OPINION - Courthouse Decision

by Neil Richard

The King George County Supervisors and the Citizen Budget Advisory Committee dedicated a single night to discussing the future plans of the County but more specifically the Courthouse. This meeting on October 3rd was their fourth Capital Improvement Program (CIP) meeting of the year but not the first time a plan for the future Courthouse was discussed. You can find an abundance of links in our prior coverage here as well as a details from a tour I took earlier this year and a great article by Sean Gates linking the past and future. While many of the Supervisors referred to the discussion as the "elephant in the room" I felt like it was the horse that died years ago and has been continually beaten.

Thankfully, after this particular meeting, it feels like everyone has agreed to move forward with building a new Courthouse. There was a lot of discussion regarding how much square footage was needed and the impression I got was that all of the Supervisors felt only 50,000 square feet was necessary. One judge and the Commonwealth's Attorney, Keri Gusmann, both spoke to the projected need of 63,000 square feet by 2027 and the fear that not building it to that size now would mean increased costs in the near future. Even though she said it was shortsighted, Gusmann was careful to say she didn't want to "give back" the idea that the Supervisors would at least build 50,000 square feet.

OPINION - Line By Line Review of Department Budgets

by Neil Richard

On January 31, 2019, the Board of Supervisors and most of the Citizen Budget Advisory Committee met for their second Budget Work Session. Just like the previous Work Session, Dr. Neiman Young, County Administrator, repeated much of what was covered last year. While he and the Supervisors may have remembered the information from last year, it served as a good education for the citizens.

Dr. Young's review covered the differences between charities and outside agencies, mandated and unmandated agencies, and a table comparing the amounts requested by outside agencies last year and the actual amounts funded by the Board. Dr. Young also assured the Board that neither he nor his staff removed any funding requests as it was the Board's decision on what was ultimately funded.

As in previous years, the Board agreed to not fund unmandated agencies with only a few exceptions. There was a general consensus to fund the disAbility Resource Center and the Thurman Brisben Homeless Shelter again this year. Bill Doyle, the Vice President of Finance at Rappahannock Community College (RCC), gave a short presentation explaining their funding request this year and why it was different. RCC asked for an additional $113 dollars this year compared to last year. While the Board listened, the general mood was that they saw no reason to pick apart his request but did appreciate his time and effort in presenting his request.

There was some discussion over King George County being a member of the Fredericksburg Regional Alliance (FRA) and how much that membership gave back to the County. There seemed to be some concern over the return on investment but the discussion somehow turned into another discussion on the defunct plan to bring natural gas to the Industrial Park. There was also some discussion of the large increase in funding requested from the Rappahannock Area Community Services Board (RACSB). At just over an extra $7,500 from last year, the Board felt like a presentation was in order to get a better understanding of why the request was so much larger and to learn more about what services they offer and how they benefit King George residents.

Dr. Young also reviewed the various line items that could, and would, impact the budget. The mandatory items included an unknown School Board budget, unknown health insurance increases, the Virginia Retirement System (VRS), and more. He also shared his desire to include optional items, such as the planned increase in County employee pay, four new employee positions, and a potential increase to the Supervisors salary. Much of this discussion was around the request for a truck inspector at the landfill to ensure trucks leaving the facility had no loose trash remaining in their trailers. Young said this used to be an existing position but was never back-filled when the previous employee left. He said he added this position due to the frequent complaints about trash along the roads near the landfill as well as main roads that trucks use to transport trash to the landfill. The Board balked a little bit and was more interested in looking to see if Waste Management could foot the bill. Dr. Young said he has already discussed the matter with them and it sounded like Waste Management felt the County should pay for it. In the end, the general consensus from the Board was to look at some way to share the cost of the inspector's salary between Waste Management and the County.

Next on the Agenda for the evening was a line-by-line review of three departments. Because the Social Services Director was on vacation, the only departments reviewed were Information Technology (IT) and Parks and Recreation. Chris Dines, Director of the IT Department, reviewed his budget page by page, line by line, and answered questions from the Board. When asked why there were so many licenses for Microsoft Office 365, Dines said it was for every County employee, not just the employees in the IT Department. The Board also questioned why he was paying for an air card for Travis Quesenberry, County Engineer. Dines said he needed a mobile connection when he was working in the field and didn't have a tablet that could do so.

Next up was Chris Clarke, Director of Parks and Recreation Department. His budget was split into four major sections; Administration, Citizen's Center, Athletics, and Programs. Clarke explained that because Athletics and Programs were self-sufficient with their funding, he wasn't going to review them. Under the Administration umbrella fell the majority of Clarke's budget. While nobody on the Board called attention to it, I noticed that of the fleet of vehicles used, only one was relatively new; a 2017 van. The other three vehicles used included a 2009 Ford Explorer and two vehicles from 2000. With half of his fleet nearly 20 years old, I predict a need for a new van next year.

When the flyers and brochures came up, most of the discussion focused on how the school system no longer allowed flyers to be sent home because of their use of the Peachjar tool. Peachjar is  a system by which school systems, including King George County, can electronically distribute flyers. In other words, instead of sending flyers and newsletters home with students, they can be sent in a more environmentally friendly way. There was also a lengthy discussion regarding the need for a PO Box versus a mailbox outside the building. The general consensus seemed to be that simply installing a mailbox would save the County $200 per year. The Board questioned the need for so many cell phones but Clarke explained that those employees that needed to be contacted on evenings or weekends had them as well as those employees that were often in the field because of athletic programs.

One discussion that both departments shared was the travel and conference expenses. Similar to her question last year, Ruby Brabo questioned why Dines had such a small budget for conferences. Dines said that because his staff is so small, he rarely attends them unless they are nearby. When the Board asked Clarke about the conference fees that Dr. Young had removed from his budget, Clarke said Dr. Young made a fair point that as a very new employee he should maybe wait until next year to attend more events.

Clarke then moved into the Citizen's Center budget, noting that with recent bathroom renovations, there was a significant drop in revenue. He also said the construction at the King George Middle School and a leaky roof at King George Elementary School have impacted their athletics programs as well. Although Clarke didn't go into detail about it, his budget paperwork did explain that the Citizen's Center was frequently rented by various groups. Because of this, cleaning staff often worked odd hours, including past midnight on weekends, to clean the building immediately following an event.

Although not a part of the presented budget, it was brought up that the Old King George Middle School currently had no heat. Because of this, the water was turned off to prevent pipes from freezing. Due to the lack of water, Dr. Young said a porta-potty was brought in for those that still rent the building. He said although it wasn't ideal, it was a stop-gap measure until heat and water could be restored.

Future work sessions are scheduled for February 13th and 26th with the first meeting covering a line-by-line review of Social Services and expenditure reports and the second meeting will include a briefing from Davenport. Future work sessions beyond those will include a budget from the School Board and revenue reports.

Further Reading:

January 29, 2019 - A View From Outside The Citizen Budget Advisory Committee

OPINION - A View From Outside The Citizen Budget Advisory Committee

by Neil Richard

In 2018, I was appointed as a member of the inaugural Citizen Budget Advisory Committee. Over the course of eight months, I went to multiple meetings and learned more than I ever expected about how the County's budget is crafted, the hard work staff puts into how money is spent, and the challenging questions everyone faces. Instead of covering these Committee meetings as a member this year, I will be covering them from the outside as a member of the public. I was asked if my participation last year was why I wasn't selected this year but I feel that isn't the case. If it were, I wouldn't have been appointed to the Service Authority's Citizen Budget Advisory Committee.

The citizens serving on the 2019 Committee are Harry Pendleton, Joseph Gaborow, Jeff Stonehill, Gillian Woodring, and Carrie Cleveland. At their first meeting on January 24, 2019, the Committee met with four of the five Supervisors as well as Wilma Ward, the County's Finance Director, and Dr. Neiman Young, County Administrator. John Jenkins was out sick.

Randy Jones, Treasurer, was in the audience during the first presentation from Public Financial Management (PFM) employee Kathleen Bowe who gave the audience an overview of the County's financial investments. Although this falls under the control of the Treasurer, the Supervisors asked for the presentation to get a better idea of the financial standing of the County's money. Bowe told everyone that the three guiding objectives were safety, liquidity, and the rate of return. Going through the presentation, she covered market outlook, the basics of the policies that control the investments, and the portfolio.

Dr. Neiman Young then gave his State of the County Briefing. Not to belittle Young's efforts but much of the briefing was similar to last year. There were a few important differences to note such as the eight major retail and industrial projects that resulted in $12 million dollars being invested in the County in 2018. Additionally, Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs) were cash funded to the tune of $2.4 million dollars in 2018. Young noted that the Emergency Services departments generally save more property than they lose, the bean sprout factory fire resulted in an abnormally large loss in 2018. Young listed numerous capital projects that were completed and other major initiatives that helped the County, including a new nuisance or unsafe building ordinance that has already resulted in one prosecution and School Resource Officers at elementary schools.

Another big project that was started in 2018 was the debt mitigation policy. With the first payment being made in December 2018, Young said the County has saved $2.7 million in principle and $1.067 million in interest over the life of the debt owed. This also impacts the revenue side of funding by un-leveraging an additional $600,000 form the expected landfill revenue. He said the landfill is a finite source of revenue for the capital fund and saves residents roughly 28 cents per dollar in taxes. He gave an example of his own mortgage payment, saying the net result would be an increase in roughly $75 per month he would have to pay if the landfill revenue wasn't there to fund capital improvements. Ruby Brabo added that because past leadership decided to borrow against the expected landfill revenue instead of cash funding major projects with the funds already on hand, 18 of the 27 years left at the landfill are already leveraged. In other words, the landfill has a life span that is expected to last another 27 years. Of those 27 years, the revenue for 18 years has already been borrowed against. Brabo said that the current leadership has cash funded projects for the last three years now. These numbers do differ from last year but the ratio didn't change much.

Dr. Young continued his report by noting that the upcoming Nice Bridge replacement on Route 301 will result in increased traffic. He also said that before the bridge is built, traffic is expected to double due to major construction projects on Interstate 95. He called King George the "eye of traffic congestion" and said our community could effectively be split into two pieces, one east of Route 301 and one west. Young did say that looking into the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) revenue sharing program was a great idea for future projects but cautioned it would require the County to fund half of the money.

At the end of his State of the County report, Young again reminded everyone of the two major capital projects that would need to be discussed; the Courthouse and a new accounting system. These are not the only CIPs to be considered, just the more pressing ones. Young finished by listing out the next meeting dates as well as asking the Supervisors which departments they wanted to review line by line. The Supervisors decided to review the IT, Parks and Recreation, and Social Services departments.

Wilma Ward, Director of Finance, then gave a presentation that was also similar to last year where she covered the basics of how a budget was developed for each department. She gave an overview of how each department head creates the budget, reviews it, and presents it to herself and Dr. Young before submitting it to the Supervisors. Ward also repeated that the Courthouse and accounting system were on the list for CIPs as well as new fire stations, new school buses, and decommissioning the Purkins Corner and Oakland Park Waste Water Treatment Plants. She gave preliminary cost estimates for each project but cautioned that every time a project is delayed, the cost estimate rises.

Overall, the evening was almost an exact replica of last year's presentations but with updated figures and with a clearly stated list of accomplishments. Seeing that progress has been made made me feel good but seeing the cost of potential capital projects rise didn't. Learning how the County handles investments made me feel confident that our reserves are being invested wisely. I hope last year's bumpy road for the Committee is much smoother this year and thank the citizens for agreeing to serve.

Future work sessions:

• Work Session #2 - January 31, 2019 at 6:30pm in the Board Room
• Work Session #3 - February 13, 2019 at 6:30pm in the Board Room
• Work Session #4 - February 26, 2019 at 6:30pm Company One

 
For further reading, here are the articles on the 2018 Citizen Budget Advisory Committee meetings and associated Capital Improvement Program meetings.

• Citizen Budget Advisory Committee - Part 1
• Citizen Budget Advisory Committee - Part 2
• Citizen Budget Advisory Committee - Part 3
• Citizen Budget Advisory Committee - Part 4
• Citizen Budget Advisory Committee - Part 5
• Citizen Budget Advisory Committee - Part 6
• Citizen Budget Advisory Committee - Part 7
• Citizen Budget Advisory Committee - Part 8
• Capital Improvement Program - Part 1
• Capital Improvement Program - Part 2
• Capital Improvement Program - Part 3 

2019-01-30 - CORRECTION: The amount of interest saved over the life of the loan from the debt mitigation payment was incorrectly reported as "$1.76 million." The correct figure is $1.067 million.

2019-01-22 - Board of Supervisors Meeting Notes

by Neil Richard

The King George County Board of Supervisors opened their meeting at 7:06pm on January 22, 2019.

There were no amendments to the Agenda.

Public Comment was opened by Michele Darnell of The Belle Grove Plantation. She said she has faced issues with signage on the property since 2013 noting that for their bed and breakfast business it is limited to one sign. She said during the winter months it's easy to see but not so for the other three months. Darnell said they have installed banners and other signs as allowed but they had to be removed due to a recent complaint. She felt that there was a double standard where other businesses, especially those outside of King George, are allowed multiple signs, while they are not. She said she had permission from the land owner and the farmer leasing the cropland to place additional signs there. Darnell said she wasn't there to make it harder for others but rather easier for everyone. She noted that their success at Belle Grove is the success of others. Their business employs many local residents and vendors and their signs from the holidays brought in 360 tour guests, which was enough to employ four people for the entire month of December and earn nearly $1,000 in tax revenue for the County. Darnell continued by noting that the way complaints about signs are handled needs to be changed. She said that at this time, anyone can complain about a sign without giving their name. She felt this was an opportunity for people to harass business owners. She asked that the Board change this policy to collect the name of the complainant. Darnell noted that the name doesn't need to be shared with the other parties, but rather kept by the County as a safeguard against potential harassment.

Next to speak was Rob Neal who came to speak against the proposed shooting facility at the former Cameron Hills Golf Course. He thanked Cathy Binder for her service and support. He said he was there not to offend or insult but was passionate about this. He said many years ago there was a Board of Supervisors meeting where there was a vote to allow the property to be used as a golf course. He said this vote had no impact on the neighbors but the same couldn't be said for the proposal of a gun range. He said around Christmas time he was outside decorating and heard a steady stream of gunfire from the golf course property. He said the high powered rifle would fire every thirty seconds or so. Neal said he became agitated and went inside to calm down and think about how to deal with the noise. He said he could still hear the gunfire inside and the idea of hearing that multiplied by multiple guns on multiple ranges was overwhelming. He said he couldn't live the rest of his life there unhappy. Neal continued by saying he had heard a Supervisor say in the past that the decision would be based on facts. He asked whose facts would be used in this decision. He said no one on the Board, County employees, or the Ognek brothers would be living in the area and said that they wouldn't be subjected to the noise like he would be. Neal said that the decision the Board makes would impact him and the rest of the community. He said his neighbor has over 2,000 acres and all of their future choices on how to use their property would be based on how the Board votes.

John Jenkins was first to give a Board report. He thanked everyone for their comments and for attending the meeting. To Mrs. Darnell he said he appreciated her comments and that she raised valid points about the signs, not just for her business but others too. He said he has heard similar complaints but has also heard complaints about too many signs. To Mr. Neal, Jenkins said he appreciated his comments as well and was confident that the Board would make the right decision "for you and the rest of the community." Jenkins concluded by saying he attended the Economic Development work session on January 16 noting that there was a lot of good discussion. He was excited that they're close to being done. Jenkins then appointed Ross Devries to the Planning Commission and Jeff Stonehill to the Citizen Budget Advisory Committee.

Richard Granger began his report by thanking Mrs. Darnell for coming out. He said they had talked about this before and felt it might be a good idea to have Community Development prepare some information for the next meeting to look at the specific points in her complaint as well as determining how the County ordinances compare to other nearby localities.

Ruby Brabo interrupted and said she was going to recommend sending it to the Planning Commission as she noticed a lot of contradictions and sections that needed updates. She also asked the Board to consider how much they were willing to invest in policing signs in the County. Jeff Bueche asked for a consensus from the Board and they agreed to send the matter to the Planning Commission.

Granger continued his report by thanking Mr. Neal and repeating earlier statements that the current zoning ordinances do not specify gun ranges. Granger said he appreciated the concern and getting out early. He continued by adding he also attended the work session on the 16th and that it was good to see citizen feedback.

Granger then commented on the recent alerts from Fredericksburg City about the odor issues in the Ferry Farm area being caused by the King George Landfill. He appreciated Dr. Neiman Young, County Administrator, Fire and Rescue Chief Moody, Jeff Bueche, and others for their work in determining that the claims were inaccurate and unfounded. He said Fredericksburg later rescinded the alert. Granger also noted that Waste Management has moved up their timeline to install gas wells at the landfill to further assist in reducing odor complaints.

Cathy Binder opened her report by thanking everyone for coming out. She thanked Mrs. Darnell for her input on the signs and told Mr. Neal that she was currently reading the gun range proposal and had concerns. Binder said she attended the Dahlgren Heritage Foundation Board of Directors meeting on January 16 and noted they were working to finalize programs to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Dahlgren [EDITOR'S NOTE - Neil Richard, a co-founder of Project94, is an employee of the Dahlgren Heritage Museum.]. She also attended the work session on the 16th and appreciated the citizens who came out. On January 17, Binder attended the Smoot Library Board of Trustees meeting where she learned a lot about the paintings that a local artist painted and installed in the Courthouse.

Ruby Brabo started her report by thanking Mrs. Darnell for speaking. She said that the current ordinance allows for an additional, temporary banner to be used for an event for 30 days. She said her understanding from Community Development was that the farm area next to the Bed and Breakfast wasn't included in the allowed area which made no sense to her.

Dr. Young interjected that there are two different parcels with one owner. With the Belle Grove house on one parcel, that was the only parcel that could be used for advertising while the second parcel was for agricultural use. Brabo said she didn't see that stipulation in the ordinances so maybe she didn't understand. Granger added that he read it to mean that it was only the business property that could be used for signs. Brabo said it sounded like there needed to be something to clarify that point going forward.

Brabo then thanked Mr. Neal for coming out and said this was a serious issue. She said a lot of times in the past she was the odd man out on votes because she always thought about how it would impact her if the project in question were in her back yard.

Brabo continued her report saying she participated in a National Association of Counties (NACo) conference call on January 11. She said she also participated in a White House conference call on border security and was surprised to hear the President on the call. She quoted the President as saying the "first duty of government is to protect the nation and its borders." She also added the President said the shutdown would continue as long as necessary. Brabo said she also attended the work session on the 16th and the Planning Commission Open House on January 17. She said it was great for them to do this and said it was probably the first time the County has done this.

Brabo also participated in another NACo conference call on January 22 where the upcoming 2020 census was discussed. It was noted that it was aiming to do the majority of the data collection online, leading to a high potential for under reporting in rural counties where internet isn't present. She said this would create inaccurate data. Also discussed was the current Federal Communication Commission (FCC) process where internet service providers self-report their coverage. She said this data is used by Congress to determine funding for broadband but is also not accurate for many rural areas. Brabo said NACo is working to develop an app that can measure internet speeds to give a better picture of any gaps between what is reported and what actually exists.

Brabo continued her report by noting several proposed bills in the Virginia Senate and House. She noted Senator Hanger's proposed bill, SB 1328, would allow more counties to use Stormwater Local Assistance Funds. She asked for a letter of support to be sent and the Board agreed. Brabo also noted HB 2222 which would allow for a School Board to collect revenue from advertisements on a school bus. She asked if the Board would like to send a letter of support and the general consensus was to do so. Brabo also brought everyone's attention to proposed bills SB 1430 and SB 1431 that would require Conflict of Interest and Freedom of Information Act training for elected officials but would also prohibit a Commonwealth Attorney from concurrently serving as a County Attorney. She ended her report by saying Congressman Wittman was named the Co-Chair of the Rural Broadband Caucus.

Jeff Bueche started his report by thanking Mrs. Darnell for coming out. He said he always enjoys going to Belle Grove and noted that his in-laws like tea there, but not so much himself. Bueche said he has enjoyed several events there in the past and thanked Darnell for bringing the issues to their attention. He felt confident the Planning Commission would do their part. Bueche then thanked Mr. Neal for his comments and said they added a personal touch to the issue instead of just looking at things on paper. He appreciated that and encouraged Neal to have his neighbors come out and speak about the potential impacts to them.

Bueche then thanked the Service Authority Board of Directors for what they did earlier in the evening, offering a way to provide assistance to those impacted by the government shutdown. He said he is affected by the closure as a Coastie, a member of the Coast Guard, but was not a Service Authority customer. Regardless, he said, he appreciated that they are doing something for those are are affected.

Bueche said he also attended the work session on the 16th as well as the Open House on the 17th. He thanked Ryan Gandy, Director of Economic Development, Annie Cupka, Economic Development Coordinator, and Dr. Young for all of their hard work and long hours in producing the Economic Development Plan. He also noted that the Open House was highly attended and was surprised at how much interest there was. On January 20, Bueche joined Dr. Young to visit the Route 205 and Sealston Convenience Centers. He said he's been using the Route 205 Center since 2005 and noted the change since then. Gone was the white sludge leaking from the containers and instead he noticed it was clean and the County employees were polite and busy working. He said he could understand how some residents may not always get the help unloading trash like in the past but noted that the employees do have other duties to attend to. Bueche said he spoke to one employee who recently dealt with an individual that came in without a County sticker, a requirement to use any convenience center. Bueche said the employee approached the individual, told them they wouldn't be allowed to dump trash, and was told "you can't stop me." Bueche said the persons information was collected and reported to the appropriate authorities and cautioned everyone that "manhandling our employees" can't happen here. Bueche closed his comments by thanking Delegate Ransone for her comments on the floor of the House of Delegates.

Bueche then opened the floor for the other Supervisors to make nominations for the Citizen Budget Advisory Committee. Granger nominated Jillian Wittering. Binder nominated Joseph Gaveraux. Brabo nominated Harry Pendleton. Bueche nominated Carrie Cleveland. Binder also nominated Ted Klopsis to the Building Code of Appeals.

The Consent Agenda was approved.

The County Attorney, Eric Gregory, had no report.

Lavita Cobb, Payroll Specialist, and Travis Self, Building Inspector, then gave the Board a presentation on their recent attendance of the NACo Leadership Course. They took turns during the presentation and started by thanking the Board, Dr. Young, Brad Hudson, Director of Community Development, Wilma Ward, Director of Finance, and Amanda Sumiel, Director of Human Resources for allowing them to attend. They said the twelve week class taught people how to better handle situations and manage teams while adapting to change. Brabo asked if they were put into the same group for their exercises and they said no, they were split up. They said the course leaders wanted each group to have a mix of every region as well as different levels of leaders. Cobb and Self continued that the main pillars or concepts for the course were based on General Colin Powell's 13 Rules of Leadership. The first rule that repeatedly applied to their course, they said, was that "it ain't as bad as you think, it'll look better in the morning."  They also said the principle of "it can be done" applied many times as well as the idea of perpetual optimism. Cobb and Self said this optimism, or "bringing your own weather," really could impact the people around you in a positive way. Self specifically said that the value he gained from the leadership course was that it taught him to develop leadership tendencies and processes that were more positive, even though he wasn't in a position of leadership. They ended their presentation by again thanking them for sending them to the leadership course and hoped two more people would be able to go to the next one. Brabo said that the Board had already approved two more employees to attend and was excited that Cobb and Self got to attend.

Next on the Agenda was an update to the Personnel Policy to add a section on Sexual Harassment and Workplace Violence. Granger said he had already sent some corrections that were reflected in the printed copy they had before them. Brabo said the policy mentions "staff" but does not mention elected officials and felt that they, meaning the Board, should also be included. The general consensus of the Board was to agree. Bueche also noted a minor spelling correction was needed in one section. The Board approved the new policy with the noted corrections.

A discussion of a Cigarette Tax was next with Eric Gregory, County Attorney, starting things off with an overview of the current status. He said that in the State of Virginia, the taxing authority is divided between counties on one side and cities and towns on the other. He said for counties to tax cigarettes, there needs to be a specific statutory authorization and that King George is not one that is currently authorized to levy such a tax. Gregory said the rationale was that cities and towns would need to use such a tax to pay for various services, such as schools, roads, and emergency services. He said bills have been proposed in the past, including two this year, but have been killed. He noted that two more bills are still alive and that a letter of support has been prepared and ready for submission to show the Supervisors' support for the tax. He did caution the Board that a letter of support was not a guarantee that the bills would pass. Gregory did say that if a bill passed, it would not go into effect until 2020 and would need to be studied before then to ensure they didn't conflict with existing laws.

Brabo said her only suggestion was to include an addendum to the letter to add that the Board supported the tax based on what the Sheriff had to say. Bueche said that was part of why he invited Sheriff Dempsey to come out and speak.

With that, Sheriff Dempsey came forward and gave a brief overview of the involvement of the Sheriff's Department in the cigarette industry. He said historically, they've worked to fight cigarette smuggling and have worked with both Federal and New York authorities in the past to solve major cases. Dempsey said King George is one of two counties in the state that is known as a cigarette capital and that 1,714 cartons are sold per day. He said this amounts to over 600,000 cartons sold per year and that doesn't account for what is sold out the back door. Dempsey also said that while Missouri has the lowest tax rate for cigarettes at 17 cents ($0.17) per pack, Virginia is second with 30 cents ($0.30) per pack. Meanwhile, Maryland charges two dollars ($2.00) per pack, DC is a little more at two and a half dollars ($2.50), and New York is over six dollars ($6.16) per pack. He said Virginia is providing a great deal of cigarettes to the East Coast because of how we're geographically located.

Brabo asked Sheriff Dempsey if he felt this was a burden on his resources, especially with the smuggling. Dempsey said it was. He said the large smuggling ring a few years ago as well as multiple break-ins every year at cigarette stores resulted in investigations.

Granger said he felt they should move forward with the letter. Bueche asked Gregory if he could add what the Sheriff contributed, noting that King George is being exploited and that the new bridge would result in even more traffic and more smuggling. Granger said the letter should also make it clear that this isn't just a money grab but that there was a clear negative impact on things from a law enforcement perspective. Brabo also added that safety is paramount and said the big ring that was investigated a few years ago netted nearly 30 arrests with some having ties to terrorist organizations in the Middle East. She said that did not combine well with the proximity to the Navy's premier research and development station in Dahlgren.

Dr. Young then gave a report on the recent complaints about trailers at the Convenience Centers. He noted that on three recent occasions he was told that the Purkins Corner (Route 205) Convenience Center was near or at capacity and would need to close. As a result, he said he and County staff worked to find creative solutions to keep the Convenience Center open for the hours posted. Young said he met with Jeff Jenkins, Director of Landfill Operations and no relation to Supervisor John Jenkins, and discovered that the Convenience Center reached capacity quickly because it was not being used as originally designed. Young said the Purkins Corner Convenience Center was designed for smaller loads and that bulk and oversize loads should be going to the Sealston Convenience Center next to the landfill. Young said this information was posted at the Convenience Center as well as online and that the original intent of the phrases "bulk waste" and "oversized loads" was to include trailers, box trucks, sofas, and more. He said it was impossible to list everything that was prohibited, be that what the garbage consisted of or how it was transported to the Convenience Center.

Young said he later spoke with the County Engineer who confirmed the original intent of the rules, specifically the prohibition of trailers. As it was explained to Young, the Purkins Corner Convenience Center was designed to handle only minor waste that could be carried in a household garbage can, not a bulk load. It was further explained that bulk loads could be inspected at the Sealston Convenience Center before they were dumped to insure any commercial waste was rerouted to the landfill itself.

Young said he also spoke with Waste Management who provided additional confirmation that during their management of the Purkins Corner Convenience Center, bulk waste was not allowed. Waste Management contracted out the management of the facility in 2013 and the enforcement of the policies became lax.

Young continued by saying the restriction against bulk waste at the Purkins Corner Convenience Center was a standing policy historically and was included on signs at the site itself as well as online. He conceded that there was no policy in the County's Code or ordinances and said that the operation of the Convenience Center is hardly mentioned. Young said the Board is allowed to adopt ordinances and operating procedures for the Convenience Centers. He said this was never done in the past because the County was never directly in charge of the facilities. Because of a lack of existing and clearly defined codes and ordinances, Young said he felt obligated to enforce the existing policies but would defer to the Board's judgement if they felt inclined to have him modify or rescind them. Young also added that it wasn't just a capacity issue at the Purkins Corner Convenience Center, noting that the extra length of the trailer could cause a traffic hazard on Henry Griffin Road or Route 205 (Ridge Road).

Granger said that until such time as the Board codifies a policy, he felt the subject fell under the day-to-day operations and that Dr. Young was well within his purview. He said the Board can look at it when it comes before them as a policy to adopt but until then it fell to Dr. Young to enforce the rules.

Brabo said she concurred and that, as already discussed, there will be extenuating circumstances for some residents and that they can call the Director, Jeff Jenkins, to ask for a one-time exemption. She also said she wanted to make sure the Landfill Advisory Committee was being tasked with creating a Standard Operating Procedure [EDITOR'S NOTE - Neil Richard, a co-founder of Project94, is a member of the Landfill Advisory Committee.].

Young said that Jeff Jenkins had already spoken to the Chair of the Landfill Advisory Committee and they expected to have something before the Board by February.

Brabo said she appreciated the clarifications.

Next on the Agenda was a discussion about a good date and time for a joint meeting with the Tourism Advisory Committee and a leadership summit. There was a general consensus among the Board to invite the chair and vice-chair of the various committees to the leadership summit. The Board also agreed to meet with the Tourism Advisory Committee on February 4 at 6:30pm.

Dr. Young then commended Annie Cupka, Economic Development Coordinator, for her hard work on the SmartScale project submissions. Young said the University Drive Double R-Cut project earned the highest score in the Fredericksburg District and the Route 301 and Route 3 Median U-Turn project ranked fourth out of ten. Brabo added that if the University Drive project had any sort of beneficial impact on the Navy base, she recommended asking Captain O'Leary for a letter of support.

The Board then went into Closed Session at 8:26pm and invited Dr. Young and Eric Gregory to attend.

The Board returned from Closed Session at 8:39pm.

Granger then attempted to appoint Gina Panciera to the Building Code of Appeals but Brabo noted that she was an elected official, she serves on the King George County School Board, and thus may not be eligible. Gregory said he would look into it.

The meeting adjourned at 8:40pm.

Meeting Attendees:
John Jenkins (Board of Supervisors)
Jeff Bueche (Chairman, Board of Supervisors)
Richard Granger (Board of Supervisors)
Ruby Brabo (Board of Supervisors)
Cathy Binder (Board of Supervisors)
Neiman Young (County Administrator)
Eric Gregory (County Attorney)

Meeting Agenda

Next Meeting:
The Board of Supervisors will next meet on January 24, 2019 at 6:30 pm at Company 1 Headquarters.

Previous Meeting:
Read about the previous Board of Supervisors Meeting.

OPINION - Citizen Budget Advisory Committee - Capital Improvement Program

by Neil Richard

The King George County Board of Supervisors met with the Citizen Budget Advisory Committee On September 11, 2018. Unfortunately, I was the only Committee member to show. I would guess the rest of the Committee thought the last meeting was the end. Thankfully, those that presented to the Board all had solid cases for their future improvement projects with data and personal stories to prove their needs.

The meeting began with a brief detour from the planned Agenda when Dr. Neiman Young, County Administrator asked the Board to consider declaring a local state of emergency. There was some discussion as to if it needed to be done now and what the implications were for such a declaration. Dr. Young said that he could declare a local emergency without Board approval but preferred that the Supervisors make the decision since they were already in a meeting together. As for what it meant to the residents of King George, Young said it gave him some extra purchasing power for equipment as well as the ability to determine what staff was necessary to have on duty but that he would still need to answer for his actions to the Board within 15 days. With the Supervisors planning to meet at a regular Board meeting on the 18th, they felt comfortable with voting to declare a local emergency.

Dr. Young then went into the meat of the meeting by giving an overview of the topics for the evening. Each department with a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project was there to present why there was a need, how much it was projected to cost, and what the planned timeline was for the project. Young said each department head had already presented their requests to the Planning Commission and the Finance Department. Both groups ranked the severity or level of need for each project and it was now time for the Board to hear the same presentation.

The first presentation was the proverbial elephant in the room; the Courthouse. Each of the seven individuals that spoke on the topic were in favor of a new building for the Courthouse. Three judges spoke about the need for increased security for themselves, witnesses, jury members, and attorneys. One Judge said he sentenced a man to prison and when he left the Courthouse, the man's wife was smoking a cigarette next to his car. He said while there was no incident that occurred that day, he worried that something could happen in the future. Another Judge said that when he started working in King George, he found mold growing on the law books in his office. There were also concerns about prisoners walking down a hallway past the judge's office, witnesses sharing a hallway and lobby with defendants, and that victims of crimes, including children, didn't have the necessary privacy to consult with their attorneys.

The list of issues grew when several stated that humidity was an issue inside. One attorney said she emptied the five dehumidifiers in her office daily while a court clerk said she had three dehumidifiers and had to empty them just as often. They said running reports in the morning was an issue because the increased humidity made the printers not feed paper correctly, sometimes causing delays.

Vic Mason, Clerk of the Circuit Court, summed up the Supervisor's dilemma nicely by stating that it "isn't politically popular to spend money." At a projected cost of $32 million or more, it is a lot of money to spend. But it was clear that there was a need for a new building, and several that spoke, including Sheriff Dempsey, said the Courthouse was a symbol of the County and its citizens.

Of those speaking about the current situation at the Courthouse, none mentioned that the current building was built nearly 100 years ago and has been modified and expanded several times. It is also the third Courthouse in the history of the County and, as one person stated, it has served its purpose and lived well beyond its useful life.

Dr. Young said that he regretted his failure to inform Dr. Benson, Superintendent of King George County Schools, about the CIP Meeting but would make sure he was given time to present his requests in the future.

Next up was Sheriff Dempsey who had a laptop replacement, radio communications system, and the tail end of a lease contract on his CIP request. Ruby Brabo asked if Dempsey could begin a staggered purchasing plan going forward so the expense could be spread out over several years. The Sheriff also gave some extra detail on the communications system he was asking for, saying that King George was one of the last counties in the area to use the older system. He said the new setup, a trunking system, would allow King George to better communicate with surrounding localities.

Chief Moody of the County's Fire, Rescue, and Emergency Services followed the Sheriff and asked for a new Ambulance, new fire stations, a new brush truck, and new AED units. This is a perfect time to remind readers that these are future requests and not set in stone. So when I say Chief Moody asked for new fire stations, he was simply telling the Board of Supervisors that there would be a need in the future to replace the station house in Dahlgren and to build a new station house in the Shiloh District. The idea behind the CIP discussion is to be forward-thinking and to plan ahead. Jeff Bueche asked for more details on the brush truck, as well as other vehicles in the Chief's fleet. Bueche said he had heard questions from constituents regarding the need for mini-vans or cars that didn't appear capable of responding to emergencies. Moody said those were purchased with grants or left over funds and were used by volunteers for official business, such as going to training sessions. Moody said his goal was to reduce the financial burden on volunteers.

Tim Smith, Director of Parks and Recreation, then gave his presentation on the five projects he was looking at in the future. His first project, revitalizing the old animal shelter at Brooks Park, met with some resistance. However, it appeared by the end of discussion, the minor cost of $50,000 to turn the building into an education center met with approval. The tennis courts, located between the Middle School and High School, was also subject to discussion as to how it would be repaired. Lighting at Barnesfield Park, infrastructure improvements at Brooks Park, and an expansion at Sealston Sports Complex rounded out the list. Although those projects were slated for funding far into the future, the desire for a new Community Center, or Citizen's Center, was also on the list but not given a time frame. Smith said it was certainly needed and several Supervisors said they had heard complaints by residents not being able to use it because it was already booked.

Next up was Chris Dines, Director of Information Technology. His CIP list included new cabling and fiber optic lines, a new server, and a future switch for cloud-based functionality. Dines said the cabling improvements were to avoid leaks and the fiber optic lines would provide a redundant system for emergency operations. The new server would provide an off-site storage location with cloud-based access. All of these improvements would help County offices continue to function in the event of an emergency or disaster.

Dr. Young was the last to present, telling the Board that the County's current financial software would not be supported in the future and would need to be replaced. There was also discussion about the decommissioning of the Purkins Corner and Oakland Park Wastewater Treatment Plants. The Board felt like these facilities may not be as bad off as they were told in the past. Dr. Young also said the proposals came in too late to be included, but he was making progress in locating a company to digitize the County's records.

The evening wound down with some discussion of fund balances. While the audit is still in progress, there looked to be a little money left over at the end of the year. Dr. Young also told the Board that Wilma Ward, Director of Finance, had done a deep scrub of some old capital fund accounts and found some money left over. Ward said it wasn't a lot of money, but the capital projects had been completed so the funds were no longer needed. The biggest chunk of money was the funding set aside for a gas line into the Industrial Park that would no longer be pursued. This money, roughly $2.7 million, would be re-appropriated into the Capital Fund for future projects.

In the end, the biggest project, physically and financially, on the radar was a new Courthouse. Having been built decades ago and expanded and renovated numerous times, the general consensus from the Board was that repairing it again wasn't an option. While they still wanted to look at other options, such as using the old Middle School, they did understand the need for a new facility. And while the other projects may seem far off or smaller in scope, the Board appeared to be dedicated to being as fiscally savvy as possible while meeting the needs of as many as possible. With the old Middle School now belonging to the County, it was also considered as a future location for the Citizen's Center. While no final decision has been made on that building, or any future project, it felt good to see the Board looking at the current needs but also the future needs.

OPINION - Citizen Budget Advisory Committee - The End

by Neil Richard

While I had assumed the previous meeting of the Citizen Budget Advisory Committee was the last one, I apparently proved the adage correct about what making assumptions does to "u and me." So when I went to the June 12, 2018 Board of Supervisors budget work session meeting, I was not prepared to join the Board at the grown-up table and was rather content to sit in the audience.

Instead, as the Board settled in, somebody asked where the rest of the citizens were. Within seconds, I was directed to step up and participate in the discussions on a two-year budget.

It quickly became apparent that it was a three-year budget and that it was not set in stone. In fact, if I could reach through whatever screen you're reading this on and make this so painfully clear, I would. The budget Dr. Neiman Young, County Administrator, presented was a draft, expenditure-based budget that could almost be called a wish-list. While that phrase, "wish-list," was used a few times, I'm hesitant to use that label as it feels a little unprofessional. And based on the numbers discussed and the department leaders that presented them, I didn't think it was quite the right phrase to use.

Dr. Young was quick to dive into the FY2020 and FY2021 projections by saying they were based largely on the formats used by Fairfax and Fluvanna. He said he originally planned to develop a two-year budget but staff recommended a three-year budget due to the financial demands that would be coming in the future. Again, Dr. Young said the budget he was showing was for planning purposes only, not set in stone, and not adopted. He also cautioned the public to not use it as a gauge for what future tax increases would look like since the County's revenue was also due to increase. In other words, Dr. Young did his best to make it clear that this was simply a draft budget.

For FY2020, Dr. Young said some of the key factors in the roughly two percent increase included the beginning of digital archives, new County employees, and IT upgrades. Most interesting to me was the plan to digitize the County's documents. While the initial process would take a few years to complete, Young said the general idea was to make over 300 years of material available to the public. He said his fear was that a single natural disaster could erase the history of the County as well as impact present-day operations. By having a digital archive stored outside of the County, the records would be preserved and easily accessible to the staff and general public.

I remained quiet as Smoot Library was once again discussed. As in previous sessions, I stayed quiet on the sensitive topic. While I didn't agree with the stance of the Board, I feel like I did, finally, get a better understanding of where they stand on things. Because the Library is not a County department, the Board feels they are not as obligated to fund them in ever-increasing amounts. And not that the Board doesn't want to fund the Schools, they too are in a similar boat as they get funding from multiple sources. In the end, the Board appeared to be intent on level-funding the Library going forward. While I wholeheartedly disagree with that stance, I at least have a better understanding of where the Board is coming from.

For FY2021, Dr. Young said the three percent budget increase was largely due to the increased cost of firefighters. He said the grant that currently covers their pay will expire and the County will be required to pick up the tab going forward. He also cited other reasons such as potential retirements of County employees, increased staffing at the Sheriff's Office, and other needs.

Also discussed was the desire to have the County School system partner with the County itself on sharing resources. There was also a desire to start the next budget cycle earlier and suggestions were given on other ways to save County money.

With the budget presentations over, Dr. Young and Annie Cupka, Grant Writer, then presented the Economic Development Strategic Plan. The presentation was essentially a final draft of what will become the Strategic Plan going forward. It's the end result of the SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat) Analysis done by Ryan Gandy, Director of Economic Development, over the past few months. By engaging various individuals and groups across the County, the idea was to gather information and develop a plan to improve economic development.

The presentation included a lot of the same information from previous meetings but in a more refined and polished format. There was discussion about various points in the presentation but a few stood out in my mind as important. As a fan of history, and as an employee of the Dahlgren Heritage Museum, I took note of the section about historical assets. My previous theory on where the Board stood with the library was emphasized again when the Board didn't want language that said the County would provide a location for a historical museum. Instead, it was changed to language more along the lines of fostering growth of a museum and providing an amenable environment for one. In other words, the Board was not willing to completely fund a museum or to just give them a location to operate out of, but rather they were more inclined to help the museums become self-sufficient.

Another interesting point for me was the idea behind a lack of entertainment in the County. Having been recently fascinated with the concept of the "Third Place," I've begun to wonder what was missing in King George. For me, it really is that third place behind home and work that you go to for socializing, community building, food, drinks, and everything else. Hopefully this plan will help address that community need for a place to gather.

One final topic that was interesting for me was the discussion of leveraging Mixed Use Development (MUD) to help meet the need of affordable housing. The Planning Commission was holding a Public Hearing at the same time elsewhere and unbeknownst to the Board, had voted against adding the new MUD amendment to the zoning ordinances. But during the Board's discussion of MUD in the County, there was concern over too much development and how it could trigger a scenario where an MS4 Permit would be required. The MS4, or Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System, Permit is how the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) monitors and controls storm water runoff. The consensus among the Board was that in order to avoid the MS4 Permit, solid planning would need to be in place for any MUD development, private or public.

Ryan Gandy, having arrived partway through the previous presentation, delivered the next presentation on the Broadband Planning Grant Decision Points. He had previously been at the Planning Commission meeting to present the MUD amendment.

Gandy's Broadband presentation got off to a bumpy start as some of the Board seemed surprised that the end result of the grant application would be a Request For Proposal (RFP). After clarifying that point and that it would not create a monopoly or exclusive contract for a broadband provider in the County, and that any decision would be dependent upon the County's budget, the Board was ready to press on. They did so quickly with only a few clarifying questions related to various specific points. In the end, the Board agreed that a hybrid approach was best in that it gave the most flexibility. By sharing some assets and investing some capital, as the budget allows, the County would provide a reasonable and positive environment for companies to provide broadband to the citizens and businesses within its borders.

In closing, it should be noted that John Jenkins was absent from the meeting as was every other member of the Citizen Budget Advisory Committee. In fact, aside from myself, the four Board of Supervisor members, Dr. Young, and County staff, there were only two members of the public present. Compared to the 20 to 30 citizens that attended the Planning Commission meeting in the Board Room, I'm left to wonder if there was some confusion among the public about who was meeting where or if the Mixed Use Development topic was more important than I thought. Regardless of the reasons for my fellow Committee members being absent, I was, am, and will be happy that the public was involved at such a level in creating the County's budget. It may not be perfection, but it is progress.

OPINION - Citizen Budget Advisory Committee - Part 7

Our final Citizens Budget Advisory Committee Meeting took place on April 2, 2018. The County Administrator, Neiman Young, was kind enough to supply us with a salad and pizza dinner along with beverages. This was likely our shortest meeting in the series and was a general recap of things as they stood. Dr. Young also gave us a brief overview of the revenue coming into the County coffers.

We saw a nice spreadsheet giving details on how King George measured up with surrounding counties in regards to real estate tax rates, business tax rates, and other items. Dr. Young also reminded us of two things. First, this was Wilma Ward's (Director of Finance) and his first time going through the budget for the County and as a result, he didn't have enough time to dive as deep as he would like into the revenue sources. Second, he reminded everyone that the County had various sources of revenue and because they were not always set in stone, or sometimes unknown when the County budget is prepared, they were often hard to predict. Prime among these are Federal and State funds that vary based on their respective budgets. Young also gave a word of caution that he tried to inject as much science as he could into predicting revenue by reviewing data from previous years but that sometimes things change, such as the number of houses built or students in school.

One topic that was discussed was equalization. But it was fairly brief. As we had all agreed to where we were with the expenditures thus far in the process, we didn't really object to the option of not equalizing tax rates. Although we all agreed, Dr. Young did give us the three options we had on the table. First, we could equalize tax rates down to 67 cents per $100 of assessed value. Second, we could not equalize and keep tax rates at 70 cents per $100. Third, we could adjust the tax rate to some amount between 67 and 70 cents per $100. At no time during the evening, or even during the entire budget work session process, was anyone discussing raising the tax rate above 70 cents per $100.

Aside from the general summaries given for revenue and expenditures for the County, there was some discussion about prior topics. The fact that there would be no tax increase by definition but a de facto increase because of no equalization was surprisingly not much of a sticking point. The general impression among us was that even though none of us wanted a tax increase, we also felt that equalizing tax rates would put the County under unnecessary financial stress. In other words, to get the services we need, we need to pay for them.

And in the end, I think many of us were in the same boat. We, both the Board of Supervisors and the citizens on the Advisory Committee, were happy with where the budget ended up but we still had a few things that we wanted, or didn't want, to see funded. It really did feel like a compromise where we all had to give something up that we were passionate about for the greater good of the community. So while we may not get that third School Resource Officer (SRO) I and many others want, getting two is still better than getting none. It's a very fine balancing act but I feel like we, as citizens, have gotten the best deal we could ask for.

By the end of the night, we weren't quite finished. We scheduled another meeting down the road to work on the second year of the two year budget as well as get more information on business and real estate taxes in the area.

One final thought about the process as a whole. I felt that this was an incredibly educational experience and even though things certainly got more heated than expected at times, everyone was professional and brought their best to the table. Every meeting I went to I learned more about the County I live in, about the people that work there, and about my neighbors that live here. I also learned that it truly does make a difference when the public speaks up but it needs to be done early and often. This was a hard lesson for me to learn as I felt that with more lead time, we the public could have had more influence on the budget process. So my advice to my neighbors and fellow citizens of King George County is that if you care about anything at all related to the budget, you have six months to gather your thoughts. Because if you wait until next year's budget work sessions, you'll be too late.

OPINION - Citizen Budget Advisory Committee - Part 6

Our second consecutive evening of meeting as the Citizen Budget Advisory Committee opened with a joint meeting between the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission. This March 27, 2018 meeting between the two groups was to discuss the Mixed Use Development (MUD) areas in King George County and the ordinances and rules that would govern them. The Planning Commission has been working with the Berkley Group for several months to hash out a draft ordinance and this draft is what they brought to the Board of Supervisors. Overall, both groups felt like there was a solid start but there were still some minor details to work out and some feedback to gather from other groups in the County. After an hour or so of discussion, the Planning Commission adjourned and we took a short break.

After our break, we the citizens were able to get off the bench and join the Board at the table for a continuation of our budget work session. We dove headlong into the School Resource Officer (SRO) discussion from the previous meeting by hearing from Sheriff Dempsey and his opinions on the topic. He started by saying he was already looking to fill two vacancies for Deputies and that since the school shooting a month and a half ago in Florida, he has stepped up patrols at the elementary schools. He said when Deputies are not responding to a call, he has instructed them to patrol each elementary school four times a day, inside and out. In addition to this, he said he has instructed Deputies to do their paperwork in the school parking lot when possible just to have a visible presence.

Most interesting though was the time involved in actually getting an SRO position filled at an elementary school. He said it generally takes a year or two to hire a Deputy and train them to the point of operating on their own. He said once this happens, then a veteran Deputy would be take a two week training course to become an SRO. In other words, he said it would be Fall of 2019 at the earliest before an SRO could function at the elementary school.

There was also some discussion about the current SROs at King George Middle School (KGMS) and King George High School (KGHS). The Sheriff said those two positions were paid for out of his budget, not the School Board budget. This was brought up again because Ruby Brabo and Jeff Bueche both said that the School Board never mentioned SROs as a priority the previous night, even when asked. While Brabo and Bueche clearly had no hard feelings from their heated discussion from the previous evening, I personally had to call them out on their questions from that night. While they, and others, asked Dr. Benson, Superintendent of Schools, and the School Board if the budget presented was their priority and if they had any other priorities they needed, there was no mention of SROs. What I had to point out was that while questions were asked about priorities, at no time did anyone specifically ask the School Board or Dr. Benson if they wanted an SRO at the elementary schools. I tied this point to the fact that the school system doesn't pay for the SRO so asking for it in their budget wouldn't be correct. Brabo however did make a valid point that the previous SROs were asked for by the school system. I felt confident that we could have spent an entire evening talking about what the School Board cut from their budget and what they would want versus what they would need and all the money involved. Thankfully we all moved beyond that sticking point and continued the SRO discussion.

The Board also asked Sheriff Dempsey his opinion on using contracted or private security to provide armed resource officers at the elementary schools and he advised against this. He said it would be better to use a veteran officer from the existing staff of Deputies in the County as they would have a better opportunity to build a working relationship with students and staff and would be allowed to carry weapons on campus. According to Virginia State Law, Title 18.2, Chapter 7, only active and retired law enforcement are allowed to carry a gun on school grounds out in the open. There are exceptions for unloaded weapons in a vehicle and those with a concealed weapons permit in a vehicle, but otherwise, no guns are allowed. A bill was proposed last year to allow for armed security guards but it was never passed.

Dempsey also said that the two current SROs are frequently as busy as a regular patrol officer working cases in the schools. He also added that in the summer months and when school is out, they conduct patrols just like any other officer. As an example, he said that during the frequent storms, the SROs were responding to emergencies while school was not in session.

In the end, the Board advised the Sheriff to plan on having two SROs at Sealston Elementary School (SES) and Potomac Elementary School (PES) to fill with the new budget. While all parties involved agreed that a third SRO at King George Elementary School (KGES) would be ideal, the general feeling was that it was close enough to the Sheriff's Office to make it easier to have an increased presence. There was also some hope that a grant would help pay for one or more of the SROs, making it easier to add a third in the future.

Next to be discussed was the proposed zoning and building fee increases. After tabling the decision multiple times to gather more information, Ryan Gandy, Director of Economic Development, reported that he felt that the increased fees would not pose any undue burden on small businesses as they would likely not be looking to develop large parcels or multiple lots. He also said that a separate category could not be created for small businesses however a reimbursement or waiving of fees was always available on a case by case basis. Neiman Young, County Administrator, added that Orange County was looking at increasing their fees in the near future. With all of the new information and old data, the Board was comfortable moving forward with the increased rates.

With the two new SROs being added to the budget, the school getting the money they asked for, and the County added three new positions, the County's financial planner, Davenport & Company, had a smaller number to work with for debt mitigation and debt reduction. Even though the SROs were added just moments before he gave his presentation, he still had smaller numbers than before. As a whole though, we all agreed that any debt reduction payments made, regardless of how large or small, would be better than nothing. The previous presentation was in the range of a $9 million lump sum payment while the current figure was $7 million. On top of this, there was the a more refined timeline of making the payments in three batches. So instead of a big payment in four or five years, it would instead be three smaller payments made in 2019, 2021, and 2023. By making a smaller payment, it would free up cash and allow the County to have a surplus.

To bring back my previous home mortgage analogy, I saw this as a much better idea. So instead of paying everything available in the bank to pay down the debt and leaving us with very little money, we could still pay down the debt in large chunks but still keep money on hand in case a big bill came due unexpectedly. For example, if you make a large payment to pay off your credit card debt but then don't have money to pay for a new roof that was damaged in a storm, you end up back in debt by borrowing money. By paying smaller amounts when it's safer to do so allows you to have money to pay for that new roof but still leaves you a little bit extra to pay off some of your credit card debt.

At the end of the evening, I felt like we had made some serious progress in the budget process. While I still feel that the Smoot Library should have been fully funded instead of level funded, I think that so far the budget is fairly sound and that everyone else has gotten a fair shake. Our next meeting should be our last and hopefully I'll be able to give a concise summary of where we stand as a County.

OPINION - Citizen Budget Advisory Committee - Part 5

After a little bit of a break from our last meeting, the Board of Supervisors and the Citizen Budget Advisory Committee will have two meetings on two consecutive evenings. Our first was last night on March 26, 2018 and it promised to be a long one with the introduction and review of the King George County School (KGCS) Board's proposed budget. With the tension and guilt I had from the last meeting having melted away, I went into this meeting with an open mind and clear conscience.

The meeting began with a public comment from an unnamed resident of the County who spoke out against the pending protest, or assembly, by local high school students that is planned for April 20, 2018. The students are holding their protest on April 20th in honor of the anniversary of the Columbine school shooting that occurred on April 20, 1999. The gentlemen asked that the protesters not be allowed to hold their assembly and that if it was allowed, that the school host a similar assembly the day before as a "day of gun violence" that led to our nation's independence. His choice to recognize April 19th was in reference to "the shot heard round the world" on April 19, 1775 where the first battles of the American Revolution were fought in Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts.

After no other members of the public came forward to speak, Angela Foroughi returned with more information as was requested at a previous meeting. In her updated presentation, she included three new counties, Westmoreland, Orange, and Culpeper, to show where they ranked along side King George and other area counties in regards to planning and zoning fees. There was some discussion about the validity of using Caroline as a template for the proposed increases in rates but in looking at population alone, it is the closest. The overall consensus was that the rates needed to at least allow the County to break even on the work being completed but there was concern over the impact increased fees may play on any future development. In the end, it was agreed to push the decision back one night, tot he next budget work session, in order to gain feedback from Ryan Gandy, Director of Economic Development.

Next on the Agenda was the KGCS budget presentation [PowerPoint file]. Having attended most of the School's budget work sessions, what struck me the most was how little they were asking for that was above what was approved last year. Even in reading the most recent article in The Free Lance-Star, I was surprised at how much was trimmed in just the past few days. In the end, the school is only asking for $303,724 in additional funds from the County over last year's request. What the school system had working for it was an increased Average Daily Membership (ADM) which allows it to get more support from the Federal and State governments. There was also a significant savings from the school system participating in an energy savings program that actually showed a negative increase, or a decrease for those of us not working in finance, in the Operations and Maintenance expense category. And that nearly one percent decrease also factored in the Cost Of Living Adjustment (COLA) increase for the employees in that department.

After the presentation, and a short break, everyone returned to the meeting with questions for the School Board and Dr. Benson, Superintendent of Schools. The questions were fairly precise and only a few needed to be researched for later. There was some concern, but I felt it was more likely confusion, over the Preschool Nurse position. Everyone was hesitant to speak to anything very specific because of privacy issues but generally speaking, there was a need to have the current nurse transition to a full-time teacher at the high school because the nursing program was doing so well. This meant that the half of her time she spent at the Preschool would be unmet and there was a student that did need a nurse on hand, thus the need to have an additional position. In other words, because the nurse splits time between two locations, a move to either location full-time would mean a gap in coverage at the other school.

The School Board excused themselves to another meeting room to conduct the rest of their time sensitive agenda in closed session, however T. C. Collins remained behind. There was a little stumbling as it appeared some of those present were hesitant to discuss the School budget with Collins present but Richard Granger reminded everyone that this was a public meeting and Collins was welcome to stay if he wanted to.

There were a few questions asked and answered and then the fireworks began. I don't recall the exact question posed but Jeff Bueche or Richard Granger asked Neiman Young, County Administrator, something along the lines of funding School Resource Officers (SROs). Ruby Brabo began yelling at Bueche and Granger for making "unilateral" decisions for the Board of Supervisors (BOS) and that the question wasn't right to ask.

Thus commenced several incredibly tense minutes as Brabo continued to yell at Bueche or Granger or both and several of the citizens, myself included, slowly pushed back from the table to avoid Brabo's ire. At various points Dr. Young, Granger, and John Jenkins tried to calm the argument. As things slowly cooled down, it became apparent that there was no intent to make decisions on behalf of the Board by any single Supervisor. Bueche said that he has made it plain, and public, that he ran for election with Security being one of his major platforms. To that point, he has mentioned several times in Board meetings and via his social media that he wants SROs in all schools, which would mean adding three officers, one per elementary school. Both Brabo and Renee Parker, fellow Citizen Budget Advisory Committee member, felt that his request to Dr. Young for information was an attempt to force the SROs into the budget without any public discussion.

Bueche, with Granger and Young echoing the same thing, said he was only asking for information on potential financial scenarios on four main points. Those being the three SROs in question, three County employee positions, the debt mitigation plan, and fully funding the school's request. The discussion boiled down to what I called the "best worst case scenario" of having everything funded. With the three SROs, three County employees, and a fully funded School, only $55,000 would be left for debt mitigation. This would be a massive decrease from the proposed $750,000 yearly debt mitigation. All of this is of course assuming that tax rates don't increase and the KGCS and County budgets don't change drastically with a yet-to-be-approved State budget.

So while no single scenario or combination of scenarios is mutually exclusive, fully funding everything would certainly reduce the amount of money left over to help reduce debt. But as Brabo said, any contribution made to reduce debt is more than what has been done in the past.

At the end of the evening, nearly four hours after we began, the BOS had calmed down and apologized for any outbursts. Ruby said her experiences in the past with previous Board members making unilateral decisions and putting stuff back into the budget without discussion left her sensitive to it happening again. Bueche said this was his first budget session and that he had no intention of doing anything like that and was instead looking for more information for himself to better make an educated decision. Young said he was sorry for presenting the answer in a way that made it appear he had been directed to make changes versus giving details on various scenarios. As a witness to the verbal fireworks, I was taken aback by the vehement and heated discussion but by the end of the night I felt comfortable that nobody was leaving with hurt feelings.

Also by the end of the night, the BOS agreed to fund the school's request but did ask to have Sheriff Dempsey attend the next meeting in order to discuss his thoughts on School Resource Officers in the elementary schools and potentially the Preschool.

One last interesting takeaway I had during the meeting was from my own question to everyone in the room. Of those present, only myself, John Jenkins, and Wilma Ward, Director of Finance, are products of King George County Schools. To repeat what I told Dr. Benson last night, for me personally, I've seen a great improvement in the school system over that long period of time and I'm proud to be an alumni.

OPINION - Citizen Budget Advisory Committee - Part 4

The March 15, 2018 Budget Work Session began on a positive note but by the time I left the meeting, I felt guilty that I may have almost cost the Smoot Library $50,000.

The meeting began with the same relaxed feeling and with no public comment. Angela Foroughi started things off with a comparative analysis of the current fee structure in King George County and it was not pretty. Based on her presentation and comments from Brad Hudson, Director of Community Development, the fees had last been updated in 2003 and 2016, with the changes in 2016 being minor. In other words, the County was overdue for increasing fees and adjusting some of the language. Foroughi's analysis showed that in many cases, the County lost money in reviewing site plans. In the two examples she gave, a site plan review and a subdivision construction plan review, the County lost over $1,200 in each case.

Foroughi then gave some comparative examples of surrounding counties and how their fee schedules compared to King George. Caroline, Spotsylvania, and Stafford Counties all had higher rates and even though populations, development trends, and housing markets may be slightly different, it gave an eye-opening view into how far behind we were. For example a Site Plan started at $850 in King George and $1,750 in Caroline and then grew exponentially in Stafford and Spotsylvania with rates of $10,000 and $5,080 respectively. She also gave examples of certain fees that other counties charged for but we did not.

In the end, her recommendation was to adopt rates that mirrored Caroline County. Foroughi said these changes would have amounted to an increase of nearly $60,000 in revenue based on last year's applications. Ruby Brabo suggested to table any decision until further comparisons could be made with Orange County because she felt they were a better comparison to King George than Caroline County. Another Supervisor suggested adding Westmoreland to the analysis as well just to get a better view of the region.

I think most of the Board felt comfortable raising the rates and it was a pleasure to see somebody come to the table with all the information necessary to answer questions. Mrs. Foroughi clearly had her ducks in a row.

Brad Hudson then jumped into the hot seat with his recommendations on changes to the building fee schedules and language. He suggested creating a few new fees that would make things a little easier for homeowners. For example instead of charging a $100 permit fee, he suggested creating a new fee of just $50 for replacing only exterior egress steps. He felt that charging the larger fee wasn't right and the lower cost was more fitting. On the other hand, his suggestion to create a new fee for large decks would cost homeowners more. He suggested that the current fee of $75 would stay for decks of 300 square feet or smaller but that decks larger than 300 square feet would require a $125 fee because they require more inspections.

Hudson also went into some of the language of existing fee schedules and recommended some clarity and change in a few areas. One area to change was the carport and shed items where he felt some people were skirting the permit process by claiming certain carports were prefabricated when they were not. Other language he suggested changing would combine certain permits into one permit, making the process easier. For example, instead of needing two permits for a generator, it would be combined into one permit. The Board approved Hudson's changes and they will be part of the overall budget presentation later that will be open for public comment.

Next on the Agenda was the Board's approval of the supplemental income for four Combined Courts employees.

Neiman Young, County Administrator, then presented the overall Expenditures in the budget. He said each department head was given ample time to present their initial budget amount and all were on board with the numbers presented tonight. He also said that while he made some cuts and challenged some numbers, all department heads had the opportunity to give a rebuttal to any reductions he may have made. And with that, we dove into each category.

Under the Legislative category, nothing was questioned as we had already reviewed the Board of Supervisors budget by line in a previous work session. Under the General Administration category, a few lines were questioned and explained to everyone's satisfaction. The only item that was left open was the County Attorney's budget amount that was larger than expected. Brabo called into question if the amount shown included fees or dues outside of his role as County Attorney and if so, they should not be. Because the County Attorney is on a set contract, it was odd to see a larger than normal amount compared to last year's figures. Dr. Young said he would review the figures and come back with a response later. Under the Judicial Administration category and Public Safety, everything seemed to be in order. Only a few items were question but were clarified. One item of note was that a grant is currently funding just under $500,000 in pay for fire fighters and that the County would need to pay that amount once the grant ran out in a couple more years.

The Health and Welfare, Social Services, and Parks and Recreation categories passed in much the same fashion where only a few questions were raised and easily answered. Community Development, Public Works, and Economic Development followed suit and were quickly behind us.

Then came the Nondepartmental category and my guilt. Dr. Young mentioned that the Smoot Library was listed but he would like guidance from the Board on what to do with it. The Board seemed to agree to leave it there as there has been no decision made on the potential Central Rappahannock Regional Library (CRRL) takeover. Ruby Brabo then suggested that because Smoot made $60,000 last year in passport processing fees, the Board should reduce their funding request by $50,000. She said that if the Board's pressure on Smoot last year forced them to look to alternatives in finding funding, maybe more pressure would provide more results. Jeff Bueche and Richard Granger were hesitant to drop funding and both agreed to, at the very least, level fund it to last year's budget amount.

This is where my guilt set in as I began to fear my previous opinion article on the Smoot Library, which was published just hours before the meeting, may have struck a nerve with the Board. I sat there in stunned silence as nobody else spoke up and questioned why the library was the only line-item to get this treatment. I was too afraid to speak up for fear that the Board would further cut the funding for a service I feel is necessary for citizens.

I was still in a bit of a haze as the meeting closed with the projected shortfall of nearly $2 million. As Dr. Young began reviewing our upcoming schedule of meetings, he said the school's budget would be presented at our next meeting on March 26th. Renee Parker spoke up to say she wanted to make sure that nobody walked into the meeting with the expectation that the schools would need to cover the shortfall and that we should keep an open mind to their request. Brabo then reminded everyone that the Board had been generous to the schools over the past couple of years and that this year they needed to understand that the focus was more on the County and County employees.

With only a few more meetings on the books, we're hoping to have a finalized budget ready to present to the public by April.

OPINION - Citizen Budget Advisory Committee - Part 3

With the first two meetings of the Citizen Budget Advisory Committee, we focused a lot of our time on where we were financially as a County. With our most recent meeting on February 28, 2018, we focused a lot of our time on actually working on the budget.

We began the meeting with a few updates on questions from previous meetings. During our last meeting we discussed and heard from Outside Agencies and their requests for funding from the County. This was again discussed, briefly, as the Fredericksburg Area Food Bank and Thurman Brisben Homeless Shelter would see some changes to their funding. The Clerk of the Court, Vic Mason, also let Dr. Young know that he needed a Part-Time position to help with an increased work-load. The position would put the Clerk's Office back to the same staffing level as it was in 2010.

This would be a good point to pause and remind readers of two things. First, these are just work sessions. The final decisions won't be made until after public hearings are held. So if you want to voice your opinion, you still have time, be it at the work sessions or at the Board meetings. Second, as a citizen-member of this committee, I have no vote in the final budget. I only have a seat at the table where I can voice my opinion and ask questions. And with five Supervisors and five citizens, there's bound to be a difference of opinion. Thankfully, everything has been very professional and respectful, regardless of who has what opinion.

Now, back to the meeting. We jumped head-first into the briefing from Davenport & Company, the County's financial advisor for the past few decades. Going through the details of the report was a little time consuming. We waded through the history of Davenport, how the County's credit ratings were determined, and the County's fund balance levels. In a nutshell, it all boiled down to similarities that you would see in personal finance.

While it was noted that there were distinct differences between the County's financial world and an individual's financial world, there are still some parallel themes. For example, looking at credit scores, a positive score will allow for better interest rates when borrowing money. A higher fund balance would be like having more money in your savings account. Even in looking at the debt and debt policy, you can see similarities. If you think of the County's debt as a home mortgage, there's principal and interest to pay for a set period of time. The County's debt policy is similar to not being able to borrow more than a set percentage of your income. In other words, the rule of thumb about not spending more than 28% of your income on a mortgage would be similar to the County's policy of not having more than 12% of expenditures be for debt service.

Eventually, we came to Davenport's financial plan. The key terms were "debt reduction" and "debt mitigation." The first being a plan for paying down the County's debt and the second being a fiscal policy of controlling debt going forward. Kind of like paying off that credit card debt and then not going into debt in the future. We were finally deep into the budget process and plans for the future.

With such a positive credit score and solid fund balances, it would be a balancing act to find a sweet spot to take some excess money out (like taking money out of savings) to pay down the debt early. And if tax rates weren't equalized, that would mean a larger chunk of debt gets paid off sooner. To go back to that home mortgage analogy, if you pay off a large portion of your principle now, you'll avoid paying interest in the future. So a proposed $9 million payment in four years would result in a savings of $13 million over the remaining 25 year life of the debt. Simply put, if we take a small hit now in the wallet or pocket book, we'll avoid a larger one in the future.

To top all of that off, this plan assumes that the County doesn't borrow more in the future. And the general impression I got from listening to and watching the Supervisors was none of them wanted to add to that debt amount. "Cash funding" was the catch-phrase of the evening and appeared to be the plan going forward. Like any financial plan, cash funding would of course mean less money to pay down the debt or less money to pay for large capital improvement projects. So taking a large amount of money out of your savings account to pay for that kitchen remodel may be great but it also means you won't be able to pay off all those credit cards just yet.

This is where Davenport suggested a Public Private Partnership (P3) for larger capital projects. As an example, to help fund a new courthouse, the County could invite developers to build retail or residential sites at the same time. Essentially a mutually beneficial partnership where both sides get something out of the deal. This practice is used in many places across the country and the globe but it didn't sound like it was used all too often in Virginia. So looking in this direction may put us in the proverbial driver's seat when it comes to bargaining.

Now that the major portion of the meeting was over, it was time to get into specifics. We got to dig into three specific departments and their respective budgets line by line. Frankly, it was tedious. But it was also educational. As with this whole budgeting process, I've learned a lot about the County's finances as a whole, but this gave me a much deeper insight into what actually makes up specific amounts on the budget.

First to present was Randy Jones, Treasurer. Category by category, he went through his proposed budget and explained why he needed each dollar he asked for. Some categories didn't garner any questions, some drew a lot. While the new Board has routinely shown itself to be pretty conservative with spending, I was a little shocked, yet pleased, when they were willing to fund educational items, such as conferences and training classes, for employees. There was also some discussion about consolidating some of the assets, services, and contracts across departments to reduce waste and build a more forward-looking plan for future budgets. Dr. Young said he was already looking at some things and already moving in this direction.

Mike Muncie, Director of General Properties, was next in the hot seat. He too faced similar questions asking for clarity on certain items in his budget. The only real surprise came with a position that was new for this budget cycle. It was explained that the employee had been hired shortly after the last budget has been approved and the Board quickly moved on once they had clarity. Muncie was able to answer to all of the questions, just as Jones did. Jeff Bueche did pause and comment that he wished more people knew about the County paying for water and sewer just like all of the other Service Authority customers.

Next up was Dr. Neiman Young, County Administrator, who walked through the Administration and the Board of Supervisors budgets. Again, the Supervisors were supportive of continuing education and training for the staff, and pushed Dr. Young to increase those line items if necessary. And to prove they were not exempt from special treatment, the Supervisors took themselves to task on a few items in their own budget, specifically Office Supplies.

After nearly four hours of diligent work, the meeting ended. As expected, I learned a lot. However, I did not expect to spend quite so much time working through so many different topics. Thankfully we all agreed to continue working beyond our planned end time. I truly felt like we were working and making progress, something I have found to be rare in most of the professional meetings I've attended in my career.

As we wrapped up the evening, we unfortunately did not get to the topic of equalization of the tax rates. We did learn that the School Board would be delayed in presenting their budget, pushing our timeline back a little bit. We also managed to schedule our next few meetings though so things should continue on soon enough.