Cutting off their nose to spite whose face?

The Lake Front Royal Property Owners Association (LFRPOA) came under severe criticism at a Monday, May 21 meeting of the Lake Front Royal Sanitary District Advisory Board.  And while it may not be surprising to hear critical POA appraisals from County officials or the County’s appointed advisory board members, this time the criticism spread into a number of the 10 Lake Front Royal citizens in attendance.

The criticism came following Deputy County Administrator Robert Childress’s update on the status of Lake Front Road upgrade and Bridge replacement project through the Virginia Department of Transportation’s Rural Addition Project (RAP)/Revenue Sharing Program.

That status, Childress reported, is a holding pattern awaiting a final response from one of nine property owners from whom right-of-way authorization is needed to allow the project to proceed.  While two authorizations need signatures, one woman whose property lies on Creek Road has verbally indicated she will sign as soon as all the other involved property owners have signed, Advisory Board Secretary Ken Harvey stated.

However, that ninth owner whose property lies at the heart of the Lake Front Road project has not responded to Childress’s inquiries for a month or more.

“I feel I have exhausted all options at this point,” Childress said of the impasse.  It is an impasse that could scrub the entire entranceway and bridge replacement project and see the loss of several hundred thousand dollars of subdivision-generated fees and tax payments directed toward that project, Childress observed.

Who is that owner whose silence may be threatening to cost the subdivision and county an estimated $350,000? – the Lake Front Royal Property Owners Association (LFRPOA).

Queried later, Childress explained the parcel in question as the POA’s approximate 15 acres containing the lake, common area, parking lot and school bus pickup near the subdivision entrance off Lake Front Road – “The right-of-way and easement dedications are needed along this property frontage in order to reconstruct the roadway and structure,” Childress explained.

From left, Lake Front Royal Advisory Board members James Barnes, Chair Erin MacMillan, Vice-chair Charles Gornowich and Secretary Ken Harvey listen to report on status of right-of-way acquisition to enable long-sought improvements to subdivision entrance – that report: project (& $350,000) in jeopardy. Photos/Roger Bianchini

Advisory Board Chair Erin MacMillan wondered if a certified letter should be sent to assure the POA had received the ROW inquiry.  It was noted that there had been some turnover in the POA board and confusion about who is currently serving in “acting” board of director capacities.

Childress said he was sure the county inquiry had been received by the POA because there had been “multiple” initial written responses requesting additional information.  Information obtained by Royal Examiner indicated those initial communications between the County and POA occurred between March 7 and March 12.

Childress said the county had responded to questions from the POA board to the best of its ability on April 24 – since then silence.

Deputy County Administrator Bob Childress, right, reports 2018 silence from Lake FR POA on final right-of-way okay on a project they have officially endorsed since 2014. County Public Works Director Mike Berry listens following his update on road and culvert work in the mountain subdivision – the reviews of that work were excellent.

“We don’t know who is running the POA right now,” Advisory Board Chair MacMillan said.

“Most of you in the audience know I am also on the POA board – I am not an officer, I just hold a seat,” Advisory Board Secretary Ken Harvey said.  He identified Bruce Hunter as the current acting POA president and went on to describe his own inability to get a response to his inquiries about the status of the Rural Addition Project right-of-way request to allow the project to proceed.

“I sent two e-mails to them, to directors and got no response in reference to this … I told them I had been in touch with the County and their lack of response to this after the April 24 letter from the County was going to put this project in jeopardy and also the safety of the children,” Harvey stated.  The latter reference was to a desire to get the bulk of work done this summer while school is out to have the minimum impact on the school bus pick up site near the construction project.

Harvey said after the initial lack of a reply, he again wrote the POA directors to no avail.  “This is internal board stuff – I’m on the board and they should have responded back to me.  They’re not talking – they’re not talking to anybody.”

Advisory Board Chair MacMillan observed that the desire for the entrance road-bridge replacement project predated the nearly two-year-old sanitary district designation that the LFRPOA board bitterly opposed.  In fact, Childress pointed to a document signed by the then POA president on October 24, 2014, that stipulated that the POA “must provide a 50-foot right of way” for the Lake Front Road-bridge project.

“I’m so disappointed with our POA board – they want to act like it’s a power struggle – I don’t know, I’m flabbergasted … We all own that – not just the POA,” 26-year Lake Front Royal resident Roger Stevens said of the Lake Front Road property the POA is withholding a right-of-way response on.

“About two week ago today VDOT already had approximately $115,000 spent in design, review, environmental processes, permits and the box culvert cost of course.  The county had to pay VDOT the county’s 25% share, as well as the community’s 25% share before they would start the design work.  So between the two of us, we’re invested $350,000,” Childress told the Lake Front Royal residents present as either appointed board members or interested citizens.

The funding formula for VDOT Rural Addition Projects that will bring transportation infrastructure up to state standards for absorption into the state maintenance system is 50% VDOT and 25% each for the county and the involved community.  And as Childress pointed out, the original cost estimate on the Lake Front Road and Bridge replacement project was $700,000 – “So we had to front that money to VDOT – we’re not going to get that money back,” Childress said of the county and community revenue shares should the project fall through.

Lake Front Royal residents, including the POA, agreed to a temporary $150 increase to its former $300 annual fee for several years to fund the community’s portion of the VDOT Rural Addition Project near the subdivision entrance.

Advisory Board Vice-Chairman Charles Gornowich observed that once abandoned, the Lake Front Road-bridge project would certainly fall far down VDOT’s future priority list – if it were to be revisited at all.

“I’m very disgusted with the POA – is there any way we can disband it?” long-time resident Roger Stevens asked the advisory board and county officials during his public comments.

Harvey urged the eight to 10 Lake Front Royal citizens present for the advisory board meeting to become directly involved in the POA and further urge their neighbors to do the same.  He said direct citizen involvement and pressure on what from his perspective has evolved into a small obstructionist clique controlling the POA may be the last resort to save the Lake Front Road and bridge replacement project.

Hostile takeover?

“Are there any other options that allow us to maintain the timeline? Advisory Board Vice-Chair Gornowich asked Childress.  The deputy county administrator, a former VDOT official himself, replied that VDOT project start deadlines were generally measured within a year of when funding was allocated to a project.  Funding on the Lake Front Road-Bridge project was allocated on July 1, 2017, Childress said.

“Can we take it?” Gornowich asked of an eminent domain seizure of the right-of-way portion of the POA property.

“That’s up to the board of supervisors,” Childress responded of initiating such a property seizure in “the public interest”.  The courts would be the final arbiter of such a move.  Childress later elaborated that such a move would only be contemplated after all good faith efforts to resolve the matter had been exhausted by the county government.

“This really irritates me, if that bridge fails – and it will fail eventually – I can’t get to my house,” Gornowich observed.

Near the meeting’s conclusion Board Chair MacMillan suggested moving the next scheduled advisory board meeting up a month to June 18 due to the necessity of rapid movement on the POA right-of-way issue.  Barring a suddenly favorable turnabout from the acting POA board it appears the advisory board consensus would be to recommend an eminent domain seizure to achieve the POA property right of way for the project.

According to Childress that swath encompasses about a 15-foot slice of the property adjacent to the road that has already been earmarked by the POA for right-of-way for the project.

Others addressing the advisory board had specific questions on road, culvert and parking issues directed toward Childress and County Public Works Director Mike Berry.  Responding to Roger Stevens earlier questions on road and culvert work undertaken by the county since the 2016 creation of the Lake Front Royal Sanitary District, Advisory Board Chair MacMillan asked “Are the roads better?”

“Oh, 100% better,” Stevens replied.

Want a revolution?

While there weren’t many residents present for the advisory board meeting, many who were there voiced displeasure with the direction the POA has taken.

Following their specific questions on county road and culvert work within the subdivision, other speakers echoed frustration with the POA and its leadership.

Bob Roush said he had supported the POA in its initial fight against the Sanitary District designation.  “I was against the Sanitary District; I voted against it – I was dumb … I (later) realized they weren’t being forthcoming with us,” Roush said of his interactions with the POA board.

Sharon Fairweather wondered about the legality of a $100 fee the POA charges property owners on top of the sanitary district fees – “Is it an entertainment fee for them? Am I giving it to them for nothing?” she asked.  The reply appeared to be that while legal, whether it was being used for things residents expected of the POA as to services was an issue for residents to determine.

Fairweather observed that from her experience at POA meetings that residents who asked questions of POA officials were made to feel extremely uncomfortable, resulting in a tendency to not ask questions or simply stop attending – “I’ve felt very comfortable here,” Fairweather added of her questioning of the advisory board.

The status of the advisory board, as well as Harvey’s dual role as a member of both the POA and advisory board was questioned during public comments.  It was noted that the advisory board appointments were made after the then-POA board declined to participate in the sanitary district processes after questions about how the designation was achieved.  They and some initial opponents of the designation claimed to have been excluded from notice of the circuit court hearing process leading to the 2016 creation of the Lake Front Royal Sanitary District.

But nearly two years down the road from that creation it appeared on Monday evening, May 21 that a change of attitude – even by past POA supporters – was rising over the behavior of the current POA leadership – a leadership some residents are questioning the installation of.

Dual board member Harvey noted that the POA website listed, as he said earlier, Bruce Hunter as acting president or chairman and “a lady” he couldn’t name as vice chair.  He also observed that former Treasurer Betty Boyd’s name had been removed without a stated replacement – “No one knows who the treasurer is,” Harvey observed.

“The only way we can change the POA is to participate and turn over the officers,” Advisory Board Secretary Harvey reiterated to the 10 citizens present by the end of the 6 p.m. meeting.  Notably absent was any representative of the POA for the scheduled Rural Addition Project discussion.

It was observed that it was possibly as few as three to four members installed as “acting” officers who were now controlling a POA stance “totally against” anything initiated by the County.

“And now they’re obstructing a project they started just out of spite,” Advisory Board member James Barnes stated.

Updates to this story will be published as information becomes available from the LFRPOA acting board and county officials regarding their March-April communications on this issue.