County Okays another $250,000 for EDA legal costs – faces more criticism

County/EDA Attorney Dan Whitten, left, and County Administrator Doug Stanley absorb some public critique of a perceived lack of municipal oversight of how the EDA was using county taxpayer money. Royal Examiner Photos/Roger Bianchini

If the agenda was light – several agency reports, a Consent Agenda and Closed Session – not so with some of the public and board comments at the Tuesday morning, August 6 Warren County Board of Supervisors meeting. County supervisors and staff continued to take heat from two of their primary public critics over the perceived lack of oversight many feel was a primary contributing factor to the Economic Development Authority financial scandal.

And speaking of that scandal, the one action taken after Tuesday’s closed session was raising the payment cap for the Sands Anderson law firm handling the EDA civil litigation seeking recovery of approximately $20 million in allegedly misdirected assets, from $500,000 to $750,000. Coupled with the $600,000 the County authorized and covered payment of to the Cherry Bekaert public accounting firm that investigated signs of fraud in EDA operations and finances, the County will have spent $1.35 million on identifying and trying to rectify the EDA financial situation.

With these numbers continuing to accumulate it may be little surprise that some of the most vocal critics of the County’s perceived role in allowing the EDA financial scandal to develop for years under its operational funding nose and primary municipal oversight role, continue to appear to reiterate their harsh assessment of county officials.

For some it appears Board Chairman Dan Murray’s now familiar pre-meeting call for personal prayer for community healing in the wake of EDA revelations and accusations will only be accomplished with a purge of county staff and elected officials.

James Harper has been his Rockland neighbor Doug Stanley’s harshest critic.

Two of the most familiar county government critics, Paul Gabbert and James Harper, continued to single out County Administrator Doug Stanley for criticism. Gabbert asked the board not to renew or make changes to Stanley’s contract, but let the board in place after the November election make those choices. Murray and Linda Glavis have both announced their retirement and the third supervisor up for election this year, Shenandoah District’s Tom Sayre is facing opposition from Walter Mabe, who has aligned himself with the county government reform movement.

During the second public comment portion of the meeting Harper spoke against the Crooked Run 2 residential development project “that Mr. Stanley seems to be pushing”. He suggested the County allow planned development “off of Happy Creek Road” close to a number of public schools to proceed before rezoning commercial land in the county to facilitate residential development.

His reference appeared to be to the Front Royal Limited Partnership (FRLP) approximately 750 acres, 602 of which was moved into the town limits by a “friendly annexation” around 2014 and earmarked for residential development of approximately a thousand units. That development, first discussed as early as 2004, has been stalled within the Town permitting and proffer process since the 2014 annexation agreement.

Some are asking why not develop residential in town on FRLP property where it has been planned since the Town-County ‘friendly annexation’ of 2014. No answers have come from the Town side as of yet.

Harper’s suggestion to the County might be more pertinent to the Town side of the Crooked Run 2 equation. For most believe regardless of County rezoning, without the Town central water utility extended beyond the town limits that has been requested, the Crooked Run 2 residential development project would be dead in the water.

And many former and some longer-tenured current town officials believe the Town continues to lose millions of dollars per year in commercial tax revenue as a result of its last agreement to extend its central water utility onto county land without annexation. But as previously observed, that is another story dating to another century; not to mention another vote for another municipal body coming up in the not-too-distant future of this century.

Harper then pointed a request Shenandoah District Supervisor Tom Sayre’s way. He asked Sayre to drop his $25,000 civil defamation lawsuit against former EDA Executive Director Jennifer McDonald because he theorized she might be using “county money, in other words citizen money for her legal team,” adding, “If you win (the lawsuit) it might be county money that you win – stop being a bully and save taxpayer money,” Harper urged the supervisor.

However criticism of board members wasn’t limited to public comment at both the beginning and end of Tuesday’s meeting. Earlier Supervisor Sayre queried County Attorney Dan Whitten on details of County and EDA insurance policies through fellow Supervisor Tony Carter. Sayre complained that he had never “officially been told” of Carter’s involvement in EDA insurance coverage.

“We went into closed session and we were discussing about the policies regarding the actual employees of the EDA; and then I found out that the same board member has those insurance policies – is that accurate?” Sayre asked Whitten.

James Harper urged Tom Sayre to drop his $25,000 civil defamation suit against Jennifer McDonald. Sayre may be wondering if Harper will also urge McDonald to drop her $600,000 civil defamation suit against him.

The insurance policies Sayre referenced include coverage of some County and EDA properties and employee criminal liability insurance for the EDA through the Stoneburner-Carter Insurance Company.

Whitten explained that Stoneburner-Carter acted as insurance broker on some the referenced insurance contracts. Whitten cited EDA properties insured through Stoneburner-Carter as including the Kendrick Lane EDA Office complex, the Stokes Mart property, Afton Inn and the Baugh Drive building. He noted that while EDA’s do not have to follow procurement policies that as of July 1 the EDA adopted the County’s procurement policies setting certain bid guidelines according to total value of policies and requiring board approval over $10,000 value.

Whitten also explained that despite the fact that Happy Creek Supervisor Tony Carter’s name is attached to the company, he is not an owner. Carter later explained to the media that his mother is the owner of the company in wake of the 2006 death of Oliver Stoneburner. At this point in time he remains an employee, if a potential heir to company ownership. Some of the County policies and the EDA office complex policy actually pre-dated his election to the county board, Carter told media after the meeting.

If some caught it from public comment, Tony Carter pictured at work session after meeting, heard it thrown his way from the home team as Sayre questioned his insurance business dealings with the County and EDA.

He also said that he disclosed his company employment and recused himself from any votes involving the hiring of Stoneburner-Carter for coverage of County-owned properties, including county-owned fire stations; but had not in the EDA insurance packages.

Of that latter decision Carter noted, as Whitten did earlier, that while as a county board member he saw potential conflict of interest without disclosure, but with no direct affiliation to the EDA he felt a similar disclosure unnecessary.

Noting the board of supervisors’ authority to appoint EDA board members, Sayre wondered if the separation was as defined as Whitten and Carter concluded.