Local Government
Thompson challenges Lloyd’s reasons for moving anti-vaccination choice consequences proposal forward – public hearing, vote slated for August 2
After writing a preview of Monday’s Front Royal Town Council work session based on Jig ‘n’ Jive Dance Studio proprietor Annie Guttierrez’s analysis of minor changes to the Town’s Special Events Code, I thought I had the lead for the coming work session story figured out.
But that work session of July 12, took an unexpected turn 90 minutes in when a non-agenda item was raised during “Open Discussion” by Councilman Scott Lloyd. The “policy attorney” and “right-to-life” advocate, most prominently known nationally as former President Donald Trump’s Director of Refugee Resettlement during the child separation policy at the southern border, implored his colleagues to bring his pandemic-related, anti-vaccination choice consequences ordinance proposal to a vote despite admitting he knew he has no support for the initiative among them. Lloyd’s proposed ordinance would make it illegal for any business or “entity” in the Town of Front Royal to, not only fire but reposition or refuse to hire someone based on their refusal to be vaccinated against the COVID-19 Coronavirus pandemic. It is a pandemic as of July 13, attributed with killing over 4 million worldwide, 611,700 nationally, 11,450 in Virginia, and 61 in Warren County in the last year and a half.
That lack of support, even among Lloyd’s fellow conservative Republican Committee council members is based on the town legal staff’s opinion such an initiative has no legal basis in Virginia, particularly as a Dillon Rule state in which municipal governments have no authority greater than what is defined for them by the state government.
With his point raised, Councilwoman Letasha Thompson confronted Lloyd about his reasoning for requesting a public vote on an initiative Lloyd said he wouldn’t mind being the “lone vote” in support of. “I have a question – what is the goal? I’m starting to think there’s a goal here, and I think it’s a very personal goal I’m trying to understand,” she began. “What is your next step? Because you’re asking to bring something to a vote that you literally know you’re going to be the only one to vote on the ‘yes’ line. So, I’m thinking there’s something beyond town council that you’re going for. And that’s fine but you need to let the rest of us know,” Thompson told Lloyd, citing what she said were at least 10 previous times Lloyd had brought the matter to the council table.
“So, I’d like to understand, do you have some ambition outside of Front Royal and the town council – is that what we’re doing? Because … it’s a bunch of push for something that you know isn’t going anywhere. But there has to be some personal gain for you, and I’m trying to figure out …” at which point Lloyd interrupted to respond.
“You say it isn’t going anywhere – it has nothing to do with any personal ambitions beyond town council. I have four years on this and I don’t really plan out career moves or anything, especially this kind of thing, that far in advance,” Lloyd asserted. Rather, he claimed representation of a constituent base concerned about the issue of employer-mandated COVID-19 vaccinations he has heard from over the past month.
“And they’re saying things like ‘I want to be able to get pregnant in the future. And I have concerns about this vaccine. But I also don’t want to lose my job because I don’t want to lose my health insurance. – And I want to do something to help those people,” Lloyd stated beating the table rhythmically with that final sentence to make his point. However, he failed to elaborate how a public vote he anticipated at 5-1 against an initiative the town attorney has stated could not stand up legally, might help those constituents. Particularly with the likelihood of town taxpayers having to support a costly, time-consuming, and likely losing legal fight with the State, were his ordinance proposal to be approved.
But Lloyd continued to press for taking his no employment consequences business mandate to a council meeting public hearing and vote. Again beating the meeting table rhythmically, he stated, “I’m fine with having the argument and losing on the merits” (see subheader section below).
He added that he would continue to try to convince his council colleagues to alter their stance to his side on his proposal to forbid private-sector businesses and other entities in town from being able to mandate vaccines for employees, or even reassign unvaccinated employees among other governmental dictates on private-sector operations.
“What are you afraid of?” Lloyd challenged Thompson of proceeding to a vote.
“It’s literally not enforceable – it’s a waste of time at this juncture,” Thompson countered of a council majority’s apparent consensus that Town Attorney Doug Napier’s opinion is legally sound.
Lloyd challenged Napier’s research and opinion on his proposal, asking for specific, directly related case histories. And while Napier previously cited specified written legislation indicating the State does have the authority to mandate vaccinations in a public health crisis, thus in a Dillon Rule state like Virginia seeming to eliminate a municipality’s ability to do the opposite, Lloyd expanded his legal inquiry to include a state government challenge of the legality of any municipal ordinance proposal in the past.
“Is there any case regarding dog walking, hand-standing, anything, carnivals, curb and gutter, credit card fees – is there anything?” Lloyd pressed Napier for a case history example of a state challenge of municipal code authority.
“I haven’t looked at it like that,” Napier replied.
“I’d like you to look at it like that,” Lloyd told the town attorney.
At this point, Mayor Holloway entered the fray.
“I can tell you I’m not going to have it on the agenda – I think it’s a waste of time,” Holloway told Lloyd, siding with Thompson on the “why are we doing this” aspect of a public vote.
Lloyd responded by challenging the mayor’s authority to limit his ability to force the issue to a meeting vote. “I was told that we changed our local ordinances because, in order to empower town councilmen to bring their own things on their agenda when the mayor doesn’t want it on the agenda. So, the code was designed for this specific circumstance,” Lloyd told the mayor. He then cited the support of a necessary second council member to bring the ordinance proposal forward over the mayor’s wishes. While not mentioned during the work session, staff later verified that support to move the matter forward came from Joseph McFadden.
“By the way, we’ve got two people to get it on the agenda since last month and we’re still playing this game,” Lloyd said with rising frustration aimed the town attorney’s way.
“I’m not in control of the agenda – I don’t do anything with it,” Napier pointed out.
“But you know what the town code says regarding the agenda,” Lloyd parried, refusing to take his sights off the only other lawyer at the table. Napier reiterated that he does not influence meeting agenda construction. With voices beginning to rise, Mayor Holloway asked Lloyd “to tone it down” – Uh oh.
“You know what, excuse me, I’ve been really polite about this. I’ve put it in emails, I’ve made polite requests over this for now weeks. And I’m not getting straight answers to direct questions,” Lloyd replied to the mayor, suggesting staff stonewalling of his desire to take the matter to a public vote. After some silent reading, Napier read the relevant code on agendas to council, minus the absent Gary Gillespie.
“The mayor or in his absence, the vice mayor, approves the final regular meeting and work session agendas before the publication and shall not remove any item on said agendas placed by at least two council members,” Napier read, leading to further back and forth.
The outcome is that Lloyd’s proposed town ordinance restrictions on businesses and other entities within the town limits being able to mandate employee vaccinations will be advertised for a public hearing and a vote slated at a special council meeting at Town Hall, 7 p.m. Monday, August 2. It was observed that the public would also have an opportunity to weigh in at the council’s regular meeting of June 26 at the Warren County Government Center. That opportunity would come during the Public Concerns portion of the meeting devoted to non-agenda items.
‘Fine with losing on the merits’
As to the merit of his offered example of a constituent fear of the COVID-19 vaccination based on the risk of female sterilization as a consequence of Coronavirus vaccinations, an online search revealed multiple news and medical reports attributing the concern to a “rebranding” of long-standing anti-vaccination “disinformation” claims with no verifiable scientific support base. Here is what the medical site “sciencebasedmedicine.org” posted June 7 on the matter:
“Before there were safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use, such as the vaccines by Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson here in the US, as well as AstraZeneca in Europe and elsewhere, those of us who have been countering the antivaccine movement for many years now were warning about the sorts of disinformation that anti-vaxxers would spread about them. We were largely correct, too, but I can’t really say that it took any particular brilliance or foresight to have been so correct. We simply knew that there is no truly new trope, pseudoscience, or disinformation in the antivaccine narratives and conspiracy theories; so all we did was to predict the repurposing of tried-and-not-true anti-vax lies.”
Of the claim that “a top Pfizer researcher” was raising concerns about a vaccine/sterilization link, a December 2020 Associated Press (AP) investigative report ruled the claim “FALSE”. The AP story by Beatrice Dupuy based the false claim, at least in part, on social media circulation of a “Health and Money News” story titled “Head of Pfizer Research: Covid Vaccine is Female Sterilization” naming a “retired” British doctor named Michael Yeadon, who left Pfizer nine years earlier, as the source. While AP could not locate Yeadon for comment, multiple practicing medical sources contacted by the writer debunked the alleged science cited in the article as the basis for the sterilization concern.
The Snopes fact-checking site noted that in his retirement, Yeadon and a German physician Wolfgang Wodarg had sent a letter of concern to the European Medicines Agency (ESA) citing a potential blocking of a placenta-forming protein in mammals related to the Pfizer vaccine. However, Yeadon and Wodarg’s letter to ESA never claimed the vaccine actually caused infertility in humans as the circulated Health and Money News headline/story suggested.
In fact, an online search of “support for COVID-19 vaccination/sterility claims” led to pages of links to articles and medical sites debunking any claims that COVID vaccinations have been linked to female or male infertility.
See the above-referenced discussion in the Town video, beginning just past the 1-hour-30 minute mark, as well other council business discussed that evening. That other business included an updated version of a new Special Events Permitting Code; a Water and Sewer Line Replacement Program to help town utility customers finance the replacement of aging, corroding water and sewer lines; a proposed ordinance amendment on Blighted and Non-Conforming Structures; Dusk to Dawn lighting in town and impacts on neighbors; and the advisability or not, of encouraging short-term rentals in town, among other topics.
Local Government
Joint Public Schools Budget hearing Sees Critique of Schools Admin’s Detail and Past Performance Accountability
The Warren County Board of Supervisors and School Board joint budget work session of April 30th turned into a somewhat accusatory analysis of an absence of detail, a developing lack of trust, and perceived absence of accountability aimed at public schools administrators and financial staff. The most lengthy and critical comments came from North River District Supervisor Richard Jamieson, who noted that while homeschooling his own children, had himself attended public schools as a youth. He asserted that his home schooling preference for his children did not impact his current negative analysis of Warren County Public Schools.
However, following North River School Board member Melanie Salins earlier comments on being unable to have questions she has been asking about budget allocations for four vacant positions responded to in a timely manner by school system staff, Jamieson later launched a 24-minute critique of what he believes are misplaced budgetary priorities contributing to ongoing operational failures educationally and administratively at Warren County Public Schools.
But more on that later. First, we’ll summarize portions of what led up to Jamieson’s negative appraisal of the county’s public school system and its evolving Fiscal Year-2025 budget proposal. It might be noted there was one elected official absence from the full boards’ joint meeting. That was Shenandoah District School Board member Tom McFadden Jr.
Schools Finance Officer Rob Ballentine opened the work session with a presentation of the evolving public schools Fiscal Year-2025 budget, explaining that the State revenue portion of the equation remains in flux, leaving a certain amount of guess work on necessary local funding involved until State officials finalize their FY-2025 budget numbers and that key portion of the anticipated revenue stream to the county’s public school system.
With some updated numbers the projected State contribution was cited at $43,514,552 of what is currently projected as a $78,790,969 total WC Public Schools FY-2025 budget-supporting revenue stream. That number includes a requested County contribution of $31,119,702, an increase of $2,469,702 over the last Fiscal Year County share of the Public Schools budget. Ballentine observed that the $2,469,702 local revenue increase was less than cited at the previous joint budget work session. Other anticipated revenue streams include Federal revenue of $3.55 million, and Miscellaneous revenue of $605,708.
Ballentine noted that the changes in submitted State revenue added about $43,000 to what had been projected previously. “The problem with that is the State sill hasn’t adopted a budget,” Ballentine said, noting a scheduled budget Special Session of the State General Assembly targeted for May 13, with a subsequent final vote on the State budget hopefully by May 15.
“Once they do finalize their budget we’ll get the exact numbers that will go in that column for the State. So, those numbers probably will change, hopefully not much. And if they change, hopefully they’ll get larger — but that remains to be seen,” Ballentine observed.
The question and answer that followed began innocently enough as, first School Board member Melanie Salins asked what had propelled the reduction in the local revenue request, removal of some items or the increase in the projected State contribution. “There were things that we adjusted in the budget,” Ballentine responded, citing a $100,000 reduction from elimination of a testing program that was being deferred to FY-2026, as well as the positive impact of the projected increase in State revenue.
“Jay” Butler sought information on what was driving school budgetary changes upward, including how staffing needs were being met to fill unfilled positions. During discussion of that latter item, School Superintendent Dr. Chris Ballenger observed that it was not generally advisable to wait until the next budgetary year cycle to fill unanticipated staff vacancies because qualified available applicants would be quickly grabbed up by other school systems also looking to fill vacant positions. In response to a question, Dr. Ballenger said that of 33 current staff vacancies, 16 are teaching positions.
Later, Ballenger observed that what students need educationally, as well as socially and economically, were the primary consideration in establishing annual public schools budgetary priorities. The staffing priorities discussion led County Board and joint work session Chairman Cheryl Cullers to express her hope that an Agricultural Program teaching position would be included in and approved as part of the schools FY-2025 budgetary request.
Money well spent?
Prefacing comments beginning at the 2:02:15 mark of the linked County video, Supervisor Jamieson said he felt line-item schools budget questions had been adequately covered, leading him toward another perspective he described as coming “from 40,000 feet or so”. His overview from that altitude was not complimentary:
“I’ve already made a few comments about a kind of crisis of confidence in terms of transparency and what’s visible. My primary concern as a supervisor charged with the responsibility for using taxpayer money is whether accountability is sufficient for the money being spent by the school system. And asking the question is more money being spent correlated to better educational outcomes,” Jamieson began.
And while admitting there were differing opinions on answers to those questions, Jamieson said he believed: “That’s not the preponderance of the evidence. That it depends on how the additional money is spent.” Jamieson asserted that he agreed that an excellent public educational system is a benefit to an entire community. However, he continued to note that recent annual statistics indicated that attendance at Warren County Public Schools had peaked, and was staying level, if not decreasing in some areas.
He did cite educational options, including home schooling and private schooling, in this community to public schools. However, he acknowledged that public schools educated the “vast majority” of students in the community. And he did not address whether shifting population and countywide age variables might impact those public school population trends. He did cite constituents he was aware of he said had withdrawn their children from the county’s public schools due to discipline or violence issues within some schools.
To make his point that public school appropriations were not being well spent, Jamieson pointed to four schools in the system that were ranked below federal standards of performance. “The elephant in the room that has been brought up, is that we do have four out of 10 schools that are not meeting federal standards. That’s 40%,” Jamieson pointed out, adding that 40% of the five-person School Board had voted against the submitted public schools budget proposal. As we understand it, that 40% was Salins and the absent Tom McFadden Jr., both of whom appear to have direct or indirect ties to the home or private schooling community here.
Jamieson said that instituting across-the-board raises in a system with a 40% failing standard of its schools, as opposed to identifying and replacing staff that could be tied to those failing standards, was a failed status quo he could not support. As to federal involvement in public education, Chairman Cullers, who was a school nurse in the public school system for years, at another point in the discussion suggested the school system should drop the federal and state implemented SOLs (Standards Of Learning) as a dysfunctional educational measurement tool. However, Jamieson noted that would amount to crossing the people with their hands on the purse strings of the educational system. — Well, at least two-thirds of those purse strings, the third being the local County appropriation he was asserting should be cut.
How may Jamieson’s negative analysis overview impact the supervisor majority’s perspective on the submitted, if not yet finalized FY-2025 Warren County Public Schools budget currently seeking $31,119,702 in local County funding, as noted above, an increase of $2,469,702 from the current Fiscal Year-2024?
Stay tuned as this crucial municipal governmental funding decision approaches a conclusion that may reverberate throughout this community for more than just the Fiscal Year to come.
Local Government
Town Council and Planning Commission Meet for Much-Needed Discussion at Special Joint Work Session
On Monday, April 29, at 7 p.m. in the Front Royal Town Hall on 102 East Main Street, the Front Royal Town Council and the Planning Commission met to discuss vape shops, Planned Neighborhood Development District (PND) zoning, and short-term rentals. Planning Director and Zoning Administrator Lauren Kopishke supported the mayor in guiding the discussion.
While vape shops and short-term rentals drew similar sentiments from everyone in the room, the more contentious item and perhaps the driving force behind the gathering was PND zoning. This type of zoning allows for mixed-use development in higher densities, on parcels rezoned to PND, and it is in many ways an improvement on by-right development as it potentially offers affordable housing for those in Front Royal who are struggling to cope with inflation and the cost of living in general. The challenge to PND zoning, which Planning Commissioner Chair Connie Marshner sees clearly, is the scarcity of lots large enough within Town limits to meet the acreage requirement for a planned neighborhood development district, as it is currently regulated by the Town Ordinance. This may explain why, in an application from a developer for PND rezoning that involved a proposed amendment to the ordinance reducing the acreage threshold for PND from twenty-five acres to two, the planning commission passed the application to the council, recommending a reduction to five acres in the case that the council felt uncomfortable with two. In the words of Councilwoman Amber Morris, the two-acre prospect was “offensive.” Indeed, the council denied any amendment to the ordinance and the application.
To do justice to Morris’s position, it is offensive because it would open a “floodgate” to untrammeled development that may neither respect the Town’s rustic charm nor be sensitive to the needs of its infrastructure and the way of life that its natives have built here. At the same time, Kopishke has emphasized that there are so many other stipulations in the rezoning to PND that the floodgate would never be opened. Having provided the council and the commission with extensive reading in their agenda packet that highlighted how other localities are handling this type of development, localities from which she is actively gathering information in staff’s ongoing PND enterprise, Kopishke urged those present to discuss what they like about the current ordinance and what they do not like. After a somewhat tangential conversation, most of the council members said they would like to leave the ordinance the way it is, with a threshold of twenty-five acres for PND mixed residential and fifty for PND commercial.
Morris said it is not the government’s job to provide affordable housing. Also, there is nothing wrong, in her opinion, with preservation. Just because a parcel is undeveloped does not mean it needs to be developed. The evening ended with the sense that things were as much as before. There is only one PND zone in Front Royal, and it is undeveloped. The Comprehensive Plan does indeed call for higher density development, but what that looks like seems to be a matter of degrees in which some are prepared to be more extreme than others. Consensus between these two bodies would be a very rare diamond.
Local Government
County Budget Work Session Addresses Staff Health Care Costs, Charging Town for Solid Waste Dumping, and Old Oak Ln. Projects
Following a 4 p.m. tour of the new Senior Center renovations slated to be completed by June (see related story) and a late-added 5:30 p.m. Closed Session (Item A), the Warren County Board of Supervisors convened to yet another Fiscal Year-2024/25 budget work session. This one, convened about five minutes after the scheduled 6 p.m. start due to the length of the closed session, included one outside agency, the Virginia Department Of Transportation (VDOT) on the Six-Year Plan for road improvements in the county, and five county departmental presentations.
Those budget-related reports in the order presented were:
- Presentation – Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary 6-Year Plan
- Discussion – Public Work Transfer Station Rates – Mike Berry, Public Works Director
- Presentation – Old Oak Lane, Phase IV (4) and V (5) Updates – Mike Berry, Public Works Director and Sanitary District Manager Michael Coffelt
- Discussion – 2024-2025 United Healthcare Insurance Renewal – Jane Meadows, Deputy County Administrator, Kayla Darr, Human Resources Manager
- Discussion – Orientation for the Department of Social Services – Jon Martz, Director of Social Services
- Requested Proclamation: April is Child Abuse Prevention Month – Department of Social Services
Since it was a work session, no actions were taken on the presentations or staff recommendations. The board took what they heard under advisement as they move toward a final budget proposal in the months leading to the start of Fiscal Year-2025 on July 1, 2024. Since no action can be taken at a work session, the Social Services Department requested proclamation on recognizing April as Child Abuse Prevention Month would be made at the board’s first meeting of May, Tuesday, the 7th of May.
Among highlights of those presentations and board discussion of them was a staff recommendation from Public Works Director Mike Berry to begin charging the Town of Front Royal for its use of the County’s Solid Waste Transfer Station to dump residential trash. Coupled with a $10 hike in the County’s current tipping fee of $69 to $79 at the Transfer Station, charging the Town “what other commercial users” are charged was projected to increase County revenue by $474,000 to help cover rising costs.
Another highlight came during Deputy County Administrator Jane Meadows update on renewal of the United Health Care Insurance Plan for County employees. In describing the existing situation, employee contributions to their health care coverage balanced against salaries, as well as health and age profiles of county employees, it was observed that may of the County’s employees “feel undervalued” by their employer.
Board Chairman Cheryl Cullers expressed some distress at that description of what is apparently a significant portion of the County’s staff that may be considering a move to a higher-paying or larger employer share of health care costs municipality. And while it may not be a totally new phenomena in the local governmental employer/employee relationship, it is one the board chair believes needs to be dealt with proactively in coming years. How that might be achieved without increasing County revenue through higher service rates, as suggested by the public works director regarding the Town’s use of the County’s Solid Waste Transfer Station, or general tax hikes to provide additional across the board general services revenue will be a dilemma the board must face in coming fiscal years.
Another discussion highlight came in the updates on Old Oak Lane Phases 4 and 5 in the Shenandoah Farms Sanitary District. Staff reported ongoing issues with “production defects” of box culvert sections delivered to the County by the contracted vendor causing ongoing delays as the Phase 4 project creeps toward completion. But that completion of the Old Oak Phase 4 project cited at an approved budget of $1.6 million, with expenditures to date of $796,792, with a remaining budget of $803,208, was recommended for completion. The staff summary also noted that the County “has not paid for the Eastern Vault $249,000 invoice for station 53+00 due to the deficiencies noted.” It was further noted that Public Works has “expended $173,000 in corrective action” with more corrective repairs to come.
As for Old Oak Phase 5 more at a planning stage, due to “Design Constraints” and related costs, staff recommended that the “County Administrator should send a letter to VDOT cancelling the Old Oak Phase V (5).” However, it was added that the County Public Works Department “complete the project internally using current maintenance contracts and approved SFSD (Shenandoah Farms Sanitary District) FY24 road improvement funding.” It was added that: “County General funding no longer necessary for internal SFSD project” which might draw the attention of some Farms Sanitary District residents regarding the use of their Sanitary District tax revenue.
The Closed Session involved legal consultation on wide range of matters involving liabilities, debt, potential bank actions, and recovery of assets related to the Front Royal-Warren County Economic Development Authority (FR-WC EDA or now WC EDA) financial scandal. The motion made into the Closed Meeting read:
“I move the Board enter into a closed meeting under the provisions of Sections 2.2-3711(A)(7) and (A)(8) for consultation with legal counsel pertaining to actual or probable litigation and the provision of legal advice regarding the Industrial Development Authority of the Town of Front Royal and the County of Warren, Virginia (the “EDA”), the Town of Front Royal, the EDA vs. Jennifer McDonald, et al., the Town of Front Royal vs. the EDA, et al., the EDA vs. the Town of Front Royal, other potential claims and litigation relating to other possible liabilities of the EDA, the recovery of EDA funds and assets, the outstanding indebtedness of the EDA and potential bank actions related to the same.”
And after the above-cited agenda’s completion, the work session adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Due to what was described as a vendor “glitch” there is some delay on the work session video being posted. County IT staff hopes the video will be posted by the end of the week. When it is available, it will be linked to this story.
Local Government
Supervisors View New Senior Center Site at Health & Human Services Complex Prior to Budget Work Session
At 4 p.m. Tuesday afternoon, the Warren County Board of Supervisors began its three-pronged April 23rd schedule with a tour of the nearly completed two-year Health & Human Services facility renovations that will see the County-overseen Senior Center relocated from its Chimney Field-area site. According to Deputy County Administrator Jane Meadows, relocation will see an approximate doubling of the size of the senior assistance and activities facility. Meadows later elaborated to us that the square footage of the new Senior Center is 5,922 s.f., with shared space with the Parks & Recreation Department adding an additional 2,780 s.f. expanding total usable space to 8,702 s.f. For comparison, the existing Senior Center on Commonwealth Avenue near Chimney Field, the building is 3,964 s.f. The two-year project cost was cited at $867,000.
Costs and returns on investments are high on the county supervisors’ minds right now as they zero in on a Fiscal year 2024/25 final budget that will see the county’s first tax hike in the past five years to fund crucial departmental and outside agency services. Board members new and old seemed impressed with the amount of renovated space and its condition as presented to them by Meadows, along with Senior Services personnel, a number from Seniors First, including Executive Director Jimmy Roberts, Director of Development Greg Stockton, Director of Senior Center Operations Marsha LeBrecht, and Senior Center staffer Misty Alger. Also joining the tour were County Director of Social Services Jon Martz and Assistant Director Christie Lawson.
The target date for opening the Senior Center at its Health & Human Services complex location at the old middle school site off 15th Street is sometime in June, though involved officials declined to get more specific on a precise date at this point as final renovations continue.
It was noted that the change of locations would also be beneficial in giving attending seniors nearby access to a number of Health & Human Services in the 15th Street complex in addition to the shared Parks & Recreation space. That access includes the County Health and Social Services Departments for assistance seniors qualify for and utilize in maintaining a more beneficial standard of living.
Local Government
Airing of Differences in Town Council Regular Meeting Leads to Unanimous Vote to Extend Out-of-Town Service to Catholic Diocese
Every meeting of the Town Council has a scarlet thread weaving through a thicket of information. On Monday, April 22, at a regular meeting, starting at 7 p.m. in the Warren County Government Center on 220 North Commerce Avenue, the items threading the labyrinth were related to an out-of-town utility connection contract with the Catholic Diocese of Arlington for 0 Criser Road.
Sensing what is coming next is an imprecise art in government and the status of the Diocese’s application, suffering much discussion throughout multiple work sessions of the council, lingered in a state of irresolution as it was unclear whether the church body would ultimately receive water and septic service from the town at their out-of-town location on West Criser Road, where they plan to develop a sanctuary as well as an auxiliary building to serve as a gymnasium. Still, on Monday night, to use Councilman Bruce Rappaport’s language, the issue reached the end of its road. Even if the council does not work out a boundary-line adjustment of Town corporate limits to include the parcel at 0 West Criser Road, even if the council cannot, therefore, require the applicant to build a sidewalk in accordance with the rules that would govern the development of a parcel within Town limits; and even if members of the council continue to disagree amongst themselves about the coulda, woulda, shoulda pertaining to the Diocese’ offer to offset the cost of a sidewalk, the Town can still extend service to the church body. And they did in a unanimous vote.
Having placed 0 Criser Road on a list of areas outside of town that may receive service earlier in the evening in a unanimous vote, the council proceeded later, before the vote on approving the application, to submit for the record their varying views on whether a sidewalk could have been a part of the deal. A sidewalk on West Criser Road is something that all the members of the Town Council, as well as the town manager, desire passionately, as safety conditions are currently less than ideal for school children walking on that road. A parcel on that road might be developed in a way that would possibly increase pedestrian traffic, but this only serves to cement that desire; however, there are different opinions about methodology.
The one hundred and twenty-some thousand dollars that the Diocese offered to the Town to offset the cost of a sidewalk could have, in Councilman Glenn Wood’s view, solved the problem. However, the Diocese did not conduct a study of what the sidewalk would ultimately cost, and according to the information available to Town staff, the ultimate cost, including all the engineering concerns, would be upwards of two million dollars. In her statement at the meeting, Councilwoman Amber Morris strongly underlined those engineering concerns, specifically the utilities that would have to be moved to make that sidewalk a reality. Town Manager Joe Waltz emphasized the inadequacy of one hundred twenty-some thousand dollars. It is his view that the real priority on West Criser Road is installing a sidewalk between Skyline Vista Drive and Route 340, where there is not even a bike lane to offset the safety concern.
The word on the street is that the gymnasium will precede the sanctuary at 0 Criser Road. The intersection of Luray Avenue and West Main Street is a place of force on Sunday mornings, with much vehicular as well as pedestrian traffic, where St. John the Baptist Church is located across from Maddox Funeral Home. A secondary chapel could relieve that traffic somewhat and the gymnasium could be a resource for the Catholic homeschool community. It certainly sounds like a good thing for everybody.
Click here to watch the Front Royal Town Council Meeting of April 22, 2024.
Local Government
Town Council and Board of Supervisors Enjoy a Brief Liaison Committee Meeting
Having come out of a special meeting where they voted approval for a giveaway of trees purchased by the Town, the Front Royal Town Council joined the Warren County Board of Supervisors for a liaison committee meeting hosted by the county at 6 p.m. on Thursday, April 18 in the Warren County Government Center on 220 North Commerce Avenue. Mayor Lori Cockrell and Councilman Glenn Wood represented the council, while Chairwoman Cheryl Cullers and Supervisor Jerome Butler represented the board.
The items on the agenda were, respectively, the issue of processing house violations and tenant and landlord enforcement, deferred to July; McKay’s Springs; the transportation and infrastructure committee; an update on school zone cameras; the water supply plan; and a boundary line adjustment for Town corporate limits on East/West Criser Road. The meeting was characterized by agreement and goodwill as the Town and County discussed these items that concerned them. At the same time, Town Manager Joe Waltz and County Administrator Edwin Daley provided them with the information they needed to transact the meeting.
Mayor Cockrell pushed for clarification on who exactly owns McKay Springs. Daley explained that three years ago, the Economic Development Authority (EDA) sold their portion to the County, thus reducing the stakeholders to two parties, the Town and the County, both of whom currently own portions and a portion they own together. Under the leadership of Daley and Waltz, the Town and the County are now exploring whether they might develop McKay Springs as a joint venture. The transportation and infrastructure committee would facilitate this discussion, and it would be merely a discussion based on information gathering. Cullers then guided the meeting towards the transportation and infrastructure committee itself. At that point, she and Cockrell mentioned reports from VDOT that the Town and County received separately.
After they received an update about cameras in school zones from Captain Zachary King of the Front Royal Police Department and after they heard from Waltz about the annual determination of the Town’s excess volume in water and septic capacity, that is, capacity available for future development, the town manager explained the need for a boundary line adjustment on East/West Criser Road, where in a recent out-of-town service request it came to the Town’s attention that the boundary line does not reflect every segment of the road owned by the Town which, currently, owns segments that are outside of corporate limits, even though the Town owns all the land that East/West Criser Road is built on. The adjustment would bring all segments of the road into corporate limits as well as any segment marginal to the road that the Town already owns. There did not seem to be any resistance from the board to rectifying this oversight.
At 6:50 p.m., all agenda items having been addressed, the meeting was resolved with the determination to hold another liaison committee meeting in July.