EDA unveils ‘silent partner’ in workforce housing project – the Aikens Group

Above, artist’s rendering of one of three, 12-unit apartment buildings to be developed targeting the community’s young professional workforce; below, looking south toward the workforce housing parcel at the end of Royal Lane. Royal Examiner File Photos/Roger Bianchini

On Monday, August 7, the Front Royal-Warren County Economic Development Authority announced that its controversial Workforce Housing Project will be turned over to a private-sector developer from Winchester.  According to a press release the EDA has been working with the Aikens Group since November 2014, just two months after the EDA board agreed to move forward with a plan to develop affordable rental housing for young professionals in the community.

“The EDA agreed to spearhead the project for The Aikens Group.  By initiating and pulling the permits for the project, EDA has upheld its agreement to maintain confidentiality as requested by Aikens,” the press release states, adding, “With only a few more permits to be finalized, The Aikens Group is comfortable in announcing their plans for the 36-unit Royal Lane apartment complex.”

EDA Executive Director Jennifer McDonald verified the project will now be developed as 36 units from the start as had been originally planned.  Recently the EDA had announced the additional price of a purchase of the property would force an initial scale-back to 24 units.

Aikens Group Vice President Jason Aikens is quoted in the release stating, “The three-building complex will be a nice fit for the Town of Front Royal and we are excited to be working on another project in Warren County.”  The Aikens Group is described as “a premier development firm in the Shenandoah Valley that serves the Interstate 81 and Interstate 66 corridors from Martinsburg, West Virginia to Woodstock, Virginia.”  The company’s website is listed as www.AikensGroup.com.

On June 6, EDA Board Chairman Greg Drescher found himself, along with McDonald, being grilled about inconsistent statements about the project by members of the Warren County Board of Supervisors at a joint supervisors-EDA work session.  Two months later on August 7, Drescher expressed gratification that a previously confidential developmental “card” required to be held “up the EDA’s sleeve” is now on the table.

“We are pleased to see this project come to fruition.  This endeavor is an example of how our EDA has been willing to spearhead a unique project in order to have a positive impact on our community’s workforce,” Drescher states in the release.  “Our community has been talking about doing something to increase workforce housing options for well over 10 years.  In the not-too-distant future we will be able to offer an upscale housing option for our middle class working citizens.  Our hope is now that a workforce housing project is happening other private developers will see the economic benefit to adding additional workforce housing to our community.  The EDA is proud to have gotten this project off the ground.”

Confidential complications

It was another confidential part of the project – an undisclosed start-of-construction deadline of March 1, 2017, that was initially said to have forced the EDA’s hand to either purchase the property at the “agreed-upon” price of $445,000 placed on what at the time was called a “gifted deed of transfer” or return the 3.6-acre parcel to the previous owners that elevated criticism of the EDA’s handling of the project.

On April 28 the EDA board voted to proceed with a purchase of the parcel at that $445,000 price.  The reason was explained as a previously-undisclosed March 1 start of construction deadline not being met.  It was also explained that the decision to proceed with the purchase was based on the fact the EDA had already spent approximately $500,000 in developmental work on the site.  A 383-page informational packet the EDA released May 19 in an attempt to answer the mounting questions about the project listed invoices totaling $420,765.  However, McDonald later clarified that of that amount only $10,500 for a traffic study was not recoverable money.

Following those revelations Drescher and McDonald faced tough questioning by County Supervisors Archie Fox and Tom Sayre at a joint June 6 work session.  Under that questioning it was revealed the EDA had no legal obligation to either return or purchase the property, but rather felt it was “the right thing to do.”  It was explained that Mr. and Mrs. Walter L. Campbell had lost a tax credit tied to the “gift” by the March 1, 2017 deadline not being met.

Above, Archie Fox, left, and Tom Sayre grilled then EDA Vice-Chairman Greg Drescher and Jennifer McDonald at a June 6 joint county-EDA work session; below, with his executive director close by, Drescher may have been thinking “But if I told you everything I know, I’d have to kill you (and at least all the reporters in this room).”

Questions about the workforce housing project were initially raised by Front Royal Councilwoman Bébhinn Egger in late October of last year.  Asked about the “price” of $445,000 placed on the deed even though it was then termed a gift, McDonald replied that price was based on an appraisal.  As stated above, it was later clarified that the number on the deed of gift was “agreed upon” rather than appraised.

But now it can be revealed that the $445,000 agreement was between the Campbells and the Aikens Group; and that the Aikens group was instrumental in selecting the site.

So, it appears that many of those verbal missteps and informational inconsistencies revolved around a much bigger confidentiality at the base of the project almost from the start nearly three years ago – that the EDA was acting as a facilitator for a private-sector developer that wasn’t ready to be introduced publicly … until now (too bad Patty wasn’t here to see it happen).

Hey, it’s business – go figure …

Royal Examiner tried to prove dirt had been turned so the project could proceed as planned …