the Omni Resort did not include a charge of $290.22, which would have followed suit with the other bills that had a similar percentage of the final bill paid earlier as a deposit. There is also a missing receipt and bill for a charge of $41.14 to the same Omni Resort.
Registration Fees totaled $180.00 and included the Virginia Municipal League and the Fredericksburg Regional Chamber of Commerce. Hotel fees were $2,318.41 and included stays at hotels in Richmond, Virginia, Washington, D. C., and Sun Valley, Idaho. Meals totaled $121.20. Parking Expenses were $245.00. Taxi costs were $42.17. Unknown Expenses were $21.66.
Reimbursements
Tolls were reimbursed for $24.70. Parking was $22.00. Mileage reimbursement was $375.72. Airline fees were reimbursed for $883.40 for the trip to Sun Valley, Idaho. Meals totaled $10.63.
Repayments
While Ms. Brabo did not have any repayments during this time period, NACo did make two payments to her for a total of $823.43. The first payment, in the amount of $287.00, covered one night's stay at the Washington Hilton in Washington, D. C. The second payment, in the amount of $536.43, covered airfare, mileage, meals, and other fees for her trip to West Palm Beach, Florida.
Anomalies
Within the second NACo Repayment, NACo calculated mileage reimbursement incorrectly and owes another $0.32. Neither NACo Repayment had an accompanying deposit sheet for being deposited with the County. It does appear the second reimbursement was for expenses paid directly by Brabo. There was also a "Luggage Hold" reimbursement for $3.00 that had no accompanying receipt. The Unknown Expenses of $21.66 were labeled as "Parking Fees" on the County's Control Sheet but the receipt from the Washington Hilton showed the total amount was split between "Shops" ($3.16) and "Food and Beverage" ($18.50). The "Shop" line item was further described as "LE CAFE."
Registration Fees totaled $635.00 and included events by the Fredericksburg Regional Chamber of Commerce and VACo. Hotel expenses were $2,889.83 and included stays at the Omni Resort in Hot Springs, Virginia, the Gaylord Resort in Nashville, Tennessee, and the Providence Marriott in Providence, Rhode Island. Parking cost $274.00, largely from airport parking lots. Taxi expenses totaled $16.56.
Reimbursements
Toll fees were reimbursed for $82.70. Parking totaled $35.00. Mileage reimbursement was $935.22. Airline costs were reimbursed for $339.31 for a NACo meeting in San Diego, California. Meals were $30.39.
Repayments
Ruby Brabo made two payments to the County for a total of $66.99. The first payment was for $56.99 to reimburse the County for a payment made to the Phoenix Park Hotel. The second payment for $10.00 was to cover a charge at the Omni Homestead Resort. NACo made two payments for a total of $722.16. The first NACo Repayment was for parking, tolls, and mileage for a total of $126.84. The second NACo Repayment was for Brabo's early arrival at the hotel in San Diego, California. This second Repayment for $595.32 was deposited by the County.
Anomalies
The stay at the Omni Resort in Hot Springs was for two adults for four nights in one King bed. The County was charged $406.56, only a quarter of the total bill of $1,626.24. This falls in line with a payment being made as a deposit. One three day trip through Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Maryland resulted in a Reimbursement of $585.49. However, not all of the documentation was fully provided for as the listing was so long it said "OVER" at the bottom. The reverse side was not included in our FOIA request and thus Toll expenses for a total of $31.85 were not shown. However, all of the receipts were in the FOIA packet. There is a payment to the George Washington Hotel for $22.87 that is unaccounted for and not documented. It only appears on the credit card bill. The first NACo Repayment had a math error and Brabo is owed $5.56.
Reimbursements totaled $4,642.76.
Repayments totaled $79.99.
NACo Repayments totaled $1,545.59 with only $595.32 going to the County.
In an effort to hear directly from the Supervisors on the topic of travel, we asked them a few questions. Ruby Brabo did not respond to our email.
Continue reading:
Editor's Note: As a brief reminder, the results below are broken down into different categories and time frames. The three main time frames are:
- July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017
- January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018
- July 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018
The major categories are Expenses, Reimbursements, and Repayments. Within the Expenses and Reimbursement categories, the data is further broken down into Transportation, Food, Lodging, Registration Fees, and Unknown. Transportation is further broken down into Gas, Tolls, Taxis, Parking, Mileage, and Airlines.
Additionally, there are special notes for data related to Virginia Association of Counties (VACo), National Association of Counties (NACo), and Anomalies. Anomalies are data points that raise questions about their veracity, missing receipts, or calculation errors.
One additional note about Ruby Brabo's travel. Due to the complexity and sheer volume of travel that was done, the article below will not be as detailed as it could be. In trying to strike a balance between educating the public on the basics and sharing over 500 sheets of documents, we have tried to find an acceptable middle ground. While it would be unfair to Ms. Brabo to not share the same level of detail we have for her peers, it would also be unfair to the public to require them to wade through pages of information to get to the data they need.
July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017
ExpensesRegistration Fees totaled $867.37. These included the Governor's Summit on Rural Prosperity, the 2017 VACo Annual Conference, and a Base Building Outlook meeting in Quantico. Hotel bills were $2,207.71. These included hotels in Coloumbus, Ohio, Decatur, Texas, and Frankfurt, Kentucky. Food expenses were $134.55. Parking fees totaled $311.00. Unknown expenses were $50.42 paid at the Berry Hill Resort in South Boston, Virginia. The receipt does not describe what the expense was for.
Reimbursements
Toll expenses were reimbursed for $24.70. Taxi fees were $79.66. Parking costs were $13.00. Mileage reimbursement was $725.57. Airline fees were reimbursed for $1,025.16, including $412.10 for airfare to the "KACO Conference" in Kentucky and $247.46 for the NACo Fall Board Meeting in Texas. Meals were 32.60.
Repayments
A total of $13.00 was repaid to the County. This repayment was for Parking that was reimbursed for a Leadership Forum Planning Meeting.
Anomalies
One Columbus, Ohio hotel stay in July 2017 during a NACo conference shows two adults on the bill. The stay at the Omni Resort did not include a charge of $290.22, which would have followed suit with the other bills that had a similar percentage of the final bill paid earlier as a deposit. There is also a missing receipt and bill for a charge of $41.14 to the same Omni Resort.
January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018
ExpensesRegistration Fees totaled $180.00 and included the Virginia Municipal League and the Fredericksburg Regional Chamber of Commerce. Hotel fees were $2,318.41 and included stays at hotels in Richmond, Virginia, Washington, D. C., and Sun Valley, Idaho. Meals totaled $121.20. Parking Expenses were $245.00. Taxi costs were $42.17. Unknown Expenses were $21.66.
Reimbursements
Tolls were reimbursed for $24.70. Parking was $22.00. Mileage reimbursement was $375.72. Airline fees were reimbursed for $883.40 for the trip to Sun Valley, Idaho. Meals totaled $10.63.
Repayments
While Ms. Brabo did not have any repayments during this time period, NACo did make two payments to her for a total of $823.43. The first payment, in the amount of $287.00, covered one night's stay at the Washington Hilton in Washington, D. C. The second payment, in the amount of $536.43, covered airfare, mileage, meals, and other fees for her trip to West Palm Beach, Florida.
Anomalies
Within the second NACo Repayment, NACo calculated mileage reimbursement incorrectly and owes another $0.32. Neither NACo Repayment had an accompanying deposit sheet for being deposited with the County. It does appear the second reimbursement was for expenses paid directly by Brabo. There was also a "Luggage Hold" reimbursement for $3.00 that had no accompanying receipt. The Unknown Expenses of $21.66 were labeled as "Parking Fees" on the County's Control Sheet but the receipt from the Washington Hilton showed the total amount was split between "Shops" ($3.16) and "Food and Beverage" ($18.50). The "Shop" line item was further described as "LE CAFE."
July 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018
ExpensesRegistration Fees totaled $635.00 and included events by the Fredericksburg Regional Chamber of Commerce and VACo. Hotel expenses were $2,889.83 and included stays at the Omni Resort in Hot Springs, Virginia, the Gaylord Resort in Nashville, Tennessee, and the Providence Marriott in Providence, Rhode Island. Parking cost $274.00, largely from airport parking lots. Taxi expenses totaled $16.56.
Reimbursements
Toll fees were reimbursed for $82.70. Parking totaled $35.00. Mileage reimbursement was $935.22. Airline costs were reimbursed for $339.31 for a NACo meeting in San Diego, California. Meals were $30.39.
Repayments
Ruby Brabo made two payments to the County for a total of $66.99. The first payment was for $56.99 to reimburse the County for a payment made to the Phoenix Park Hotel. The second payment for $10.00 was to cover a charge at the Omni Homestead Resort. NACo made two payments for a total of $722.16. The first NACo Repayment was for parking, tolls, and mileage for a total of $126.84. The second NACo Repayment was for Brabo's early arrival at the hotel in San Diego, California. This second Repayment for $595.32 was deposited by the County.
Anomalies
The stay at the Omni Resort in Hot Springs was for two adults for four nights in one King bed. The County was charged $406.56, only a quarter of the total bill of $1,626.24. This falls in line with a payment being made as a deposit. One three day trip through Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Maryland resulted in a Reimbursement of $585.49. However, not all of the documentation was fully provided for as the listing was so long it said "OVER" at the bottom. The reverse side was not included in our FOIA request and thus Toll expenses for a total of $31.85 were not shown. However, all of the receipts were in the FOIA packet. There is a payment to the George Washington Hotel for $22.87 that is unaccounted for and not documented. It only appears on the credit card bill. The first NACo Repayment had a math error and Brabo is owed $5.56.
18 Month Grand Total
Expenses totaled $10,314.88.Reimbursements totaled $4,642.76.
Repayments totaled $79.99.
NACo Repayments totaled $1,545.59 with only $595.32 going to the County.
Supervisor's Response
In an effort to hear directly from the Supervisors on the topic of travel, we asked them a few questions. Ruby Brabo did not respond to our email.
Continue reading:
Tuesday, July 2, 2019
Board of Supervisor Travel - Part 2 - Cathy Binder
by Neil Richard
Editor's Note: As a brief reminder, the results below are broken down into different categories and time frames. The three main time frames are:
The major categories are Expenses, Reimbursements, and Repayments. Within the Expenses and Reimbursement categories, the data is further broken down into Transportation, Food, Lodging, Registration Fees, and Unknown. Transportation is further broken down into Gas, Tolls, Taxis, Parking, Mileage, and Airlines.
Additionally, there are special notes for data related to Virginia Association of Counties (VACo), National Association of Counties (NACo), and Anomalies. Anomalies are data points that raise questions about their veracity, missing receipts, or calculation errors.
Cathy Binder was elected in November 2017 and didn't take office until January 1, 2018. Therefore, she is not going to show in the first six-month block of our three major time frames from July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018.
$295.00 for the 2018 VACo County Supervisor's Forum Registration Fee.
Reimbursements
None.
Repayments
None.
Anomalies
During her VACo Supervisor's Forum, Binder had a hotel bill from the Omni in Richmond, VA for $157.49 that was shown as being reported to the County but then crossed out. There is a receipt attached but it appears the County never paid for the stay or Binder never stayed in the room. The receipt for parking however shows that she stayed overnight.
$917.19 for Lodging for a VACo conference and $265.00 for two VACo conference Registration Fees.
Reimbursements
$41.68 for Gas, $6.00 for Tolls, and $39.00 for Parking. The Gas reimbursement was related to a VACo conference.
Repayments
None.
Anomalies
None.
Reimbursements totaled $86.68.
In an effort to hear directly from the Supervisors on the topic of travel, we asked them a few questions. Cathy Binder did not respond to our email.
Continue reading:
Editor's Note: As a brief reminder, the results below are broken down into different categories and time frames. The three main time frames are:
- July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017
- January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018
- July 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018
The major categories are Expenses, Reimbursements, and Repayments. Within the Expenses and Reimbursement categories, the data is further broken down into Transportation, Food, Lodging, Registration Fees, and Unknown. Transportation is further broken down into Gas, Tolls, Taxis, Parking, Mileage, and Airlines.
Additionally, there are special notes for data related to Virginia Association of Counties (VACo), National Association of Counties (NACo), and Anomalies. Anomalies are data points that raise questions about their veracity, missing receipts, or calculation errors.
July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017
Cathy Binder was elected in November 2017 and didn't take office until January 1, 2018. Therefore, she is not going to show in the first six-month block of our three major time frames from July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018.
January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2018
Expenses$295.00 for the 2018 VACo County Supervisor's Forum Registration Fee.
Reimbursements
None.
Repayments
None.
Anomalies
During her VACo Supervisor's Forum, Binder had a hotel bill from the Omni in Richmond, VA for $157.49 that was shown as being reported to the County but then crossed out. There is a receipt attached but it appears the County never paid for the stay or Binder never stayed in the room. The receipt for parking however shows that she stayed overnight.
July 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018
Expenses$917.19 for Lodging for a VACo conference and $265.00 for two VACo conference Registration Fees.
Reimbursements
$41.68 for Gas, $6.00 for Tolls, and $39.00 for Parking. The Gas reimbursement was related to a VACo conference.
Repayments
None.
Anomalies
None.
18 Month Grand Total
Expenses totaled $1,477.19.Reimbursements totaled $86.68.
Supervisor's Response
In an effort to hear directly from the Supervisors on the topic of travel, we asked them a few questions. Cathy Binder did not respond to our email.
Continue reading:
Monday, July 1, 2019
Board of Supervisor Travel - Part 1 - Introduction
by Neil Richard
Editor's Note: One of our core principles at Project94 is that "All published pieces, except for opinion pieces, must strive for multiple perspectives, work to be unbiased, and contain the common goal of community cohesion." Sometimes our efforts to build that sense of community runs afoul of our mission to increase citizen awareness and knowledge. While we do not want to skew the reader's opinions before all of the information is published, we feel that a word of caution is necessary up front. We also encourage readers to read ALL of the articles in this series before coming to a conclusion.
On February 16, 2019, Project94 submitted a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request asking for information on the travel expenses incurred by the Board of Supervisors. Specifically, we asked for travel expenses as well as reimbursements from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018. That’s one fiscal year for King George County. Unlike other community members, we did not focus on just one Supervisor but instead focused on all of those in office during that time frame. That meant the following seven individuals were included in our request:
The purpose of the request was not to pick on any particular person in office, past or present. It was simply an effort to put to rest the questions being asked by citizens and an effort to hopefully build some unity among those in the community by getting all of the information out in the open. It also serves as an effort to educate voters on the spending habits and trends of their elected representatives.
For clarity, the full text of our request was:
Shortly after reviewing the data, we determined that there were more questions than answers in the information at hand. Our biggest issue was the lack of information regarding reimbursements. As it was worded in the request, we realized the County assumed we meant reimbursement payments made from the County to the Supervisors. In fact, we were asking for reimbursement payments from the Supervisors to the County. After several clarifying discussions with the County, we realized our original request was understood, there were just not as many reimbursements as we expected.
We also realized that because travel had become such a hot topic lately, we needed to include a larger time frame. So on March 11, 2019, nearly a month after the first request, we submitted a second FOIA request. Our request was similar to the one above but with a new date range of July 1, 2018 to March 1, 2019.
With the information from two different FOIA requests with the County in our hands, we began to crunch the numbers and review the data. As we began our review of the data, we were sent additional information from various community members from their own FOIA requests. While these additional FOIA documents came unsolicited, and were shared off the record, the information they contained matched the data we already had on hand.
So what did we find? Well, we found a lot. But before we share our final analysis, we encourage you to read all of the articles on all of the Supervisors. Each article will be linked below and at the bottom of each individual article in the series. Meanwhile, here's a glimpse of what we totaled up.
Expenses - These are the expenses the Supervisors recorded. These amounts were paid for directly by the County, typically through a County issued credit card.
Reimbursements - These are the expenses the Supervisors incurred personally and then asked for the County to reimburse them. In other words, the County paid the Supervisors these amounts.
Repayments - These are the amounts that were repaid to the County by the Supervisors and the National Association of Counties (NACo). For various reasons, the Supervisors paid the County back. These repayments were originally recorded as either Expenses or Reimbursements.
Continue reading:
Editor's Note: One of our core principles at Project94 is that "All published pieces, except for opinion pieces, must strive for multiple perspectives, work to be unbiased, and contain the common goal of community cohesion." Sometimes our efforts to build that sense of community runs afoul of our mission to increase citizen awareness and knowledge. While we do not want to skew the reader's opinions before all of the information is published, we feel that a word of caution is necessary up front. We also encourage readers to read ALL of the articles in this series before coming to a conclusion.
On February 16, 2019, Project94 submitted a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request asking for information on the travel expenses incurred by the Board of Supervisors. Specifically, we asked for travel expenses as well as reimbursements from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018. That’s one fiscal year for King George County. Unlike other community members, we did not focus on just one Supervisor but instead focused on all of those in office during that time frame. That meant the following seven individuals were included in our request:
- Cathy Binder
- Ruby Brabo
- Cedell Brooks, Jr.
- Jeffrey "Jeff" Bueche
- Richard Granger
- James "Jim" Howard
- John Jenkins, Jr.
The purpose of the request was not to pick on any particular person in office, past or present. It was simply an effort to put to rest the questions being asked by citizens and an effort to hopefully build some unity among those in the community by getting all of the information out in the open. It also serves as an effort to educate voters on the spending habits and trends of their elected representatives.
For clarity, the full text of our request was:
“I am requesting an opportunity to obtain copies of public records that show: - expenses paid for travel - revenue or reimbursement received for travel expenses During the following date range: - July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018 For the following people: - Cathy Binder - Ruby Brabo - Cedell Brooks, Jr. - Jeffrey "Jeff" Bueche - Richard Granger - James "Jim" Howard - John Jenkins, Jr. If there are any fees for searching or copying these records, please inform me if the cost will exceed $20. However, I would also like to request a waiver of all fees in that the disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest and will contribute significantly to the public’s understanding of travel expenses incurred by local elected officials and what expenses were reimbursed by other organizations or entities. As a member of the news media, this request is related to news gathering purposes and is not being sought for commercial purposes.”
Shortly after reviewing the data, we determined that there were more questions than answers in the information at hand. Our biggest issue was the lack of information regarding reimbursements. As it was worded in the request, we realized the County assumed we meant reimbursement payments made from the County to the Supervisors. In fact, we were asking for reimbursement payments from the Supervisors to the County. After several clarifying discussions with the County, we realized our original request was understood, there were just not as many reimbursements as we expected.
We also realized that because travel had become such a hot topic lately, we needed to include a larger time frame. So on March 11, 2019, nearly a month after the first request, we submitted a second FOIA request. Our request was similar to the one above but with a new date range of July 1, 2018 to March 1, 2019.
With the information from two different FOIA requests with the County in our hands, we began to crunch the numbers and review the data. As we began our review of the data, we were sent additional information from various community members from their own FOIA requests. While these additional FOIA documents came unsolicited, and were shared off the record, the information they contained matched the data we already had on hand.
So what did we find? Well, we found a lot. But before we share our final analysis, we encourage you to read all of the articles on all of the Supervisors. Each article will be linked below and at the bottom of each individual article in the series. Meanwhile, here's a glimpse of what we totaled up.
Expenses - These are the expenses the Supervisors recorded. These amounts were paid for directly by the County, typically through a County issued credit card.
Reimbursements - These are the expenses the Supervisors incurred personally and then asked for the County to reimburse them. In other words, the County paid the Supervisors these amounts.
Repayments - These are the amounts that were repaid to the County by the Supervisors and the National Association of Counties (NACo). For various reasons, the Supervisors paid the County back. These repayments were originally recorded as either Expenses or Reimbursements.
Continue reading:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)