Smyth County debt - courthouse issue

Information on the Courthouse Smyth County Debt, in more detail.

Note that this is now a done deal and we cannot easily stop any of it since the Board of Supervisors has signed off on it.  Some records are at www.smythcounty.org  I also have a copy of the Davenport county financial report if anyone wants to see it.  It was created to help the County Board of Supervisors understand the impact of borrowing $50 million.  It is in this report that it states that the property tax rate will necessarily go up by $0.07 cents per hundred if the money is borrowed.  In the last two years, the tax rate has increased by 35 percent.  Have you noticed that in your property tax bill?  The report also outlines the debt payment for the next 35 years.  Let’s hope we don’t need to borrow again within the next 40 years.  What are the chances of that?  Also, there is no Literary Loan.  It may or may not be reinstated.  That too is in the Davenport report.

The $25 Million loan for Smyth County Courthouse Renovations approved in 2010

The Circuit Court judges brought a lawsuit against the county to state their security was at risk while on the job.  Another judge agreed and issued an order.  According to Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, the Board of Supervisors was not obligated to use the plan the judges wanted and could have made a different plan that was cheaper.  The board allowed the judges to dictate to them what to do, based upon the advice of County Attorney John Tate and encouragement from Supervisor Charlie Clark. (Charlie Clark is on the board at the Bank of Marion, where the county borrows its money.) Then the plan was added to by county employees who must have decided that since it had to be done anyway, it would be a good time to get changes they wanted too.  We are not clear who pushed for the parking garage but it is ridiculous.

The plan grew and grew until it encompassed adding more parking by creating a three level parking garage (which means buying the land and demolishing the building on it), moving the 911 center (which means buying a new building or constructing a new building and getting new equipment for them), moving the Sheriff’s department, adding a private entrance and elevator for the judges, getting new furniture and fixtures, putting an addition onto the courthouse in the back, and of course other renovations to use the space that the 911 and Sheriff free up by moving out to another building.

Scott Simpson is the County Engineer and he has a copy of the final plan along with the budget.  His email is: ssimpson@smythcounty.org, his phone is:  (276)783-3298 ext. 207.

 Tom Burkett, county treasurer, spoke at a meeting I attended just last week (July 20th, 2011) and said that the county finances are not stable since the tax base is small and not growing.  He was concerned about the $25 Million in debt last year and is concerned about growing it to $50 Million this year with the new school loan. 

Bill Carrico was at the same meeting last week and confirmed what we suspected.  The judges could not have ordered a tax increase or forced the Board of Supervisors to spend or borrow $25 million for that courthouse.  He spoke with Mr. Cuccinelli personally.

Bottom line:  the county employees wanted a better work area and were willing to take advantage of this lawsuit to get what they wanted.  The board did not have the back bone to stand up to the judiciary branch and defend us from their infringement into executive branch duties (increasing taxes).  Judges are not allowed to set tax rates or force boards to spend specific amounts of money.  They can only make recommendations and the board can choose to ignore those recommendations and come up with their own plan.

Last year property taxes were not only reassessed but the tax rate was increased by 25%.  The year before the rate went up 10%.   Here is the quote from the Board meeting held on June 14th last year.

Effective Rate Increase: Smyth County, Virginia proposes to adopt a tax rate of $0.69 cents per $100 of assessed value. The difference between the lowered tax rate and the proposed rate would be $0.138 cents per $100 of assessed value, or 25 (%) percent. This difference will be known as the “effective tax rate increase.”

Courthouse Budget as of 1/7/2011

Courthouse Project Budget
Accounts	Amount
Borrowing costs	$         250,000
Basic Architecture	$      1,364,404
Advanced Sitework Package	$      1,300,000
Courthouse Construction	$    15,500,000
Asbestos Contingency	$         250,000
Data Systems and Cabling	$         300,000
Furniture Allowance	$      1,250,000
Geotech and QA/QC	$         125,000
Construction Manager	$         400,000
Parking Site Acquisitions	$         600,000
Parking Architecture	$         125,000
Parking Structure Construction	$      1,500,000
911 Relocation	$         900,000
Temporary Sheriff's Office	$         125,000
Radio System Improvements	$         800,000
Contingency	$         960,596
	$    25,750,000

Chronology:

1.  On 16 Sept 2005, under the name of the Commonwealth of Va., the following judges of the Circuit Court of Smyth County signed an order to show cause, in which they effectively were plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Smyth County Board of Supervisors.

Judges are appointed by the Virginia legislature.  In some states, the judges are elected.

Judges: C. Randall Lowe, Larry B. Kirksey, Isaac St. C. Freeman 

You can get a copy at the Courthouse - it's in BOOK 84 PAGE 744 and 745.

2. In the intervening years the lawsuit went to court and eventually Judge Doherty (not one of those on the lawsuit) sided with the judges (naturally) and said that the Smyth County Courthouse did not provide adequate security for the judges. 

3.  There were several plans created to address this lawsuit over the years.  They ranged from $12 million and somehow grew to $25 million.

These are minutes from the County Courthouse Committee meeting held October 8, 2009 with Supervisors Clark (Northfork district), Neitch (Rye Valley District), and Dishner (Park District.)  The second sentence is not true.

A possible hearing will be set if the County does not enter into this current Order. Judge Doherty can order the courthouse to be built, and set a tax rate to pay for it. Mr. Tate feels the judges will not pursue a hearing. If the Board “asks” for this order, the Board will have no control over the courthouse renovation.

The plans have been changed several times to meet the judges “wants”. The plans have now been agreed upon between the judges and the County.”

4.  Last year (February 2010) when I personally entered the courthouse, I noticed metal detectors tucked in under the stairs.  They were not in use.

5.  On June 24th, 2010 the County Board of Supervisors approved borrowing $25 million dollars for the plant that ‘satisfies’ the judges.  The votes were as follows:

Roscoe Call (Saltville) – Yes

Todd Dishner (Park) --  Yes

Brenda Waddell (Atkins) – No

Charlie Clark (Northfork) – Yes

Darlene Neitch – No

Wade Blevins (Chilhowie) – No

Regina Davidson (Royal Oak) – Yes

The County treasurer, Tom Burkett, and the Commonwealth Attorney Roy Evans opposed this expensive plan.  They both expressed this to the citizens in various ways and means.  They both understood that the court order needed to be followed but that the plan did not have to be this expensive.  It was Roy Evans who told me that there was an earlier plan of half that amount and he didn’t understand why they did not use that plan.

The documentation for these events is public record and might be found online or may be obtained at the courthouse or the county administrator’s office.

What it Means to be Free

I will not try to improve upon the discourse below.  I thought it perfect the way it is said.  The question I ask is whether or not we wish to abdicate our responsibilities as free citizens to become "enabled" by our governments, and thus give up our freedoms?  The founders knew socialism and rejected it.  They knew communism and rejected that.  The American government system was unique and was intended to minimize the impact of government upon citizens and allow the citizens to become the most prosperous and self sufficient possible.  The Constitution is a document that restricts the government, not the citizen.  Don't let anyone tell you different.  The Bill of Rights places restrictions on government and outlines specific rights it cannot infringe upon.  There is nothing in the Constitution that tells us what a citizen must or must not do.

The founding principles worked until the last century when progressives, communists, Marxists and socialists realized they could infiltrate our government and pass laws that would have people become more dependent upon government and therefore less free.  Freedom involves economic as well as physical freedom.  Taking money from the government does not provide economic freedom, it binds people to the government and gives up the right to work and make your own living.  In this war against socialism that we are now locked into, no one will come with a weapon and force you to take government money.  They know... THEY KNOW... that people are weak and will put out their hand if enough is offered.  Remember this; it is one of the things my father first taught me:  There is no such thing as a free lunch.  There is ALWAYS a catch, always.

Source:  http://www.founding.com/

The Alphabet of Freedom is found on this web site.  The alphabets can be used in teaching our youth (and ourselves) and covers both economics and politics.  The following conclusion is taken from this web site.

Freedom is a great blessing; it is man's natural right. Free society offers maximum opportunities for human prosperity and happiness. But freedom is also a great responsibility. More is required of a free people than any other. They must be informed, civic-minded, and self-reliant. In addition to thinking of themselves as individual men and women, and as members of families, churches, and other private associations, Americans must think of themselves as citizens of a free country. The Alphabet of Freedom is a summary of the principles, institutions, and practices of American constitutional government and free society.

In his First Inaugural Address, George Washington described what was, and still is, at stake in the great American experiment in freedom: "The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people." If freedom cannot flourish in America, it likely cannot flourish anywhere. On the other hand, if America succeeds, it becomes a model for people around the world who love liberty and seek to make their own governments freer.

The destiny of America is in our hands. America trusts its future and its security to each new generation of Americans who can and will make America what they want it to be. All American citizens should take ownership and pride in their country because, in truth, this land is their land. But Americans must always remember that their own well being, and the well being of their families and friends, is intrinsically connected to the well being of our country. It is to our advantage, and it is our duty, to make America the best it can be. In carrying out this duty, we can find no better guidance than the principles of freedom, the abc’s of freedom that form the Alphabet of Freedom.

Smyth County - puts us all in more debt

Smyth County Residents Be Aware!!

 

Each man, woman, and child in the county will OWE County Government

$1,667.00  

if they finance the proposed expenditures of $50,000,000 ($50 million)

Property tax rates will increase by at least $.07 per $100 or 10%.

 County debt creates a real cost for property owners: $70 to $350 or more per year, depending upon the property assessed value.  This is according to the consultants that the County hired to study the County financial status and impact to the residents.  We have copies of the report.  The yearly debt payments of up to nearly $4,000,000 will continue beyond the year 2043, even if the county doesn’t take more debt in later years.

What makes up the debt?

Over the last year, the County Board of Supervisors has voted “YES” to spending money we do not have, and need a HUGE loan.  Plus, they are considering spending MORE!

·         Courthouse expansion = $25,000,000            (MUST borrow)         Approved in 2010

·         New Marion School Campus = $25,000,000           Under consideration NOW

The Board of Supervisors also voted approval to:

·         Increased property tax rates by 10% (rate was supposed to be $0.52 per hundred, was increased to $0.69.)
·         Increased machinery taxes
·         Increased permit fees, including fees to church groups and other non-profits
·         AND (to add insult to injury,) increase their own salaries! **

** After Roscoe Call stated that they were “doing the citizens a favor” by coming to county meetings.  Since when?  Didn’t they volunteer?

Soon they will vote on whether or not to take the new debt and the additional tax increases for the new debt (the $.07 per $100.)  If the county takes on this new debt, it will not be paid off until years after our grammar school age children are holding their grandchildren!  Let’s hope they don’t need even MORE loans during the next 40 years.

When did YOU get a pay raise?  Have your utility bills gone down? Property taxes gone down? Gas prices gone down? Groceries or household supplies gone down?

YOU can make a difference!!!  Just a phone call!!

It’s hard to influence Washington DC, but local representatives need your input.

PLEASE TELL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE “NO MORE TAXES or DEBT!!”

There is a proposed Public Hearing August 9th at 6:00 PM for input on the new school funding.  Check the paper for the final date and time.  It MUST be advertised by law.

Here are the Representatives, Districts, and Contact information.

By the way, there are 4 Board of Supervisors positions up for election this fall.  If they won’t listen, use your sovereign strength and VOTE!  Let’s CHANGE the tax and spend direction!

Please call your representative to express your opinion about incurring more debt or increasing costs to residents in any way.  Their phone number is public for a reason; they need your input in order to make good decisions about how to spend YOUR money.

District	Name	Address	Phone
Atkins*	Brenda Waddell bwaddell@smythcounty.org	125 Mulberry Lane Atkins, VA24311	276-783-5757
Chilhowie	Wade H. Blevins wblevins@smythcounty.org	522 Town Spring Road Chilhowie, VA24319	276-646-5312
Northfork*	Charlie Clark-Chairman cclark@smythcounty.org	4672 Valley Road Saltville, VA24370	276-624-3272
Park*	Todd Dishner-Vice Chairman	202 Spring Valley Road Marion, VA24354	276-783-2096
Royal Oak	Regina Davidson rdavidson@smythcounty.org	232 Rolling Hills Drive Marion, VA 24354	276-685-2570
Rye Valley*	Darlene R. Neitch dneitch@smythcounty.org	199 Belle Hollow Road Chilhowie, VA24319	276-646-3902
Saltville	Roscoe Call rcall@smythcounty.org	688 Upper Poore Valley Rd Saltville, VA24370	276-496-4545

                      * Up for election THIS year!

First Principles of our Nation's Founding

Fundamental beliefs lead to a great concept:  Government of the People, by the People, For the People.  Let’s keep it that way.

Source:  A Citizen’s Introduction to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution by Matthew Spalding, Ph.D. 2010 The Heritage Foundation

Our nation was founded on the concept that people are equally endowed with rights that come from nature or God.  Who is governed and who is to govern are not specified in a ‘free state.’  There is NO divine right of kings.  Nor are rights a matter of legal privilege or kindness from some ‘ruling class.’  Our rights exist by nature PRIOR to any government or law.  Only because these rights are left unsecured is a government necessary.  These concepts are universal and endless over all time and all peoples.

Therefore, the ultimate authority of a legitimate government depends upon the consent of a free people.  Consent is the means by which equality is made politically operable and where random (arbitrary) power is stopped.  The natural measurement for judging whether a government is legitimate is whether that government exists with the consent of the governed.  ANY political powers not coming out of the consent of the governed are, using the laws of nature, illegitimate and hence UNJUST.

The “consent of the governed” is in contrast to the “will of the majority.”  European Democracies tend towards the latter, whereby all decisions are ultimately political and therefore must be routed through the government.  The former concept of consent describes a situation where people are self-governing in the local regions, religions and social institutions all into which the government may only intrude if the people consent!

People consent through deliberation, debate, compromise and discussion.  They form a public consensus about what constitutes the public good.  This public consensus knits individuals into a community of citizens.  Our Constitution protects our liberty to determine “the public good” and restricts the government from intruding into our lives.  It is therefore essential that the government be quite limited because without limits and clear definition, the government can grow endlessly and then easily overpower the citizens, imposing the will of those governing over the general public good.

It is important that we vote for representatives that understand these basic principles and understand the restrictions of the government.  Our nation has a strong Constitution that limits federal government and it was created based upon principles that do not change.  Over the last 250 years the laws of nature are still the same.  They do not evolve or change.  We still must give consent.  Well, please give it carefully and thoughtfully or we may find we are no longer consenting.  Maybe we have reached that point already.

Constitutional Issues - Separation of Church and State: Origins of the Phrase

NOT SEPARATION OF GOD FROM STATE by Fr. Bill McCarthy, MSA

(edited for brevity by this blogger; source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/987191/posts,)

The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…" While most recognize the phrase "separation of church and state," few know its source; but it is important to understand the origins of that phrase.

The process of drafting the First Amendment made the intent of the Founders abundantly clear.  When reviewing extensive discussions —recorded in the Congressional Records from June 7 through September 25 of 1789— it is clear that the Founders were saying: "We do not want in America what we had in Great Britain: we don’t want one denomination running the nation. We will not all be Catholics, or Anglicans, or any other single denomination. We do want God’s principles, but we don’t want one denomination running the nation." Later court rulings supported this intent.  For example, a 1799 court declared: "By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing."

In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, heard that the Congregationalist denomination was about to be made the national denomination. That rumor distressed the Danbury Baptists. Consequently, they sent a letter to President Thomas Jefferson. On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote back, assuring them that "the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state." His letter explained that they need not fear the establishment of a national denomination—and that while the wall of the First Amendment would protect the church from government control—there always would be open and free religious expression of all orthodox religious practices, for true religious expression of all orthodox religious practices would never threaten the purpose of government.

It was also agreed that the government would interfere with a religious activity that was a direct menace to the government or to the overall peace and good order of society. (Later Supreme Court identified potential "religious" activities in which the government might interfere: things like human sacrifice, bigamy or polygamy, the provocation of immorality or licentiousness, etc. If any of these activities were to occur in the name of "religion," then the government would interfere, for these were activities which threaten public peace and safety).

Today, all that is heard of Jefferson’s letter is the phrase, "a wall of separation between church and state," without either the context, or the explanation given in the letter, or its application by earlier courts. The clear understanding of the First Amendment for a century-and-a-half was that it prohibited the establishment of a single national denomination. National policies and rulings in that century-and-a-half always reflected that interpretation. For example, in 1853, a group petitioned Congress to separate Christian principles from government. They desired a so-called "separation of church and state" with chaplains being turned out of the congress, the military, etc. Their petition was referred to the House and the Senate Judiciary Committees, which investigated for almost a year to see if it would be possible to separate Christian principles from government.

Both the House and the Senate Judiciary Committees returned with their reports. The following are excerpts from the House report delivered on Mary 27, 1854 (the Senate report was very similar):  "Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, but not any one sect [denomination]…. In this age, there is no substitute for Christianity…. That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants." The Committees explained that they would not separate these principles, for it was these beliefs which had made us so successful—they had been our foundation, our basis.

During the 1870s, 1880s, and 1890s, another group challenged specific Christian principles in government before the Supreme Court. Jefferson’s letter had remained unused for years. But now—75 years later—in the case Reynolds v. United States, the plaintiffs resurrected Jefferson’s letter.  In that case, the Court printed a lengthy segment of Jefferson’s letter and then used his letter on "separation of church and state" to again prove that it was permissible to maintain Christian values, principles, and practices in official policy. For the next 15 years, the Supreme Court utilized Jefferson’s letter to ensure that Christian principles remained a part of government.

The original intent remained for the next 70 years until 1947.  In Everson v. Board of Education, the Court, for the first time, did not cite Jefferson’s entire letter, but selected only eight words from it. The Court announced: "The First Amendment has erected ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’ That wall must be kept high and impregnable." This was a new philosophy. Why would the Court take Jefferson’s letter completely out of context? In the years following, the Court began regularly to speak of a "separation of church and state," broadly explaining that, "This is what the Founders wanted—separation of church and state. This is their great intent." The Court failed to quote the Founders; it just generically asserted that this is what the Founders wanted.

The courts continued on this track so steadily that, in 1958, in a case called Baer v. Kolmorgen, one of the judges, tired of hearing the phrase, wrote a dissent warning that if the court did not stop talking about the "separation of church and state," people were going to start thinking it was part of the Constitution. That warning was in 1958! Nevertheless, the Court continued to talk about separation until June 25th, 1962, when, in the case Engle v. Vitale, the Court delivered the first ever ruling which completely separated Christian principles from education.

*********

Heaton the Spoiler?

Jeremiah Heaton is running for Congress as an Independent in VA’s 9^th district.  Recently a web article came out stating that he and Rick Boucher’s wife are business acquaintances.  Apparently her musical group is hired by Mr. Heaton to perform at their general store in Damascus occasionally.  It is a small world, is it not?

Well perhaps it is a small world, but someone with a suspicious mind might wonder about Mr. Heaton’s candidacy and how this issue fits into that effort.  First of all, Mr. Heaton did not make the relationship public.  It seems anyone interested in total honesty would have made it known that a business relationship existed between one congressional candidate and another candidate’s spouse.  Secondly, Mr. Heaton has spoken at a few area meetings and does not make much effort to disparage Mr. Boucher.  With 28 years in Congress, there is much fodder for Mr. Boucher’s opponents, yet I heard no complaints about Mr. Boucher’s voting record or his lifestyle from Mr. Heaton.  However, Mr. Heaton makes considerable effort to disparage Mr. Griffith’s record.  He complains about Mr. Griffith’s occupation (lawyer) and tries to make Mr. Griffith look strange because of his personal actions (Griffith re-enacts a war hero in costume.)  I have heard this from Mr. Heaton himself as well as some of his supporters.

Mr. Heaton is also suspect because he does not seem to be truly trying to energize a campaign.  He himself does not believe he can win.  I heard him say his wife thinks he might ‘screw up’ and win.  So, why is Mr. Heaton in this race?  When accused of simply splitting the vote, he becomes very defensive and falls back on the common man’s cry that apparently a common man can’t be elected if he isn’t in a party.  Yet, he pooh pooh’s the established parties and the fact that they are so organized.  Mr. Heaton doesn’t seem to appreciate that you need a substantial ground organization to get elected, regardless of party.  When asked how one can help Mr. Heaton, his answer is give money.  My answer would have been to recruit volunteers and get my name out there with the voters.  Money helps but so do volunteers.  Perhaps Mr. Tancredo, the Independent running in Colorado for Governor, might give Heaton some lessons.  Tancredo is within a few points of the leader in that race.

If Mr. Heaton’s idea of winning an election is to gain the attention of the press with travel around the globe, it’s not working.  He is still in low single digits in any polling.  So what is the purpose of his campaign?  He hasn’t been to many events and skipped the last forum.  His media efforts have been mostly out of the district.  A suspicious mind might say that his motive IS simply to split the vote.  Perhaps the Democrats and / or Mr. Boucher made sure there is an Independent candidate in the race to do just that.  Mr. Boucher knew he had a valid opponent in the Republican Party who might just win this time.  With the mood of the voters against the big spenders like Boucher in Washington, perhaps the strategy for the Democrat is to use a third party as the only way to stay in office.  Mr. Heaton’s campaign style seems to support that conclusion. 

I recommend we don’t waste our votes on a third party spoiler. 

Where's Rick?

Remember that game where you had to look at a picture of a huge crowd of people and try to find a funny looking guy in a striped hat?  Sometimes you could look and look and never find him.  You had to trust that he was there, somewhere, or they would not have had you looking at the picture to start with, right?

Well, I feel like the people in the 9th district are playing that game with our representative, Mr. Rick Boucher.  He has been invited to several events both local and regional.  I personally know several people who have visited or called his office and written him emails, including myself.  His staff is good.  They cover for him and say he is out, unreachable.  We get their form letter replies with his liberal explanation for why he continues to vote for Nancy Pelosi’s spending bills when we have no money to spend.  We even get his campaign letters telling about all the pork money he is spending in our region, more money we don’t have. 

But what we don’t get is Mr. Boucher.  He either declines or in some cases, the Boucher office has given no response at all.  The requests were ignored completely.  Many of these requests were for forums where local issues should be discussed between the candidates and the voters.  His opponents were willing to come and did so.  They faced tough questions and discussions about our issues, why won’t he?  

After all, the Congressional recess exists so Representatives can be in their districts to touch base with the people who live there.  So why isn’t he here?  Is that any way to treat your constituents?  Don’t the people who pay his salary and hired him to represent them deserve better.  Doesn’t Mr. Boucher owe his bosses the courtesy of a personal appearance?

Instead of a face to face with Mr. Boucher, we get the Where’s Waldo game.  I am sorry; we just can’t find him though we are told he is there.  Well, I guess it is time for a new representative.  We need someone who is responsive and who listens, not just appears when he feels like it.  On November 2^nd, we can have our say and we can vote out Mr. Boucher.  Though a different person may not be the perfect congressman, with the standards that Mr. Boucher sets, our new representative should have no where to go but up.