I think it’s fairly well documented on how Mudslide Mark Dudenhefer has voted to cut millions in funding for Stafford County Public Schools and in 2011 he voted against increasing funds to the school board by $1 million. We’ve previously talked about Mudslide’s chain-sawing of the school’s operating budget and the resulting effects on our school system.

What we haven’t discussed is the self-purported myth that Rock Hill Supervisor Cord “Not So” Sterling has fought to increase funding to our school system. Let me say this very clearly: Cord is no friend of our schools.

As the 7th richest county in America, Stafford County pays its teachers 13% below the national average – according to the U.S. Census Bureau and Stafford County Public Schools. Prince William County, our northern neighbors and the 9th richest county in America, pays its teachers 18% more and the City of Alexandria, the 39th richest county in America, pays its teachers 38% more – according to the U.S. Census Bureau and the Virginia Department of Education. Our other neighbor Spotsylvania County, which isn’t even one of the richest counties in the nation, pays its teachers 4% more. According to Stafford County Public Schools, the average teacher salary is $50,692.

How are we supposed to keep our outstanding teachers, if we can’t even pay them competitive salaries? You know it isn’t cheap to live in the 7th richest county in America.

I’m sure that Sterling and Mudslide will try to further slice and dice the numbers and ask county staff to develop some sort of report to show just how supportive they are of our schools. Maybe they can claim a computer “glitch” like Sheriff Jett.

Just how bad have things gotten for Stafford County Public Schools? Sterling and Mudslide cut school funding back to 2006/7 levels as the percentage of schools making Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) fell from 95% to 33%. That’s what I call results?!

Worse yet, according to Independent Rock Hill Supervisor candidate Dean Fetterolf, the amount of funds transferred to schools as a percentage of total county spending has fallen more than 16% since 2006. Yet, in 4 of the last 6 years schools saved and returned nearly $8 million to the county general fund. During this recession our neighbors increased their funding above their existing required local effort levels by an average of 20%. Stafford cut its by 30%!

These draconian reductions in funding have had a direct impact on our classrooms. Stafford County now sports the 5th highest K-7 student ratio in Virginia.

Sterling and Mudslide are either in denial about our schools or intentionally trying to mislead voters on the state of our schools. It’s an election year and they really want your vote.

It isn’t only our teachers and students that Sterling and Mudslide have turned their backs on, but also critical school support staff that keep our schools running smoothly. Back in December of 2009, they voted to deny salary increases to certain categories of school employees (including bus drivers and cafeteria workers).

Stafford school cafeteria workers that have been on the job for 10 years are making 11% less per hour (18% for those on the job 20 years) than their counterparts in Spotsylvania County. School bus drivers that have been on the job 10 years are making 8% less per hour compared to their counterparts in Spotsylvania County too.

If I were Sterling and Mudslide, I wouldn’t be sitting down for a school lunch anytime soon.

We need representatives who show their support for our schools through actions and not empty rhetoric. We need representatives who understand that a top-notch education system is an economic incentive for attracting new businesses and families. We need representatives who understand offering competitive salaries to teachers (and those other support personnel) are essential in attracting and retaining them.

We need representatives like Dean Fetterolf (I-Rock Hill) and Esteban Garces (D-2nd VA House District).

HOT lanes are a major part of the network of transportation improvements that are needed to help eliminate the gridlock. ~ Mark Dudenhefer

At a recent NAACP candidate forum, did Mudslide Mark Dudenhefer try to walk back his support for toll lanes by suggesting that he “had no vote on HOT lanes”? Was he now trying to suggest that he didn’t support them? Not quite. What he did was further reaffirm his strong support for them. He now claims that they will be a big boon for jobs.

The only big boon will be for the foreign entities that will now control our “public” roads. That’s right, we will now be paying foreign companies (i.e. Fluor-Transurban) for the privilege to use our “public” road system.

Worse yet, it’s taxpayers that may be left holding the bag. Assuming that the I-95 contract is similar to the Beltway one for HOT lanes, if not enough toll payers use the HOT lanes it will leave Virginia, and taxpayers, on the hook in providing financial compensation to these foreign entities. If carpooling increases, taxpayers will also be on the hook and have to pay.

If only Mudslide Mark afforded the same “safety net” to constituents in his Stafford County supervisory district, maybe those families affected by a recent landslide wouldn’t be left out in the cold. You see there are those who fund his political campaigns and those that do not.

You see Mudslide Mark has no interest in conducting a top-to-bottom investigation of the Stafford County permit office that can’t seem to find the inspection of a retaining wall for homes that have seen the ground below them steadily slide down a hill; or, in the developer who is avoiding answering questions on the construction of these homes.

This should come as no surprise, as Mudslide Mark wouldn’t want any sort of oversight to get in the way of business (or his campaign assets). “Oversight is just a buzzword for more government bureaucracy getting in the way of business,” said Dudenhefer.

Mudslide wouldn’t want oversight of a foreign company running our public road system getting in the way of there profits – would he? I’m sure that he wouldn’t be too concerned with making sure that traffic wasn’t being manipulated in any way to assure that a foreign company wasn’t squeezing every dime out of Virginia taxpayers.

Based on what has been purported, I have serious reservations about HOT lanes in Virginia. According to the Washington Times, “Virginia taxpayers are on the hook once again if, between now and 2087, improvements are made to free, non-tolled roads in the vicinity of the toll lanes. These ‘noncompete’ agreements ensure that the toll-road company will enjoy a monopoly at taxpayer expense because surrounding roads will grow increasingly congested in the ensuing eight decades. In other words, free roads will be neglected and not expanded to create congestion that will force motorists into tolled lanes.”

I suppose Mudslide Mark is ok with foreign companies enjoying a monopoly at taxpayer expense, so long as his campaign assets continue growing. It’s also no wonder why Mudslide has long opposed the indefinite postponement of toll lanes on I-95. Build, baby, build!

It’s bad enough that Stafford County raised the personal property tax on everyone’s vehicles by 25 percent, but now Mudslide is potentially asking a commuter who wants to avoid gridlocked roads to pay upwards of $33,280 each year. Not to mention that commuters who choose to use these lanes during off-peak times will now be charged a toll. Oy vey!

In the end, Mudslide is dead wrong when he categorizes HOT lanes as a “major part” of a solution to eliminate gridlock on our roads. A “major part” of a solution would be to extend rail within our area and bring more high-paying jobs locally. Simply increasing the volume that our roadways can handle will only increase traffic and not ease it.

As the famous line from the movie Field of Dreams explains, “if you build it they will come.”

Stafford County Board of Supervisors Chairman Mark “Mudslide” Dudenhefer clearly doesn’t want to deal with the mudslides and sinkholes threatening his constituents’ homes. While these families are about to lose everything they own due to a catastrophe caused by a lack of county government oversight of developers and Stafford’s lax regulations over builders — Mudslide Mark is more focused on his political career advancement trying to grab the newly created 2nd Virginia House District seat.

Here’s a report from WJLA on a recent mudslide that destroyed several families homes in the Austin Ridge community of Stafford County:

At a recent town meeting with county officials, the affected families received few answers on the cause of the mudslide. The responses they received from Dudenhefer and other county officials were useless and the meeting seemed to resemble the late 70s game of Pass the Buck.

So the developer had a permit to build a retaining wall, providing support to what appears to have been a pretty steep slope, and county officials can’t confirm if it was ever inspected. If they can’t confirm it was ever inspected, can they confirm one was ever built?

As we recently tried to explain to Mudslide Mark, regarding our schools, accountability doesn’t come cheap.

As the ground steadily slides down the hill taking all the families assets with it, Mudslide Mark is more concerned with scrambling to cover his own ass(ets) then trying to help the families. Unfortunately for these devastated constituents, the best that Dudenhefer will offer is an anemic off-loading of responsibility. “The board will decide what can or can’t take place,” Dudenhefer said. He went on to say, “any perception that we’re ignoring or not dealing with it are not true. There’s meetings…ways to help.”

Meetings? That’s the best Dudenhefer can offer to these displaced families? How about a top-to-bottom investigation of the permit office that can’t seem to find the inspection of the retaining wall? How about rolling back the lax ordinances that allowed builders to construct homes on such risky sites? Oh right, Mudslide Mark is too busy gunning for a promotion and collecting big developer dollars for his delegate campaign to allow himself to be distracted with the real problems of his current constituents.

Let’s not forget, it was Mudslide Mark who was at the center of helping to overturn several county ordinances that dealt with maximum slope steepness and setback for resource protection areas (see Potomac Resource Protection District).

Mudslide Mark may not care about residents in his district, but he cares about his developer buddies. Someone’s got to fund his campaigns. After all, limiting what a lot yields (20 units vs. 100 units) would seriously dampen developer profits. Screw the homeowners who may one day see their piece of the American dream drift away into the mud.

In general, it is our understanding, that current county development ordinances prohibit building on slopes 35% or greater. As we just explained-due to the fact that most of the stable land in the county has already been developed-slope steepness is of great interest to developers trying to maximize profits in the county.

Other issues that arise from slope steepness are environmental (e.g. runoff) and safety concerns (e.g. mudslides).

In addition to the angle of the slope, ordinances must consider soil types when determining suitability for development. Ever try building a sand castle and then dumping water on it? Sandy soils are typically less stable then dense clay. Generally sandy soils on steep slopes require extensive engineering to assure stability of construction. Of course, this safety factor adds to the cost of construction and cuts into builder’s profits. When builders complained about this to Dudenhefer, his door and campaign war chest were wide open.

An issue of safety should never be subject to political back-scratching and pocket-filling. Common sense — and common decency — are needed. Mudslide Mark Dudenhefer is far too concerned with filling his campaign coffers versus finding a balanced approach that allows for future development, but also keeps residents safe and our environment clean.

It’s time to hold Mudslide Mark accountable!

I don’t know about you, but here in the Fredericksburg area—during the early autumn months of odd-numbered years—I am struck by how state roads that for two years prior remained pockmarked with Buick-sized potholes suddenly are milled and expertly paved. All of this, courtesy of our munificent Speaker of the House of Delegates Bill Howell. Of course, Bill’s up for re-election…and he really wants your vote!

Nuthin’ happens around here for no reason.

In Stafford County, it is always about politics. And, the overly aggressive arrest and handcuffing of #BananaMan by Deputies of the Stafford County Sheriff’s Department was no accident. That is because this year, Sheriff Charlie Jett is up for re-election…and he really wants your vote!

If the Colonial Forge High School sophomore Bryan Thompson’s antics hadn’t been captured by a mobile device camera—and replayed on YouTube more than 66,000 times—the BananaMan episode would never have made national or international news.

And none of us would be asking the deep and troubling questions about how a funny, good-natured, high-functioning autistic kid could be punished so severely for a high school prank so benign.

But thanks to social media, Stafford County and the world have gotten a sobering view of how Sheriff Charlie Jett’s burning desire for re-election got in the way of common decency…and common sense.

A Colonial Forge parent working the food concessions told us that she wasn’t in the stands to see BananaMan’s on-the-field brouhaha. But, she witnessed—beforehand—sheriff’s deputies acting overly aggressive with some kids buying refreshments.

What is going on here? Are Sheriff Charlie’s recent visions of flash mobs looting Stafford County convenience stores affecting his policing strategy? Or, is it just politics as usual for Stafford County—where the winning strategy for re-election as sheriff is to show how tough you are on crime by having your deputies rough up a nice kid in a store-bought banana costume before a large crowd of onlookers?

Stafford Sheriff Candidate Chuck Feldbush (I) thinks it is all of these things and more. “This is the latest example of a department going bananas over harmless kid stuff while real crime – violent crime – is threatening the peace and safety of Stafford County,” said Mr. Feldbush.

“Slapping cuffs on a kid – who has a disability – for running down the sidelines at a high school football game in a banana suit is a complete overreach of the authority of the sheriff’s department.” Mr. Feldbush continued, “It’s a disturbing sign that Sheriff Jett has lost control of his deputies – and this is placing our kids at risk.”

According to the Virginia State Police, violent crime is up 66% in Stafford.

Where has the Free-Lance Star been on reporting about this brouhaha with law enforcement? The overlords of your hometown newspaper are probably too distracted by thoughts of cashing the $1.3M check they stand to collect for hosting Sheriff Charlie’s overpriced $40M public safety communication system on their broadcast towers.

After all, what are friends for?

And where does Stafford County Commonwealth’s Attorney candidate Eric Olsen figure in all of this? The overzealous “Law & Order” [intellectual property-stealing] prosecutor is probably fuming that BananaMan’s ten-day suspension has ended early and that he won’t be able to put the kid on the stand in a jury trial.

But Eric, have no fear. We hear that there was a Grape running amok around Stafford this week, too. (Times a waistin’ and you and the Man in the Yellow Hat need to go find him!)

What has BananaMan taught us all? It’s politics, stupid!

Could a lack of accountability by the Stafford County School Board have led to the hiring of Dr. Karen Spillman, the Colonial Forge High School principal who we discovered—through publicly available sources—was convicted in 2007 in Prince William County, Virginia for public intoxication?

Dr. Spillman’s name is all over the internet and social media like Facebook for famously suspending Colonial Forge High School student Brian Thompson ten days following his benign Banana Man [high school football game half-time] prank.

Parents are asking administration officials and their school board members simple but serious questions, such as: what motivated Colonial Forge’s new principal and Sheriff’s Deputies to “go medieval” on the smart, funny, and high-functioning autistic kid running around the field in a store-bought banana costume? And, is [Principal Spillman] temperamentally well suited to lead Stafford County’s academics leading high school?

We believe Superintendent Randy Bridges acted properly in bringing an end to the BananaMan controversy. But does the school system Dr. Bridges runs have the necessary funding to run itself—and to assure proper administrative accountability? Budgets are stretched so far beyond tolerance—we know that because the Stafford County Board of Supervisors, led by its chair Mark Dudenhefer—took a chainsaw to the school system’s current operating budget.

Year-after-year, the chain-sawing of school operating budgets gets worse, thus year-after-year, staff members and administrators do even more with much less.

This year, Chairman Dudenhefer gleefully reduced the school system’s budgets to the point of utter absurdity. So, it is not outside the realm of possibility that decision-makers in Stafford Schools—who force themselves to do more work with less headcount—look over their shoulders and take time-saving shortcuts to complete critical hiring.

Did overwork and shortcuts [like not using Google or other search engines to query] lead Stafford Schools to avoid necessary due-diligence in regards to vetting candidates for its open assistant principal and principal assignments? Is it conceivable that an overworked senior administrator in Stafford Schools—under pressure from up on high to hire—have rushed the hiring of Dr. Karen Spillman?

We believe that it has.

Could a better-funded school board have identified the bright red flags in Dr. Spillman’s curriculum vitae?

Perhaps.

If I were Paul Milde (R-Aquia), I’d too want to forget all about the $40 Million public safety radio communication system. I recently wrote about how bad of a deal this was for Stafford taxpayers.

At last night’s Board of Supervisors meeting, the board was presented with an updated Telecommunication Plan – which was to be voted on as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.

Director of Planning and Zoning, Jeff Harvey, got things started by presenting the key points of the proposed Telecommunication Plan – which is meant to address broadband communication in its various forms and the guidelines for placement of towers throughout the county. Of particular note, the plan “encourages the placement of telecommunication towers on county owned properties.”

What ensued was an unexpected discussion on tower leases and the public safety radio communication system between Anthony Romanello and Paul Milde.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Milde wondered whether it was “legal” for the county to be in the business of building towers and leasing towers to individual users.

Romanello said, “We certainly could have as part of our public radio communication system. The direction from the board, which was probably six years ago now, was no new towers. So we made a conscious decision to work with the existing infrastructure that was in the county, which is why were in most cases we are leasing.”

Milde then realizing that he had stepped in it shot back to Romanello that he wasn’t talking about the public safety radio communication system. If I were Milde, I’d try to avoid talking about this at all costs. After all, he voted for Sheriff Jett’s outrageous deal in the first place.

Romanello responded by saying that “I understand that but that would have been an opportunity to go into that business and then to have leased out that space or the existing capacity to the private sector.”

As I’ve previously noted, Supervisors including Milde and Mark Dudenhefer (R-Garrisonville) had previously directed the consultant to “only consider the existing shorter towers [(existing infrastructure)] rather than a potentially less expensive option with fewer taller towers.” Cost containment was not a requirement.

I’m not suggesting that we should have built the towers on county-owned land, but no consideration was given to cheaper options. Romanello’s quote suggests that had we built the towers and leased out any remaining capacity to the private sector that we could have generated revenue for the county. Instead, we negotiated many “sweetheart” long-term leases with outrageous annual escalation rates. What an outstanding job by Sheriff Jett, Milde and Dudenhefer.

I had previously noted my opposition to the way that the radio system was financed – through more expensive Lease Revenue Bonds versus cheaper General Obligation Bonds. Lease Revenue Bonds guarantee repayment from the revenues generated by a specific revenue-generating entity associated with the purpose of the bonds. In Romanello’s example, leasing out excess capacity on the towers would have generated revenue; thus, a case could have been made for these more expensive bonds, if the revenue generated was enough to justify them. However, I still believe voters should have had a say on a procurement of this size.

Where was Milde’s curiosity when he was voting in favor of the public safety radio communication system in the first place? Milde “doesn’t know what the tower owners are charging per spot”? Obviously he has a short-term memory. Let’s review a few examples of what he voted for.

The Thorny Point tower site is costing us $57,000/year with a 15% escalation rate every five years and the Powell tower site is costing us $51,000/year with the same escalation rate as Thorny Point, as a few examples. Let’s not forget that the Free-Lane Star is earning $1.3M from us for one of the towers over the next 30 years (hmm, I wonder). I’ve also been told that the Free-Lance Star had been approached for many years by many parties to lease this tower and those parties were repeatedly turned aside. I guess Jett and company offered them a deal that they couldn’t refuse.

I never cease to be amazed. Thank goodness voters have other options this year: Chuck Feldbush (I-Stafford) for Sheriff, Tim Barbrow (I-Stafford) for Commonwealth’s Attorney and Dean Fetterolf (I-Rock Hill), Charles Latimer (D-George Washington) and Fred Sweat (D-Griffis-Widewater) for Supervisors.

I’m betting many residents are not aware that Sheriff Charlie Jett (R-Stafford) was the lead acquisition official in charge of Stafford County’s procurement of a $40 million public safety radio communications system from Motorola.

In past blog posts, I’ve alluded to my outrage over this purchase. In this post, I want to elaborate a bit on just how bad of a deal this was for Stafford taxpayers; and, make the case that we are in desperate need of procurement reform in Stafford and new leadership.

Let me be clear. My main concern was with the overall cost of the system and the procurement process. I recognize that we absolutely needed to upgrade our outdated system and that the 700 Mhz Project 25 compatible system purchased from Motorola appeared to be in full compliance with Virginia’s Strategic Plan for Statewide Communications Interoperability.

It wasn’t until the Economic Development Authority (EDA) was asked to approve funding, in 2007, for bonds in order to finance several capital projects approved by the Board of Supervisors, which included this system, that significant flaws in the procurement process began to come to light – not to mention a complete failure of leadership from our elected officials.

To start off, why on earth was the Board of Supervisors asking the EDA to approve funding for the issuance of Lease Revenue Bonds, rather than the more appropriate and less expensive General Obligation Bonds?

Per Wikipedia, “a revenue bond is a special type of municipal bond distinguished by its guarantee of repayment solely from revenues generated by a specific revenue-generating entity associated with the purpose of the bonds.” Can anyone tell me what “revenue” is being generated by this public safety radio communication system? Is anyone else scratching his or her heads? You should be.

Plain and simple, the Board of Supervisors did not want to fund this with General Obligation Bonds – as they would require approval from Stafford County voters, and not just the EDA as is the case for Lease Revenue Bonds. They simply didn’t want the added level of scrutiny on this procurement. It was a bad deal for taxpayers and they knew it from the start.

Worse yet for taxpayers, Lease Revenue Bonds generally carry a higher interest rate than General Obligation Bonds. According to notes, which I’ve obtained from a November 16, 2007 meeting of the EDA, it was estimated that that Lease Revenue Bonds would cost $750K more than if these projects were funded with General Obligation Bonds.

Talk about a bad deal. If you’re upset about the financing chosen, you probably won’t be surprised that there was little concern by the Board of Supervisors and Sheriff Jett over the cost of the system – in general.

In a September 30, 2007 memo to the Board of Supervisors, EDA members Ted Hontz and Jack Rowley wrote about their concerns over cost not being an “important enough parameter in the development of options” in the Request for Proposal (RFP).

They went on to express their significant concerns over the emphasis of performance over cost containment and wondered whether the goals specified in the RFP lead to the contractor discounting cost as a factor; thus, proposing a system with “more expensive characteristics.” They ended up performing independent research on similar systems by the same vendor and concluded that the procurement may be “overpriced by $4M to $10M.”

Hontz and Rowley wrote, “A 700 MHz, Project 25 system like the one recommended for Stafford in Johnson County MO is projected to cost $23M; however, Johnson County MO is over 1.7 times the area of Stafford and the population is over 4 times as large as Stafford.”

A similar system in Albemarle County, which was developed by the same consulting company used in Stafford, relied on significantly fewer cell towers than what was being proposed in Stafford, even though the coverage area was three times that of Stafford. When prodded by Hontz and Rowley on why lower cost options were not presented, the consultant hired by Stafford County indicated that Albemarle County was financially constrained in their procurement. Whereas the consultant provided lower cost alternatives, such as repeaters, to Albermarle, no such options were provided to Stafford. The consultant also indicated that the Board of Supervisors directed him to only consider the existing shorter towers rather than a potentially much less expensive option with fewer taller towers.

During the November 16, 2007 EDA meeting, Rowley also noted a huge conflict of interest that existed. The consultant that Stafford hired to advise the county on this procurement would benefit $800K for their work on the project and their ongoing billings were estimated to be $200K per year. Conflict of interest anyone?! You have to wonder whether or not the consultant was motivated to choose the most expensive solution, since it would have a direct impact on their bottom line.

Hontz separately wrote that the process did not include a Validation of Requirements or it’s equivalent; an Analysis of Alternatives or it’s equivalent; and the consultant didn’t provide lower cost alternatives, like they had done in other counties to meet cost constraints.

How could a system of this magnitude be procured without any sort of validation of requirements? Hontz and Rowley wrote, “We are unable to comment on appropriate levels of coverage but do note that in Albermarle County, the decision was made not to require 8 db in-building coverage in rural areas but instead to require 95% on ground coverage. No known analysis was done to determine cost and coverage tradeoffs in this regard for Stafford’s system.”

So in the end, a system was procured that endorsed a “many” cell tower leasing approach (13 in total) – with no new towers to be considered.

When you take into account the subsequent leases, the cost of this system rises by between $10 and $15 million over the next 30 years. It’s also unclear, from my research, what costs may be incurred by the choice made to modify certain county-owned towers to accommodate the additional gear. When you add in this additional cost to $23.8M reported price tag of this system, you’re looking at least at a $40 million system over 30 years.

Hontz and Rowley rightfully concluded, “the robustness of this system, and the cost, exceed that of any other municipal system that we found in our brief research.”

Worse, in talking to folks familiar with cell tower leases, the long-term leases negotiated on these cell towers seem to be only a good deal for the tower owners and not taxpayers. The 4% to 5% annual escalation rates on the leases are considered quite high. I was told that 3% annual escalations are usually considered medium to high.

Part of the reason that Stafford is paying so much is that they designed a very complex, expensive “many” cell tower system, which has a large amount of gear on each of the towers – displacing other potential users. The county will tell you that they are free to cancel these leases anytime; however, folks familiar with the system have explained to me that Stafford will NEVER cancel any of the leases, due to the complexity of the system design and the fact that any re-configuration of a lost tower or towers will come at a significant cost.

It’s no wonder this ended up being such a bad deal for Stafford. After all, why in the world was Sheriff Jett the lead acquisition official in charge of this procurement? He had no background or education, that I’m aware of, that would lead to him being an acquisition and contracting expert. It was Jett who asked the Board of Supervisors to approve the negotiated leases (see here and here, as examples). Shouldn’t this have come from the Stafford County Administrator, Anthony Romanello?

When EDA members questioned and pointed out problems with this system, a funny thing happened. No one was jumping up to take credit for it. According to sources close to the procurement, Jett’s reaction was to accuse anyone who pointed out any problems with the system as intentionally trying to hurt the police and firefighters. Apparently, Jett wasn’t too concerned with the taxpayers – or the fact that if he had saved some money on this system, he could have better supported raises, benefits or bonuses for his own people! How getting a good deal for Stafford would hurt police and firefighters are beyond me.

Maybe Jett was pushing the “sweetheart” leases for other reasons. After all, under the tower lease with the Free Lance Star they will make $1.3M over the next 30 years. One has to wonder what promises (or ideas for stories) may have been exchanged?!

Maybe if Jett paid more attention to fighting crime, instead of procuring overpriced systems, we wouldn’t have seen a 66% rise in violent crime over the last five years.

In fairness to Jett, he isn’t the only one to blame. There’s plenty of that to go around.

The Stafford County Board of Supervisors failed all of us too. There were only two supervisors who stood against this huge waste of money. They were former Supervisors Pete Fields (D-George Washington) and Joe Brito (I-Hartwood).

In the end, it was the Republican-led Board that mustered the necessary votes to actually pass this thing. And one of those Board members, Mark Dudenhefer (R-Garrisonville) now wants everyone to vote for him in Virginia’s newly created 2nd House District. Sure, let’s reward him for his complete lack of leadership. Thank goodness he is being challenged by Esteban Garces (D-VA-2nd). He understands what leadership is all about.

And getting an honorable mention is former Griffis-Widewater Supervisor, Jack Cavalier (I-Griffis-Widewater). Apparently, this huge waste of money wasn’t that important to him – as he didn’t even bother to show up for the vote. Now that is leadership – NOT! This is the same individual that wants everyone to vote for him again. Are you kidding me!

It’s time that logic and good stewardship of our tax dollars return to Stafford. Sheriff Jett, while he may be a personable, likeable guy, must be held to account for his failure in leadership and for a complete lack of results (see increase in crime numbers and budget). It’s high time that we got a new sheriff in town whose sole focus was fighting crime and his name is Chuck Feldbush (I-Stafford). Being more fiscally responsible with our tax dollars wouldn’t be bad thing either.

At a recent meeting of the Stafford County Board of Supervisors, Chairman Mark Dudenhefer (R-Garrisonville) made a stunning statement. He suggested that Republicans could look to make further cuts in the adopted FY’11 by withholding a percentage of county funds (a.k.a. holdback funds).

With the 7 percent holdback, they will have an opportunity to actually affect that budget by impacting that holdback of funds.

He made this statement in reference to Supervisor Susan Stimpson’s (R-Falmouth) statement that she was going to vote against the budget, since she wanted even deeper cuts. He suggested that this was still possible, even after passage, by not appropriating a portion of the holdback funds.

This is in sharp contrast to prior board precedent with regards to the purpose of holdback funds. The intent of holding back a percentage of funds appropriated to the county government and schools has been to avoid the situation where expected revenue is revised downward at the mid-year and it no longer supports the same level of budget expenditures. To me, it certainly makes good fiscal sense to hold back a certain percentage of funds, pending a mid-year review, although I would have required more justification on why 7 percent; however, I am deeply opposed to using this holdback as a way to affect adopted budgets outside of the normal budget process. This smells of politics at its worse.

This also presents significant problems for county government and the school system. They are essentially operating, based on their adopted budgets. If funds are cut surreptitiously, this will create a huge budget nightmare. If Stafford Republicans wanted to address specific budget items, they should have done it within the constraints of the normal budget process. Dude, say it isn’t so?!

If all of that wasn’t bad enough, Stafford Republicans, in approving the FY’11 budget, also voted to withhold the reappropriation of educational federal stimulus funds – pending accounting reports verifying the exact amount of unspent funds in FY’10. The fact is that Stafford Republicans were already provided this information by the school system. You see the information they were already provided doesn’t fit within their preconceived notions. They want to claim that this money was local money and not federal stimulus money, so that they can further cut the school budget by arguing that if they didn’t spend this money last year than they don’t need it this year.

As I previously mentioned, the school system froze expending federal stimulus funds in FY’10, during the FY’11 budget formulation process, to protect against a looming budget cliff that they identified due to significant declines in state and local revenues. The local decline in revenues were not only because of the struggling economy, but was actually exacerbated by Stafford Republicans fiscal irresponsibility.

By withholding these federal stimulus dollars from the school system, Stafford Republicans are potentially jeopardizing continuing a recent step increase given to teachers and other school employees into the next school year. Why you ask? The federal stimulus dollars were included as part of the instructional budget for next year. This instructional budget includes the large majority of employee salaries. If Stafford Republicans were not to reappropriate the $11 million or so of federal stimulus, not only would this raise be in jeopardy, but also significant teacher layoffs would be necessary.

It’s past time that Stafford Republicans stop playing political games with our teachers and children as their pawns! Enough is enough already.

In case you missed it (given all of our winter weather), the Republican majority on the Stafford County Board of Supervisors repealed the Business, Professional and Occupational License (BPOL) tax on February 2, 2010. I pretty much said that this was a forgone conclusion in my last post on the subject here. I’m not going to reiterate all the points I’ve already made on the topic, so if you’re interested check out my last post.

For those that were unable to attend the public hearing, I decided to put together a little video of highlights lowlights. I actually think that the Republicans can teach a course on the art of twisting the facts. As Albert Einstein once said,

If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.

A few key takeaways before you go. I certainly have some issues with BPOL in general; however, what troubles me the most is the fact that Stafford Republicans continue to misrepresent the facts to further their position on the issue.

They refuse on leveling with residents on how they plan on addressing the huge shortfalls present in the FY ’11 budget. Yeah the $26 million school shortfall and the upwards of $19 million shortfall in the county budget.

It still makes no sense to me that Republicans would use a surplus, which could have been used to lessen the impact of the tremendous shortfalls projected in the upcoming budget, to repeal an annual revenue source that some predict would equate to $140 million over the next 20-years.

For FY ’11, it was projected that BPOL would provide the county with $3.7 million of revenue. Combine the $3.7 million of BPOL revenue now lost with the $3.7 million of the surplus that must be used to cover the costs of repealing BPOL in the FY ’10 budget and the total impact to the FY ’11 budget is $7.4 million. So when the county is facing tough fiscal realities, the Republicans vote to make things even worse for the county, our schools, our roads, our law enforcement and our fire and rescue.  That $7.4 million could have meant that more teachers and deputies would be able to keep their jobs. It could have meant that some much needed road improvement projects were able to happen next year.

The Republicans have failed to have an honest debate with the public on the impact of the decisions that they are making. The reality is that Republicans will have one of two choices now: (1) Drastically reduce core services or (2) raise taxes on existing homeowners. They failed to level with residents during the BPOL debate and chose to avoid laying out the impact of their decisions.

Stafford County is the second fasting growing County in Virginia and, as such, has an ever-increasing need in maintaining and improving core services. As I stated previously, 53% of Stafford Schools do not currently meet Annual Yearly Progress requirements. Will businesses really choose to relocate to a school system that is failing? I think not.

Listen, I have no problem with repealing the BPOL tax as long as the Republicans showed how they planned on replacing this revenue source. BPOL is not a perfect tax, but it is one of the only tools that localities have on raising revenue locally that is not on the back of homeowners or consumers. If businesses have problems with the structure of BPOL, they need to work with their delegates and state senators to fully address them in the General Assembly. I do think that small businesses have some really good points on BPOL. What we need is an equitable tax structure for homeowners, consumers and businesses.

In the end, I’m most upset by the fact that the Republicans used a recently found surplus (due to an administrative error) to repeal BPOL. This is the same surplus that they cried about holding onto back in December when Democrats proposed spending it. I was equally critical of spending this surplus when Democrats tried to do it too.

This political posturing must end and the residents of Stafford County deserve to be put first again!

Unless you have been living under a political rock, everyone should be no doubt aware of a public hearing scheduled for tomorrow to reinstitute the merchants’ capital tax and nix the BPOL tax. Republicans made BPOL a key issue during the last campaign and pledged to kill it. They ended up winning a majority on the Stafford County Board of Supervisors (5-2) and are poised to follow through on their pledge tomorrow (this is actually a forgone conclusion).

How do Republicans plan on paying to repeal BPOL (since the money was already included in the FY ’10 budget)? As I predicted back in December (here and here), they plan on using the remaining $4.8 million surplus. That’s right, the $4.8 million (It was actually $6.2 million, but some of the money was already spent) that was discovered late last year because of an accounting error between the school board and the county two years ago. When Democrats proposed spending the surplus in December, Republican outrage boiled over. Supervisor Cord Sterling (R-Rock Hill) had the following to say when Democrats proposed spending the surplus,

We have a bleak financial outlook…It’s not a responsible way to govern. We need to put governance ahead of politics. Let’s wait and figure this out during the normal budget process.

And Supervisor Paul Milde (R-Aquia) added,

This amounts to a $6.2 million raid of Stafford’s accounts…I see Democrats trying to give away $6.2 million.

I would ask Sterling and Milde what has changed since December? Could it be that they are now in the majority and want to use the funds for other purposes? To Sterling, how is it good governance to repeal BPOL and cover the revenue loss with the surplus? I guess the financial outlook isn’t as bleak as it was in December or the outrage a month ago was more about wanting to save the money so that it could be used to repeal BPOL. It sounds to me that politics is being put ahead of good governance.

To Milde, I guess the Republicans are now trying to give away the remaining surplus. The only difference is that Democrats were giving the money to teachers and deputies, plus funding a required trust setup for post-employment benefits of school and county employees; and Republicans are choosing to give money to local businesses by repealing BPOL. This is not to say that one group deserves the money over another, but these are just simple facts.

Like I said back in December, both Republicans and Democrats wanted to spend the money in different ways. That is what made the Republican outrage so disingenuous. I was against spending the surplus until the budget picture became clearer. It is now clear that things are continuing to deteriorate and the FY ’11 budget already contains a $6.9 million revenue shortfall. Given declining state revenues, the picture will surely get worse. Repealing BPOL will only compound and exacerbate the already precarious budget situation.

It is no secret that I have been highly critical of the way in which BPOL was passed in the first place and have some serious issues with the structure of it. The reality is that localities are limited in the number of tools at their disposal to generate revenue. Unfortunately for homeowners, when additional revenue is needed that usually equates to higher property taxes. What we need is an equitable tax structure for homeowners and businesses. That doesn’t mean that businesses should be punished, but we need to understand that everyone has a stake in our communities and work towards some compromise.

Del. Mark Cole (R-Spotsylvania) recently introduced a bill to prevent any localities that have not enacted BPOL by January 1, 2010 from doing so in the future.  This doesn’t seem like much of a compromise to me, but politics at its’ worst. It is important to note that BPOL is a tool provided by the state to the localities and any changes to it must be introduced and passed in the state legislature.

Whether you are for or against BPOL is beside the point right now. The reality is that a bi-partisan group of supervisors, including Sterling and Dudenhefer (R-Garrisonville) approved the FY ’10 budget, which clearly included BPOL as a revenue stream. It seems fiscally irresponsible to me to remove a revenue stream by spending the surplus (double whammy there), which could instead go towards reducing the looming budget deficit. We need to do everything in our power to protect our core services (e.g. education, police, fire and rescue). The reality is that we are in for either severe cuts to these services (many of which are already cut to the bone) or a massive increase in homeowner’s property taxes to sustain them. So what are Republicans proposing going forward? I’m waiting…

I, for one, am deeply concerned about our schools. Did you know that approximately 53% of Stafford’s schools did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) last year? No Child Left Behind stipulates that any school system that receives federal funds must meet 100% AYP by 2014; and that schools that don’t make AYP for two or more consecutive years in the same content area be sanctioned, which would ultimately affect federal funding. If Stafford is hoping to attract businesses to the area, I assure you that a failing school system will not convince them.  The remaining $4.8 million surplus could easily mean that more teachers keep their jobs (ensuring reasonable class sizes) and we can make the necessary investments in our schools for fiscal year ’11 and beyond.

The Republicans have tried to make the argument that BPOL will hurt businesses and cause them to leave Stafford County in this economic climate. If that is the case then why isn’t Spotsylvania or the City of Fredericksburg considering a repeal of BPOL? Again this isn’t an argument for or against BPOL, it is simply a fact. Yes, a fact that current Supervisor Gary Snellings (R-Hartwood) agreed with in 2004.

Snellings said the following about BPOL back in 2004,

My argument has always been that if you have BPOL, you will run businesses out of the county…But I don’t see businesses jumping across the Rappahannock River because Stafford doesn’t have BPOL.

Snellings went on to say back in 2004,

I have never been in favor of BPOL…Until now. I don’t see any other way we can relieve some of the burden on homeowners other than putting it on BPOL. Nobody likes taxes, but the reality is, this is not as big a burden as we are being led to believe.

So in summary, Snellings didn’t see businesses coming to Stafford because of not having BPOL, believed BPOL provided a means to relieve the tax burden on homeowners and it wasn’t as big of a burden as everyone was being led to believe. Now he and his Republican colleagues have changed their mind on BPOL? Since I don’t believe there have been any substantive changes to BPOL since 2004, why the sudden change in opinion? Again, this is politics at its’ worst.

Going forward, we can only hope that our elected officials put the needs of the many over their own. The severe budgetary problems we are facing belong to no political party. It is time for them to put Stafford County residents first. I’m tired of the hypocrisy. What we need is fiscal restraint and responsibility and not political posturing.

It is already a forgone conclusion that Republicans will use the surplus to repeal the BPOL revenue stream (which some have stated would equate to $140 million over the next 20 years). The problem with all of this is that Republicans still have failed to address the revenue stream problem moving forward and have instead tried to make repealing BPOL appealing through the use of the one-time windfall (surplus). They are essentially out selling the bearskins before they have even found the bear.

At this point, I can only hope that Republicans level with county residents on what this will mean in terms of our property taxes and core services moving forward; however, if history prevails, I won’t be holding my breath.