Ref Agenda Page → 11-19-2025

Following are the Holiday Pay Schedule proposals provided to the Board of Supervisors during yesterday's meeting.
(The following information was not shared with the public during the meeting; a request was necessary to obtain it.)



At the maximum bonus level of $37,779.00, and adding in the $50,000 increase in medical insurance this year, we're looking at $87,779—more than 1 cent of the amount collected in real-estate taxes (roughly $82,000 per penny). With the current rate at 54 cents per hundred, that means that close to 2% of collected real-estate taxes will be going to “extras” in a year when Highland citizens were compelled to absorb a 15.9% real-estate tax increase.

To get an understanding of where the proposed bonuses are going, a quick review of County employee salaries is worth a look. Open the Books → Highland County. These figures are one year out of date and do not include all part-time and less-than-part-time employees. 2025 salaries are likely to be somewhat higher.
The major takeaway, from Open The Books is at the top. In less than 10 years time, the cost of Highland County salaries has almost DOUBLED.

Note that, as of a FOIA request earlier this year, there are 77 employees on the County side alone.

Money for me, taken from thee, comes to mind…

Ref Agenda Page → 11-19-2025

- The BOS voted to pay the $687,617.50 (the exact amount quoted at the meeting) to the bureaucrats in Richmond. While I don't have any say in this, I believe this payout was a huge mistake. I would have voted to repay Richmond's contribution (a maximum of 20%) and nothing more. By any accounting, that sum would have made Richmond whole. That check would have been accompanied by a formal letter indicating what the sum was for (i.e., making Richmond’s contribution whole, which is what any legal system attempts to do). Specifically, the letter would have stated that the sum was not for rewarding Richmond with Highland County taxpayer funds for Richmond's interpretation of a perceived accounting error that, as best as I understand it, no one truly has a handle on—what happened or what the issue actually is. Again, I believe, for better or worse, this issue needs to go to court because the law that makes this nonsense possible could only have been dreamed up by education bureaucrats on a power trip. If this is allowed to stand—if Richmond is permitted to bully Highland County taxpayers into paying back more than their measly 20% contribution—more issues like this may be headed our way in the future.

- While some of the $687,617.50 amount will be paid for by the cash merged into the General Fund from the school’s capital fund, I would ensure that next year the school system makes up the difference fully in a dollar-for-dollar budget cut. Highland County taxpayers cannot be expected to make up differences for accounting errors, regardless of the reason, or anomalies like this will become the norm rather than the exception.\

Ref Agenda Page → 11-05-2025

- The BOS held a joint session with the School Board regarding the $1.1 million accounting issue that Richmond's education bureaucrats insist is a problem. Keep in mind that Richmond actually contributed roughly $200,000 of this disputed sum, where, if it's not spent exactly how they say it must be spent, they were insisting that the entire sum ($1.1M) be returned to Richmond. (This means their 20% contribution + Highland’s 80%.) The current offer on the table from Richmond is that the BOS pay something like $671,000 of the $1.1 million back and then “apply” to get all funds beyond something around $170,000 (most of Richmond’s contribution) returned to the County with conditions and strings attached. This would mean Richmond would have the *option* to return something like $500,000 — or maybe not; no guarantees. The entire proposition is ludicrous. See the recording on the Agenda page in the time slot beginning at 12:35. The current proposal relies on Richmond’s generosity in returning Highland County funds back to Highland, again with stringent conditions. This is not equitable by any stretch of the imagination. If I were on the Board, I would return Richmond’s paltry 20%-ish contribution, and if they insisted on more — essentially trying to pull back more money than they contributed — it would be, “we’ll see you in court.” I’ve heard that this is “the law.” If it is, it would be a public service to challenge it in court because such a law is an obvious legal overstep. A change is needed.

- The highlights of the housing presentation show Highland County with the highest percentage of home ownership in our area. The suggestion is that the 800 or so unoccupied houses in Highland be refurbished and put on the market as rentals. (These houses are likely hunt camps or are simply not habitable.) I'm completely against this idea for a few reasons. The primary reason is that Highland enjoys a relatively low crime rate because of home ownership. As any law-enforcement officer would tell you, the majority of crime — and the residences of criminals in general — are in rentals. This also applies to so-called “low-cost housing.” In every city, the low-rent district is where drugs, alcoholism, and high crime are found. I would strongly advise those interested not to consider increasing the availability of rentals or taking funding for low-cost housing. While the tax base may increase initially, the costs of law enforcement and increased adjudication in the courts will catch up and far exceed any tax gain, while decreasing the quality of life for Highland County residents.

- Amazingly, despite the paid holidays already on the books, the County Administrator requested additional days off for the Christmas and New Year’s holidays for (I believe) all County administrative employees. Equally amazing is that Harry Sponaugle actually requested that the County Administrator come up with an amount for “Christmas pay.” I’m completely aghast at how taxpayer funds are being disrespected. As it seems, at least two of Highland’s BOS members are doggedly consistent in their generosity with your taxpayer dollars. (See the Agenda page for the audio file link and the appropriate time slots. Listen for yourself.)

- Henry Budzinski did not (again) read BOS minutes from previous meetings, so passing the minutes into the record was tabled again. This would be a 15-minute proposition at best. Yet he asked to represent the BOS at another function. This should tell constituents all they need to know: Budzinski likes to “preside over” but does not like to do any of the actual work required of being a Board member. Given the “deer-in-the-headlights” look of two Board members on some occasions, I have doubts about whether they’ve actually read the information packets provided before coming to these meetings.

- A good number of residents from Back Creek complained to the Board about barking dogs at a specific residence. Apparently, the Sheriff’s department has been called on numerous occasions about the noise and incessant barking. Residents made a pretty compelling case that the non-stop barking is at a level beyond being a mere nuisance. Since the County lacks a noise ordinance, during past call-outs there was nothing the Sheriff could do. There was back-and-forth on whether or not there should be a noise ordinance in Highland County, the legalese the ordinance would need to be enforceable, etc. Essentially, nothing firm was decided.

Ref Agenda Page → 10-07-2025

The quest to create greater expense — which will require more taxpayer dollars — never ends. The latest idea, as of this meeting, is that Highland needs a “Finance Director.” Apparently, this epiphany came about during a conversation between Henry Budzinski and a School Board member. If hired, this would likely result in the addition of a mid- to high-end salary ranging from $80K to as much as $110K. In essence, when benefits are added, we're in the neighborhood of another cent per hundred for this salary alone. I have serious doubts that this salary would be offset by not replacing at least a few positions as employees retire or depart which, if the Board seriously entertains Budzinski's idea, is exactly what should happen. Further, a “Director” is rarely an all-in-one “doer,” so a secretarial position and a financial assistant would be the next order of business, along with additional office space. No, a tax increase is much easier on all concerned except, of course, for those who are left with the bill — the County's taxpayers.

The Board voted to transfer the School System’s funds, remaining at the end of the last fiscal year, to the general fund. The amount is roughly $254,000.

(Delayed)

Ref Agenda Page → https://www.hcspotlight.org/doku.php?id=board_of_supervisors:meeting_agendas:2025:09_17

While this was a relatively short meeting, Henry Budzinski did not disappoint. Apparently he's looking for more tax revenue, to increase the sizing and funding of local government, by looking into allowing ATV's on public roads. This is, supposedly, popular in other locations and thought to be “a real money maker”. The question is, for who? I suspect the average taxpayer won't see a dime from this, nor will this idea reduce the tax rate. At best, it's another scheme to let out the local spending belt another notch. ATV's on public roads is almost certain to be accompanied by underage driving.

There was also mentions of “the office space problem” and how the trailers need updating. There are so many opportunities for additional spending which, inevitably, results in tax increases. This will always be the case if the expenses side of the ledger is never examined.

(Delayed)

Ref Agenda Page → https://www.hcspotlight.org/doku.php?id=board_of_supervisors:meeting_agendas:2025:08_20

The first part of this meeting, and the main topic of this meeting, was FOIA training for County department heads and staff. The basic idea put forth was, when in doubt, FOIA law favors disclosure of information to citizens with a Virginia address. There was some discussion over billing for a FOIA inquiry which, as was explained, is to be limited to the actual costs involved in producing the requested documentation. The term $200 was bandied around as a possible amount. At one point an EDA member piped up with questions that seemed to revolve around the potential of billing a FIOA request as a means of discouraging or repelling a request.

Personally, I found the notion of billing a FOIA request as being absurd for several reasons.
1. We're living in the age of information. Electronic copies are, essentially, free.
2. 10 of thousands in taxpayer funds are spent on information processing equipment. If this equipment is utilized properly, with information categorized and stored correctly, compliance with a request shouldn't take more than a few minutes.
3. Every salary in every department, every single piece of equipment that is used by local staff, and every sheet of paper, is paid for with tax dollars. Essentially, “The County” incurs no expense at all regardless of the size and scope of a document request whether it's electronic or hard copy. All has been pre-paid, down to the last dollar.
4. Finally, if a request is billed, where does the billed amount go? To “The County”. Essentially, billing a taxpayer for information is an additional tax layered on top of the taxes previously taken from the tax payer, to maintain department staff and equipment that complies with the request.

In the bottom line: County entities are accountable to taxpayers - not the other way around.
With that said, I understand that legal firms and news sources might attempt to take advantage of FOIA requests, and that they should be billed for voluminous requests. On the other hand, compliance with a FOIA request from a taxpayer should be considered as a required and free service.

In discussions along these lines and to their credit, the County Administrator and the new legal counsel made it clear that, where possible, FOIA requests shouldn't be billed.

(Delayed)

Ref Agenda Page → https://www.hcspotlight.org/doku.php?id=board_of_supervisors:meeting_agendas:2025:08_20

There were no unbugeted expenses mentioned during this meeting. (Thankfully) As usual, there's no discussion of the budget and all are happy to conclude meetings in accordance with the pre-written agenda with little to nothing discussed on reining in, or controlling, the budget.

This one item, the tax rate, is the sole responsibility of the supervisors yet it is never discussed in meetings, outside of agenda items that are controlled by the County administrator during budget season. At that point, the notion is structured that “it's too late” to cut or change anything.

Ref Agenda Page → https://www.hcspotlight.org/doku.php?id=board_of_supervisors:meeting_agendas:2025:08_05

This month's unbudgeted expense was +$17,000 for a new zero turn mower for the landfill. Given the purported ages of the two existing mowers (20 and 23 years old), one would think that a replacement of one of them would have been in the budget at some point.

Notably, the Chairman made a comment along the lines of “time is passing fast”. On that I would agree. Nothing, so far, has been done or even mentioned regarding next years budget. On the most important job of the Board, setting the tax rate, despite my reminding them more than once - crickets… If ignored until the budget comes up again, we'll see the wringing of hands and the usual talk of “we have no choice” when the County Administrator puts forward the suggest of another tax increase.

The Kabuki theater, this annual skipping record, is tiresome. Highland County and it's residents deserve better, but what they'll get is an ever higher tax burden with little to no benefit.

Ref Agenda Page → https://www.hcspotlight.org/doku.php?id=board_of_supervisors:meeting_agendas:2025:07_16

Henry Budzinski was absent.
This was the shortest meeting I've attended so far. With the exception of advertising for tree trimming, this meeting was blissfully devoid of additional spending efforts or attempts to lay the ground work for the same.

Ref Agenda Page → https://www.hcspotlight.org/doku.php?id=board_of_supervisors:meeting_agendas:2025:07_01

I'll be adding more soon with specific notes on topics presented at the meeting and a few items Board Members spoke about, while interrupting my paltry 5 minutes at the podium. (After listening to EDA rep's - 4 of them - who spoke at l-e-n-g-t-h.) In the interim, look at the referenced Agenda Page, above, and take a look my personal speaking notes.

Ref Agenda Page → 06/03/2025

Other than paying half (of half) of the monthly power bill for an existing communications tower, and a proposal to relocate a weight room made by County Recreational staff, there was little of general public in this BOS meeting.

From my personal speaking notes → supplied (and on the agenda page), following are the categories that I touched on:

Early Budget Planning:
I urged the Board to begin budget planning earlier, and in starting next years process now, to avoiding rushed or reactive decisions.
Employee Count vs. Population:
147 employees for a population of ~2,300 almost begs for close scrutiny of staffing levels in our small county.
Attrition-Based Cost Control:
I put forth a proposal to reduce costs through attrition (rather than layoffs). This is a measured, non-disruptive approach to budget reduction.
Cost Per Student Analysis:
The actual per-student cost ($30,000) brings forth questions of educational efficiency and whether taxpayers are getting good value for their money.
Challenged Further Tax Increases:
If another tax increase is to be proposed, a referendum is a democratic and transparent way to test public opinion about taxes. The people of Highland would be accountable for the final decision.
Criticized Across-the-Board Bonuses:
In the public sector, blanket bonuses reflect a lack of accountability. Performance-based pay (bonuses) should actually be performance-based.

Ref Agenda Page → 05/22/2025

This meeting was not attended. See the Ref Agenda Page.

Ref Agenda Page → 05/21/2025

This was a routine meeting with very little that stood out.

However, the Superintendent handed out a budget summary showing the approved budget total of $6,059,853.27 being amended to $5,941,610.89 — a difference of $118,242.38. While any kind of savings is welcome and should be applauded, in this case, the top-line budget reduction amounts to roughly 1.95%.

Furthermore, the “approved budget” was already an increase over last year's budget. The amended total budget ($5,941,610.89) is still higher than last year's total ($5,931,936). Considering the increase in the composite index, where Richmond pays less (20%) and Highland pays more (80%), this year's increased cost to the Highland County community is still roughly 10% more than last year.

However, the bottom-line school budget “per student” can be easily understood without all the accounting jargon, “standards of quality,” etc. Using simple math—dividing the amended total budget ($5,941,610.89) by the number of students (now reported as 198)—we arrive at the actual, shockingly real cost: $30,008.13 per student.

(And a Public comments reminder of what happened during this budget cycle.)
Ref Agenda Page → 05/06/2025

Per the documents provided on the Agenda Page, Highland County has a total of 147 employees on the payroll. On the Quick Stats document I provided to the Board, I noted that the count is 150 which includes the members of the Board of Supervisors (who are paid part time employees) but even that number is not the complete count. The number is actually 153 if School Board Members are taken into account but for the sake of consistency, we'll leave the total at 150. As noted on the Quick Stats Document, the ratio is 1 (County employee) to 13.3 (residents). If it's not self evident, this level of employment is not sustainable.

Ref Agenda Page → 04/28/2025

The real-estate tax rate was set at 51 cents per hundred. With 44 cents being last year's real-estate rate, 51 cents per hundred is a 15.91% increase. While this rate is lower than the maximum proposed rate of 56 cents per hundred, (which would have been a 27.27% increase) if these increases are not contained, Highland County residents and farmers are headed for serious trouble.

Adding to the above, funds will be pulled from the general (reserve) fund to simply cover the bills and payroll. This sets up Highland County businesses and residents for another outsized tax increase next year.

As I've said before (apparently it needs saying again) the Highland County's budget is about County employment positions - I.E. “payroll”. As the County's population is decreasing, so should the County's number of local government employees. Cut positions by 10% and there will be, roughly speaking, a 10% decrease in costs.

The equation is simple: Expenses versus Income. No one (and I do mean “no one”) is questioning the expenses, read “payroll”, side of the equation. In a condensed version, the County Administrator simply says “it costs this much”. (And) “This is what we need to pay the bill.” I have yet to hear ANYTHING meaningful, at all, that addresses the expense side of the equation. Instead, in general terms, the conversation has been, “if we go with tax rate *A* we'll have to transfer *this much* from the reserve”. Cuts offered, if any, did not impact the overall budget in any meaningful way. Instead, the entire focus was on how to raise income. In this context, that was how much income would been needed to fund “the budget”.

Ref Agenda Page → 04/21/2025

This was the last public hearing, notionally, before tax rates are set.

The BOS heard the public's options on (1) the proposed 27% real-estate tax increase and, in general, increasing the budget. I personally pointed out that they're willing to listen to department head for hours on end, while public comments (those who are actually paying the bills) are limited to a matter of minutes. Under those circumstances, where the Board allows themselves to become a captive audience to exhaustive presentations, the "Stockhom Syndrome" sets in where they begin to identify with Department heads versus the taxpayers they were elected to represent. This is a time tested process that has a very high success rate in securing more tax dollars.

During roughly 40 minutes the public said, more or less, the same thing that I did in my → Personal Speaking Notes. “We can't afford more tax - go with level (the same as last year) funding.”

Ref Agenda Page → 04/16/2025

The Superintendent presented a budget issue, regarding last years school funding. In the basics, since all of last years funding was not spent, the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) in Richmond is proposing clawing back most of their contribution which is, roughly, $1,000,000 Since the specifics of this issue are convoluted, to better understand it, listening to the meeting's audio file (beginning at 16:53) is recommended.

Ref Agenda Page → 04/01/2025

The Highland County School system responded to a FOIA request for the Superintendent's presentation to the Board of Supervisors. → Presenation. (Other formats are available on the → Ref Agenda Page). Featured, in the presentation is a history of funding increases beginning in 2023, on page 9. The increases are 5.5, 3.8, 8.5, and 2.1 respective to the years 2023 through 2026. The projected 2026 figure of 2.1% is a “fun with numbers” exercise, in that the actual requested increase for local funding, for 2026, is a bit North of 10%.

Ref Agenda Page → 04/01/2025

In the School's presentation they asked for an increase of over 10%, due to a change in Richmond's composite index (where Richmond lowered their contribution to Highland County). With zero challenge to Richmond's Composite Index's assessment that Highland County is one of the “top of the State's Counties” where wealth is concerned, apparently, the School system wants County taxpayers to make up the difference. The “proposed” tax rate increase of 27% (from 44 to 56 cents per hundred) to make that possible, in addition to giving County staff what they want, is patently outrageous.

For a comparison of the funding Highland County is providing to the local school system, the → 2024 Superintendents report is provided. (Additional formats are available on the Agenda Page.)

On line 45 of the referenced 2024 Superintendents Report, the cost “per student” of educating K-12 in Highland County was $24,507. That places Highland County as SIXTH, from the absolute highest in the State, of 143 of the State's Counties, Towns and Cities. By way of example, on line 53 - Loudoun County which is → the RICHEST County in the Nation, spent $21,183 per student last year. That's right, the RICHEST County in the Nation spent $3,324 LESS last year, per student, than Highland County. Shocking, isn't it? Yet, as it seems, we're not paying enough. It's also worth noting that $24,507 is NOT the TOTAL cost of educating a Highland County student last year. The total cost is found by taking the total 2024 budget ($5,945,436) and dividing it by the number of students (197). The 2024 total cost per student is $30,179 which is substantially HIGHER than the advertised cost per student.

With my time at the mic, I said more than our paper reported. (No criticize of the paper is intended or implied. After sitting through Department head budget presentations that were hours in duration, to cover just a few salient points from the taxpayer's view point in the 5 minutes allotted, I had to move it along. Even using short hand, it would have been difficult to cover the details.) In any case, even with a mere 5 minutes, Harry Sponaugle, asked me to “wrap it up” where not once was something like that said to Department heads during their l-o-n-g budget presentations. That should be a pretty strong indicator of his leanings, in this matter. For those who are asking for more money? No problem, take your time. For those who are paying the bills? “You need to wrap it up.”

I'll be providing more detail from my personal speaking notes, and the Superintendent's presentation, in the near future. .

Ref Agenda Page → 03/27/2025

The Planning Commission approved, and the BOS concurred with, a conditional special use permit at:
3356 Jackson River Rd.
Monterey VA, 24465

The purpose of the permit is for the sale of fence posts and fencing supplies, with the possibility of selling feed and grain. While the permit for selling fence posts and fencing supplies has been approved, the permit “condition”, for selling feed and grain, is reliant on approval by VDOT.

Ref Agenda Page → 03/19/2025

Highlights:

Melissa Dowd rolled out her latest rendition of the Emergency Medical Services Fee Ordinance.
The Draft of the → Ordanance Fee, as presented on March the 4th, was adopted without changes.

Within the Ordinance, “HABITABLE DWELLINGS” are defined as:
A habitable dwelling unit shall be defined as a structure or building that is designed or used for residential occupancy, either temporarily or permanently, by one (1) or more persons, in which any of the following can be done or is provided: sleeping, eating, cooking, or plumbing.
Given the above definition, a tent could be assessed an EMS fee.

The Treasure gave a “Projected Revenues” presentation.
While and electronic document is not available for reference, at the moment, the paper version handed out during the meeting featured the following:
Revenue Sources (Projected using the Property Tax rate of .45 per hundred.)

• Actual 2024/2025 $8,188,843
• Estimated 2025/2026 $8,709,811

The above represents, roughly, a 6.36% increase in revenue. A bit over $100,000 of the above total relies on an “assumed” real-estate tax increase from 44 cents (the current rate) to 45 cents per $100. Such an increase would represent a 2.27% in the real-estate tax rate. This projection is also dependent on an additional $125,000 in EMS fee collections.
Ref: → the presentation sheet.

Ref Agenda Page → 03/12/2025

Highlights:

The proposed 2026 budget total is $4,419,604.

Summary of costs → Audio1 at time slot 22:46:
- Salaries are 47% of the budget.
- Operating expenses are 28% of the budget.
- Personnel benefits are 13% of the budget (This 13% should be lumped in with salaries as it's an additional human resources cost, for a total of 60%.)
- Locally supported programs make up 12% of the budget.

Henry Budzinski - yet another attempt to stir up nonsense with the Commonwealth's Attorney → Audio1 at time slot 2:33:51.

Ref Agenda Page → 03/04/2025

Highlights:

- The Highland County Department of Social Services (DSS) requested additional funding to cover the costs of unbudgeted requirements. As it seems, 3 applications where filed that increased DSS costs, for what remains of this fiscal year, by $11,360. The local share of that cost is approximately $2,272. The BOS elected to pay for the local share out of the General fund.

- There will be a considerable increase in the County's cost of providing medical insurance to County employees. The contracted cost is up approximately 12% which translates, roughly, to $50,000. However, it's worth noting the the cost of this particular contract has been level during the last few years. (That's somewhat amazing in consideration of the inflation rate during the past few years.)

- EMS Ordinance:
Melissa Dowd briefed the → Draft EMS Fee Ordinance. Draft EMS Fee Ordinance. See the 03/04 Meeting Agenda and linked Audio file for briefing details.
- EMS Prattle part 2:
Henry Budzinski requested that Paul Trible arrange a meeting between the Board and Highland County's Volunteer EMS management. (The audio covering this topic is available in this file → Audi01 at time slot 38:00) Such a meeting would bypass legal counsel in matters pertaining to a lawsuit in progress. A similar attempt was made by Henry Budzinski was during the last meeting. See the file audio1, time slot 51:03 on the agenda page for → February 19th. As it seems, Mr. Budzinski doesn't understand that the issues surrounding EMS volunteers and paid staff are now in the hands of the Court system. Until the legal issues are settled, any outstanding “issues” can only be discussed between each party's lawyers.

(Audio file time slot ref's, for the above, are available on the agenda page → 03/04/2025)

Ref Agenda Page → 02/19/2025

Highlights:

- The Highland Food Pantry, did an ad-hoc presentation of how they came into operation, what they're doing and who they're doing it for. In simple terms, the operation was taken over from a Church (arguably where such an operation belongs). In conjunction with a State sponsored food truck, the pantry is serving low income residents that qualify in accordance with specified criteria. The issue with this is, it's a charity. Charity's should not be going to taxing authorities for funding. They should be going door to door, allowing individual citizens to chose whether or not to contribute. The importance of this can't be emphasized enough. Some citizens will want to contribute to saving historical structures, rescuing neglected animals, others the environment, etc., etc., If the Board of Supervisors sponsor this charity they will be deciding, in place of Highland County citizens, what is or what is not a worthy cause. They'll be, effectively, forcing the County's citizens to pay for that cause. The knock on effect of this is, the BOS will get endless requests for funding from still more charities. I've personally seen pleas to a Board to fund Cancer research where the presenter used terms like “have a heart”. Another requested funds for a Civil War reenactment group. The issue becomes, what is a “worthy cause”? A worth cause has many definitions. The BOS should not be deciding what that is, in place of County residents.

- The EMS Fee Ordinance. Perhaps the third time is is a charm. As it seemed, what was offered during this meeting was a “copy & pasted” version of sections of the last two iterations of the fee ordinance. When complete, it will be interesting to see what the draft looks like.

- EMS Prattle Part 1:
Henry Budzinski specifically asked for EMS topics, under Items C, b. to be added to the Agenda. Ref → Audio1 at time slot 51:03
It's fairly obvious that topics related to Volunteers and Paid EMS staff can not be fully addressed until pending litigation is complete.

Ref Agenda Page → 02/18/2025

As it appeared, the Board called this meeting to interview a potential new county attorney. Before the meeting began, the young gentleman introduced himself as, as it sounded, “Julie or Jules Hart” (I'm not sure of the spelling). As it seemed, Mr. Hart is based out of Richmond. Mr. Hart left, after about an hour into the closed session. While this is speculation; facial expressions and body language indicated that the interview did not go as he planned.

Highlight - EMS ordinance:
The second half of the meeting was concerned with the EMS fee ordinance. As it seemed, with a failed attempt to hire a new county attorney, Harry Sponaugle and Henry B. voted to hire Melissa Dowd for the revision of the ordinance. Paul Trible. voted NO. (The motion and vote is in the audio recorded at 00:45, in file “Audio2”, of the → 02/18/2025 BOS meeting.) I believe Mr. Trible is correct, in this regard. The EMS fee ordinance has already undergone one significant revision of Mrs. Dowd's penmanship. (See the → EMS Ordinances.) Paying Mrs. Dowd a third time to patch the holes in her past ordinances seems untoward.

We have to keep in mind that a number of the County's shortfalls are attributable, at least in part, to Mrs. Dowd's stewardship as county attorney. Chief among them is the lack of a consolidated reference for Highland County ordinances, passed by the Board of Supervisors in times past. While the new County Administrator is working on this issue, for years (decades?) there has been no formal record of local ordinances as passed by the Board of Supervisors, other than BOS meeting minutes. Currently, there is no “Book of Ordinances”, a numbering system, cross reference, etc., for Highland County ordinances. With such a glaring issue outstanding, there are bound to be more issues waiting for discovery.

As mention in the last news note (below) the County administrator provided the ordinances controlling current EMS fee collections on 02/06/2025.

Ordinance files are available → here.

Ref Agenda Page → 2/04/2025

Highlights:

- After being tabled, repeatedly, since → May the 15th of 2024, the proposed County Code of Ethics was put to rest. One can only speculate that it was too limiting to Board members who may prefer, shall we say, “spirited exchanges”.

- A Conditional Use Permit was approved for a → Saw Mill operation, contingent on VDOT approval for a business entrance. Business activities like this are, obviously, beneficial for Highland County. A small number of jobs will be supported along with the local availability of a universally needed commodity - lumber.

- EMS Fees, exemptions, and other fee related topics were discussed. To better understand this topic EMS Fee Ordinance documents, dated August 2020 and April 2021, were requested. They'll be posted when provided.

- Unit 701 came to the fore again. As it seems, it will cost something in the neighborhood of $5000 to $6000 to make the ambulance operable again which would then make it sell-able for something in a speculated range of $6000 to $10000. (With no guarantees on the “estimated” sale price.) A discussion was had regarding towing it back from Charlottesville, at an estimated cost of $600 to $700, then sending it a scrap yard where it might fetch a price of $1000 or so. Given that this ambulance has already consumed an estimated $70,000 of Highland County tax payer dollars, for very little to no service, sending it to the scrap yard or selling locally might be the financially prudent thing to do. The Board decided to get one last opinion on the repair and sale possibility before acting.

Going forward, hopefully, there will be a postmortem / lessons learned discussion where the purchase of first responder vehicles are concerned. Units 701, 702 and the Car Wash are case examples of unneeded expenditures at taxpayer expense. These expenses were a center piece of the ongoing → recall petition.

Ref Agenda Page → 1/15/2025

Without the former County Attorney inserting herself into numerous Agenda line items, this meeting was conducted smoothly and went quickly.

The first order of business was to elect a Chairman and Vice Chariman. The result of a motion and vote is as follows:

The new BOS makeup:

Chairman - Harry S.
Vice Chair - Paul T.
Member - Henry B.

Of note was the presentation was given by an accounting firm, RE the County's finances. As presented by the accounting firm, there were no notable discrepancies in their → 2023/2024 report
(While specific reasons were not mentioned, as it seems, there were discrepancies in the 2022/2023 report.)

During public comments:
Sheriff Bob Kelly said a piece on the active shooter incident, at the school, and the School Superintendent lamented his woes with the school's heating system.
(See the audio file on the → 1/15/2025 page.)
The above sums up most of the major Agenda issues.

- Breaking: As of today, petition signatures for the recall of Henry Budzinski and Harry Sponaugle have been → certified.

- RIFA: Ref the → December 18th BOS meeting:
It appears that Augusta County's RIFA proposal has been put to bed, at least for the time being.

To RIFA or NOT to RIFA:
The Board of Supervisors was given a presentation on August County's RIFA (Regional Industrial Facilities Authority), on November the 6th . I didn't get a chance to comment on the initial proposal until →December the 3rd. Listen to the time segment specified on the → December the 3rd page. In the bottom line, this proposal has the potential to turn into a tax dollar sinkhole.

As stated in simple terms, from a taxpayer's point of view:
“The Board should not be spending taxpayer money, looking for more money to spend”.

Setting up the front end of this server, to be easy to use and intuitive for Highland County citizens, will be something of an evolution. The decision for the front end, a Wiki site, seemed to be a logical choice. With the addition of a dynamic menu in a sidebar, a wiki can be designed to accommodate numerous articles and file attachments in a manner that is information dense while being easy for visitors to navigate. So far, so good.

For the PC and Server enthusiasts in Highland County, this site was built on a VPS (Virtual Private Server) running Ubuntu Server (OS), Nginx (Web server), php8 (web scripting language), and Dokuwiki (the front end). It's been a long time since I've built a web server from scratch. Things have changed on web, from a security standpoint. Good security is not longer an option. It's a must.