LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Educational costs for Henrico County hard to calculate

According to the article, ["Chesterfield per pupil cost exceeds Henrico's" in the Apr. 25 issue], the Chesterfield Observer contacted Henrico County to substantiate Chesterfield County's information. While this demonstrates that the Observer attempted significant "due diligence," it is evident that a $20.2 million amount set aside by Henrico County in its budget for school capital improvement uses such as major maintenance, land acquisition and contingency expenses was not factored into the Observer's calculations.

When all school-related debt service and capital costs are considered, Chesterfield County's per pupil cost is even lower on a per student basis than what Chesterfield County government and Chesterfield County Public Schools have indicated.

Chesterfield County Public Schools has 57,930 students and a Fiscal Year 2007 budget of $560 million, or a cost of $9,667 per student. Henrico County, with 47,537 students and a budget of $466.7 million, has a per student cost of $9,818. Accordingly, Chesterfield County Public Schools' budgeted Fiscal Year 2007 costs are $151 per student lower than in Henrico County, not $274 higher, as your article indicated.

We used operating costs as a benchmark because there is consistent information available. You were the victim of the problem we encountered many times in making comparisons: inconsistent accounting.

We would have appreciated a call asking why the Observer was finding apparently contradictory information, and could certainly have assisted you in making a complete and factual "apples to apples" comparison before reporting incorrect information to your readers.

Lane B. Ramsey

County Administrator

At an April Board of Supervisors meeting, county leaders reported that the operational cost for Chesterfield County Public Schools was $7,858 per pupil, one of the lowest in the state. Knowing that some school costs were not included in this calculation, this newspaper tried to do an apples-to-apples comparison with Henrico County. We asked Chesterfield and Henrico schools for all local, state and federal monies spent for the 2006- 07 school year. When the costs came back showing Henrico's cost per pupil lower than Chesterfield's, we showed the comparison to the Chesterfield school system's finance department, which accepted the figures though it didn't know some school expenses were in the Henrico County budget.

Following Mr. Ramsey's letter, we asked Henrico County's government to check on the estimate from its school system, and its figure was different from the previous two estimates. However, it did report that Chesterfield's cost per pupil was $68 lower than Henrico. Editor

Court system should aid in restitution to victims

Dear Editor,

It is with great dismay that I observe the signs around Chesterfield supporting Judy Worthington for Clerk of Court. Perhaps supporters are unaware that for her entire tenure, Ms. Worthington has patently refused to collect restitution from convicted criminals as required of clerks of court by Virginia law. Because of this blatant flouting of the law, other entities in Chesterfield County are required to take on the duties of Ms. Worthington's office. Unfortunately, these entities are not bonded and do not have the collection tools provided to clerk's offices. Since Ms. Worthington is ignoring this law, it is likely she is also neglecting to comply with the legal requirement that she provide reports on offenders who are not paying restitution to judges and probation and parole as well.

These actions only serve to benefit perpetrators, and cost individuals and business who are victims of crime additional hardship. Collection of restitution ensures that offenders pay the true cost of crime so that victims or taxpayers do not have to bear that burden.

Ms. Worthington has stated that she is unable to take on this task because the Clerk's Office is under-funded and under-staffed. Thank goodness other public officials/employees like police, teachers and sheriff's departments do not use the same logic. 911 calls would go unanswered, children would not be educated, and prisoners would not be incarcerated. Ms. Worthington's indolence is further amplified by the fact that many of her colleagues across the commonwealth are complying with the law with great success and minimal effort to the benefit of their communities. The third most populous county in the commonwealth should expect the same of its Clerk of Court.

Mary Brown

Chesterfield

According to Clerk of the Court Judy Worthington, "The Clerk's Office routinely collects restitution for victims; hence, these statements are factually incorrect. By law, I am authorized to collect restitution only when it is ordered by the court. When the court orders restitution, I collect it. The writer is simply mistaken and apparently unfamiliar with the law." Editor

Stop growth around Swift Creek Reservoir

Dear Editor,

Recent reports of increases in phosphorous loads and potential pollution of the Swift Creek Reservoir are alarming and should be cause for all Chesterfield residents to stand up and act now because this is our drinking water. The threat of increased phosphorous in the reservoir has been known for many years and is obviously the result of a breakdown in communication between the county and Planning Commission.

According to county records, an environmental assessment of the reservoir occurred in 1989 followed by the establishment of the Watershed Management [Committee]. This [committee] was charged with developing strategies to protect the integrity of our water supply. In 1997, Chesterfield staff was directed to prepare a Watershed Management Master Plan and Maintenance Program. The plan included limiting the amount of phosphorous by setting loading limits as well as the provision of cost effective capital funding of watershed protection. Regrettably, the program does not appear to have influenced development around and in proximity to the reservoir because phosphorous dumping has exceeded acceptable limits.

The lack of competent planning concomitant with environmental impact studies, the shortfall of infrastructure to support residential/ business development, and double digit property taxation of Chesterfield residents has got to stop.

Common sense would conclude growth on and around Swift Creek Reservoir would inevitably pose an environmental threat, and the four-year delay of the land use study in conjunction with input from the Watershed Management Master Plan is grounds for dismissing every single commissioner and county official responsible for presenting a timely study. In the corporate world this type of dereliction of duty would have resulted in swift termination long before now, but it appears our public officials operate by a different standard.

One can only speculate as to the sense of urgency being placed on receiving the report and the subsequent consequences of this unconscionable delay. Could something else be looming around the corner such as more taxes to further pad a budget already increased by three times the rate of inflation? Where is the accountability for this environmental consequence of unchecked growth?

The results of the 2006 Quality of Life survey make it patently clear: 56 percent of the residents do not want to pay more taxes. We all accept taxes as a way of life, but the tax burden on Chesterfield residents and especially those retired are like a speeding train, and one can only speculate when it will hit the wall.

Before any further threat to our drinking water, I recommend the following steps:

1. Stop any further development approved or unapproved until the magnitude and source of pollution is identified.

2. Prohibit the use of any fertilizers with phosphorous and impose heavy fines on those homeowners/businesses that break the law.

3. Set up a program which will work with citizens such as Hands Across the Lake to focus on reducing pollution of the reservoir.

Sandra S. Mitchell

Chesterfield

Zoning decisions are made by the Board of Supervisors. County staff and the Planning Commission make recommendations to the board. According to the county's Water Quality Analyst Scott Flanigan, "The committee recommended the phosphorous limit, and the county plan implemented the committee's recommendations. The plan's purpose was to treat pollutants from development, and the land use plan determined how much development." Editor

Small businesses deserve better treatment

Dear Editor,

As a citizen of Chesterfield, I had the dubious distinction to attend [the] last Board of Supervisors' meeting on behalf of my daycare provider. She was at the meeting to gain vested right for her home to be in line with both the state and county regulations regarding in-home child care. While there, she was questioned and asked for clarification by Supervisor Renny Humphrey. Mrs. Humphrey championed my daycare provider to the other board members, especially Mr. [Art] Warren and Mr. [Don] Sowder, and for that I thank her. It is obvious as a working mother herself, she understands what many working mothers must do to provide quality care for their children when they are at work. However, I cannot say that for the [other] two board members present.

I have dismay at the obvious disrespect paid to both my daycare provider and Mrs. Humphrey by two other board members, one of whom is Chairman [Kelly] Miller. While Mrs. Humphrey and my daycare provider were speaking and answering questions, Mr. Miller and Mr. [Dickie] King were talking between themselves, and when it was their turn to ask questions, they were abrupt and cut off any answers my daycare provider or Mrs. Humphrey tried to make. With 70 percent of the businesses in Chesterfield being small, Mr. Miller and Mr. King are biting the hand that feeds them and this county. It is also a shame that they were not willing to listen to the facts that my daycare provider had her permits in order, Planning Commission approval, staff approval and all this should have been a done deal for both Mrs. Humphrey and my daycare provider. Small businesses like in-home daycare centers provide community service to its members by offering an alternative for working parents who choose to do so.

Why did this have to be such a major issue with two male members? Perhaps it is not something they have had to deal with personally, and that makes them far removed from many of the people they represent. I can only hope that the next small business that appears before the board will not have to suffer the same when it is their turn.

Lori Donovan

Midlothian

Both Miller and King own and operate small businesses in Chesterfield County. Editor

Letters to the editor can be e-mailed to letters@chesterfieldobserver.com, mailed to P.O. Box 1616, Midlothian, VA 23113, or faxed to 744-3269. Letters should include the writer's phone number and home address, but neither will be printed. All letters may be edited for clarity or space. For complete guidelines, visit www.chesterfieldobserver. com and click on "letters policy."