Front Royal Town Staff has been working with Comcast on establishing a new franchise and pole attachment agreement for services in Town. The existing agreements expired on May 13, 2018. At the April 2, 2019, meeting the staff had with Josh Brokee, Comcast, he informed the Town that they will be closing the Front Royal customer service center in 60 days (June 1st). He stated that it was a business decision and they were closing a total of 5/6 locations. He has provided a summary sheet on how our citizens can still do business with Comcast in town through other vendors.
After reviewing the proposal and knowing the volume of customers that do business in the customer service center, Joe Waltz, Town Manager, informed Brokee that this was unacceptable to the citizens of Front Royal. Waltz also informed Brokee how important this customer service center is to Front Royal and how the Town had included specific language in the franchise agreement for the establishment of a center in Town.
Meza again bucked the consensus, saying, “I don’t want to lose Comcast – they’re restructuring; it’s a change in their business model.” While Waltz agreed with the business model observation, he again pointed to the heavy local use of the center, noting many town citizens use cash to pay bills that way. The town manager said a new RFP could be issued to put the cable franchise up to bid; but suggested that Comcast might have “too much inventory here” to just pack up and leave.
While Waltz said Comcast has taken the stance that the closing is non-negotiable, he believes maintaining the Front Royal service center should be a key point in the franchise agreement negotiation. “Tell them to take their lines and cable and move on,” Councilman Tewalt suggested if the non-negotiable stance was maintained.
Here’s what Comcast says:
Comcast Customer Service Options Available to Residents of Front Royal, VA
There are many convenient ways that customers may interact with us, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. These include:
Making A Payment:
- By mail
- By telephone: 1-800-XFINITY
- Online: www.Comcast.com/myaccount
- Mobile: Xfinity My Account App
Third Party Locations:
- 7/11 Store at 851 John Marshall Hwy
- Rite Aid Store at 800 John Marshall Hwy (via Western Union)
- 7/11 Store at 606 North Royal Avenue
- Martin’s 409 South Street
- Comcast service center located in Winchester, VA (approximately 14 miles away)
Customers have many convenient ways to contact Comcast, including:
- Speaking with a Comcast customer care representative toll-free at 1-800-XFINITY
- Online at www.comcast.com, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
- Via our dedicated Digital Care team that communicates with customers on blogs, social media and twitter.
- In person at the Comcast service center located in Winchester, VA (approximately 14 miles away)
Customers have several options when it comes to receiving, installing or returning equipment, including:
- Calling 1-800-XFINITY to order a self-install kit, making it convenient for customers to add, install and activate Comcast services on their own schedules.
- UPS pre-paid mailers are available to be sent to the home for customers to easily return equipment at no-charge.
Customers may take the pre-paid UPS Office Customer Pick-Up/Drop Off Center at 912 John Marshall Hwy
- Comcast offers early morning, evening and weekend in-home appointments, as well as two-hour appointment windows for professional installation.
- In person at the Comcast service center located in Winchester, VA (approximately 14 miles away)
- Comcast has teamed up with UPS to offer convenient and free equipment returns (4,400 total locations across the US). Comcast customers can bring their equipment directly to The UPS Store, where it will be processed, packed and shipped back to Comcast, free of charge. All equipment can be returned as-is, without wrapping or a box and customers will receive a confirmation of receipt and tracking information from UPS, eliminating any questions about the status of their return. Located at: 912 John Marshall Hwy.
All of these options are complimented by Comcast’s Customer Guarantee, the Company’s written promise that we will hold our products, service and employees to the highest standards. The Guarantee makes clear what customers should expect of Comcast, and backs it up with a 30-day money-back guarantee on our services, and credits or complimentary services if we are late for an appointment or don’t fix a problem right the first time. Comcast is committed to making it easier for customers to do business with us on their own terms.
Rise in county COVID-19 stats, guidelines for Phase 2 reopenings explained
County-Town Emergency Management Team officials and Warren County Commonwealths’ Attorney John Bell briefed media on the current county and Lord Fairfax Health District statistics and details of Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s Executive Order 65, moving portions of Virginia, including Front Royal, Warren County and our health district into Phase 2 of Coronavirus pandemic business and governmental reopening.
Those statistics included 217 COVID-19 cases now in Warren County, a rise as Deputy County Emergency Manager Rick Farrall noted, of 13 from the previous day. The cumulative two-day rise in cases of 51, with 38 new cases being reported on Wednesday. A portion of that rise is related to the result of testing at RSW Regional Jail, which now reports 75 total cases, 67 of which are active, Farrall noted.
A change in the C-CAP food distribution location, from the 15th Street Public Building back to C-CAP’s 316 North Royal Avenue location, was also noted by Farrall who handed a report on the governor’s Executive Order 65 over to Commonwealth’s Attorney Bell.
Bell noted the key number “50” as in 50% capacity and 50 total customers in now re-opened indoor restaurant dining areas. The 6-foot social distancing standard, along with masks will also remain in place. Phase Two guidelines begin this Friday, June 5.
Team Chairman Mabe again urged citizen networking with their neighbors who might need additional assistance, and a general sense of community working together through this trying health threat and economic hardship stemming from medically advised restrictions on public activities during the pandemic, which was forecast to last at least through the summer to some degree.
Near the meeting’s end, those present addressed details of the planned march in honor of George Floyd, who died while being arrested in Minneapolis, Minnesota over a week ago. Four now-fired Minneapolis police officers have been charged related to what has been legally defined as Floyd’s “murder” at the hands of those now-disgraced former officers. Local law enforcement is networking with, and is expected to march with, rather than in opposition to, that local demonstration beginning at 6:30 p.m. Social distancing will be in place for that event as well, Bell said.
See the full, approximately 25-minute briefing of valuable information in this exclusive Royal Examiner video:
County could bypass Town in ‘CARES’ funding – but doesn’t intend to …
There was an explosive revelation in a June 4th Letter to the Editor from Greg Harold concerning the distribution of federal “CARES” Act Coronavirus Economic Relief funds. That revelation in the Letter titled “Council’s Wanton Cries of ‘More’,” is that Warren County does NOT have to include the Town of Front Royal government in the distribution of CARES (Coronavirus Aid Relief & Economic Securities) funding.
“Not to say that’s what we’re going to do,” County Deputy Emergency Manager Rick Farrall said in pointing us to the administering agency, the U.S. Treasury Department’s website for confirmation of Harold’s statement. That confirmation was most immediately apparent in a May 28 update on commonly asked questions about the federal CARES funding.
“Is a Fund payment recipient required to transfer funds to a smaller, constituent unit of government within its borders?”
To which the Treasury Department answer was: “No. For example, a county recipient is not required to transfer funds to smaller cities within the county’s borders.”
As we noted in an appendix to EDA Asset Committee Chairman Harold’s letter to the editor, “… while Front Royal is not a city, it is “a smaller constituent unit of government” within county borders.
So, if the council thought that less than a million dollars or $1.5 million were “crumbs” from the $3.5 million of CARES funding the County received on June 1, how might ZERO dollars administered through its hands play in Town Hall?
That is not to say Town businesses and citizens would lose out on that funding. Rather, the County could take on the responsibility of distribution of CARES funding to businesses and citizens on both sides of the town-county boundary who qualify by the program’s standards.
Asked after Thursday afternoon’s weekly Coronavirus Emergency Management Team briefing, Team and County Board Chairman Walt Mabe echoed Farrall’s earlier comment that unilateral County action is not currently on the table.
“It’s an option but it’s not our intent,” Mabe told Royal Examiner.
But one might imagine that if a continued, aggressively hostile and accusatory tone is the council’s collective loudest voice concerning how CARES funding will be divided, that intent could conceivably change.
In fact, Thursday evening during the first meeting of the newly formed four-member (two from the council, two from county board) Joint County-Town Tourism Committee, North River Supervisor Delores Oates referenced the recently evolving divide between the two municipal governments. In response to Joint Tourism Advisory Board Vice-Chair Kerry Barnhart’s observation on the danger of “being in the same kind of situation we’ve been in, where we have competing visions, competing, you know things that conflict with each other,” Oates began: “Well Kerry, I’m really glad you brought that up.
“Because unfortunately with the Town and the County there’s us and them perception. And WE are here to say that WE are going to end that perception,” Oates continued with emphasis on both pronouns. “We are an all us, and this tourism effort is going to be an all us. And I think in order to accomplish that we need to keep the lines of communication open,” Oates continued in describing an open, mutually beneficial network to move the partially dismantled Town Tourism function and the County’s forward on one transparent and profitable track.
“We aren’t unified and I’m going to call out the elephant in the room, Oates said to her committee comprised of she and Cheryl Cullers on the County side and Letasha Thompson and Gary Gillespie on the Town side.
More on that committee meeting in a coming Royal Examiner story and linked virtual meeting recorded broadcast.
County: Town’s ‘half’ equals 27% if council wants to move alone with relief funds
If the Town wants to play its own “I, Me, Mine” (with a songwriting nod to late Beatle George Harrison) economic recovery game with its “equitable” share of federal Coronavirus Relief money, it is likely to find it is playing with less than the $1 million to $1.5 million town staff said it is anticipating of the $3.5 million in CARES (Coronavirus Aid Relief & Economic Securities) money Warren County received on June 1.
That is because in a population-based model upon which the CARES money is to be distributed to smaller municipalities within qualifying county’s, an 8-3 “unit” split, or 73% to 27% distribution of those funds has been estimated by county staff. Those numbers are based on the county population of about 40,000 and the town’s 15,000, that latter number who are also county residents, as Mayor Gene Tewalt explained to council on June 1st.
Those numbers equate to $946,000 the Town would get, with the County retaining roughly $2.5 million according to the government formula on “equitable” distribution of the CARES relief funds. The process and numbers were explained to county supervisors following Tuesday’s morning meeting, at an early Tuesday afternoon, June 2nd work session.
The topic was broached on the County side during a presentation by County Deputy Emergency Services Director Rick Farrall on the County’s receipt of the $3.5 million CARES money the previous day. As Front Royal Mayor Tewalt noted during council work session discussion of the same topic the previous evening, he and Vice-Mayor Bill Sealock met with county officials Monday afternoon to discuss a mutually acceptable distribution and relief plan.
However, as reported in our story “Money, money, money, EDAs and ongoing weekend downtown walking mall” council collectively did not appear initially receptive to the two-pronged plan Tewalt and Sealock brought them from the afternoon meeting with county officials. Contacted later, Farrall said in addition to him, Front Royal Mayor Tewalt and Vice-Mayor Sealock, present were County Board Chair Walt Mabe and County Administrator Doug Stanley. Farrall also later verified that the County received the CARES funding the day of that meeting, Monday, June 1. He noted it was applied for on May 20.
As summarized by the mayor Monday night, the County proposal was to divide the $3.5 million in half; have the County and Town jointly administer a relief package to qualifying businesses and/or citizens inside and outside the town limits with $1.75 million; and let each municipality use their share of the remaining $1.75 million, based on the 73% – 27% County-Town “equitable” population formula split, as they saw fit.
“I don’t think it went too well,” Farrall told the supervisors of the mayor’s presentation to council the previous night.
“According to the formula they’re going to get the big cut of it and we’re going to get the crumbs,” as we reported of Councilman Gary Gillespie’s reaction Monday night.
Even Sealock, who was involved in the meeting with county officials the day the money was received; and who told his colleagues the County as recipient of the grant was “100% responsible” for documentation and accounting that all the money was used as federally prescribed, seemed perturbed that the County had developed a plan without the involvement of Interim Town Manager Matt Tederick.
“I’m just wondering why we weren’t consulted other than today of all days,” a frustrated Sealock said.
Despite the presence of county board Chair Mabe at the Monday meeting with the mayor and vice mayor, Chris Holloway wondered if the plan was formulated by the county administrator without county board authorization or approval.
Mayor Tewalt tried to derail the “we are being taken advantage of” train that was gathering momentum. “They want to take the $3.5 million and use half of it for economic recovery; and then take the populations and split it whatever that ratio would be of the other $1.7 million and use that the way we want to utilize that amount of money …
“But they just want to know if we would be agreeable tonight – just split the money, and use half of it for recovery and half of it to do the other (things) as far as the government’s concerned. So, we can pay whatever we have to pay and they can pay whatever they want to pay,” the mayor told council.
In response to Gillespie’s “They’re going to get the big cut … and we’re going to get the crumbs” remark, the mayor readdressed the population-based formula. “Yea, but … there’s 40,000 people in the county and we’re only 15,000. So, they should get the most of it,” Mayor Tewalt reasoned.
Vice-Mayor Sealock then explained the above-referenced “unit” split as based on a count of 5,000, with 5,000 divided into the town population three times and the county’s eight. Hence, the 8-3 “unit” or 73%-27% population-based divide of the money.
“Well, Mr. Mayor you asked us if we wanted yes or no on it – and my answer’s no,” Gillespie responded, unmoved by the numbers or the population-based distribution formula originating at the federal level with the CARES grant program.
Tederick said he believed the County had received the funding within the previous two weeks, but that Tewalt and Sealock’s presentation was the first he had heard of a distribution proposal developed on the County side.
“Well, I think they just put it together today,” the mayor replied.
As the “our money, our plan, our rules” momentum built on council, Lori Cockrell did voice a word of caution Monday night, telling her council colleagues, “I don’t want to say, no, we don’t want any money.”
“I understand the ask, I’m not offended by it; it makes sense why they’re asking. Maybe even the dollars could end up making sense when we see it spelled out,” Jacob Meza added. One repeated complaint voiced was the absence of more written documentation to accompany the mayor and vice-mayor’s explanation of the proposal, as well as the absence of a county official to answer questions.
Cutting nose off to spite …
Discussing the County proposal and an initially suspicious and negative reaction from several councilmen with Farrall later Tuesday afternoon, he reiterated a point to this reporter he made earlier to the county supervisors. That point was that the joint relief aspect of the County proposal could actually see an additional benefit to in-town businesses and/or citizens as recipients from both governments to whom they pay taxes as dual town-county citizens or commercial entities.
“You’ve got a 50/50 (split) with $1.75 million. I assume that could be more spent in-town,” Supervisor Tony Carter observed of the joint aspect of the county proposal.
A little quick calculating indicated that if the Town and its recipients were the potential beneficiaries of half of the jointly administered money ($870,000) and the Town got a flat 27% or three “units” of the other $1.75 million ($473,000) to do with as it pleased within documented CARES guidelines, their total take would be $1.34 million, some $400,000 more than taking their 27% share of the entire $3.5 million ($946,000).
“Logically, if the Town would think about it, town business might benefit better from this model … they may get more money for town business in a joint pot, than saying ‘give me my little slice and I’ll see you’,” Farrall replied to Carter’s observation.
Fifteen minutes into the work session that led to a discussion of the anticipated third party roles of the EDA (County) and Chamber of Commerce (Town) acting as distributors of funds to accommodate state prohibitions on charitable giving by municipal governments. That discussion included difficulties created by the Town’s choice of hostile, shoot-for-the-moon civil litigation, rather than good faith negotiations with the EDA.
‘Equitable’ – dueling perspectives
County Board Chairman Mabe also observed that while town officials might consider “equitable” a 50/50 down the middle split, giving each municipality roughly $1,752,000 million of the $3,504,164 federal CARES funding to the County, it wouldn’t be based in the reality of the program guidelines.
“That could be what they want,” Mabe warned his colleagues.
Farrall responded by noting such a perspective did not fit the definition of “equitable” as it applied to the County.
“I would dismiss any talk of saying 50% down the middle. Because that is in no way equitable to the County; nor is it how the funds were generated in the first place,” Farrall said drawing immediate agreement from Mabe and Supervisor Delores Oates.
Farrall continued to note that in counties with smaller town municipalities that rely on their county governments for essential services like schools, parks and recreation, and emergency services, the CARES “equitable” formula of sharing can go beyond population considerations alone.
“In a county that has these smaller towns, it’s not just a straight population (equation) because those smaller towns are dependent on the county for many things they don’t have to pay for. So, back to Jason’s point, this is where in the language of the CARES Act we have to determine an equitable distribution where it is not 100% population.”
“Jason’s point” was County Attorney Jason Ham’s earlier observation, “It depends on how you define the word ‘equitable’.”
Ham continued, “Warren County has agreed to equitably share with the Town, and so you could determine equitability to be based on population. But then you also have to consider that, you know, Rick here is going to save somebody’s life if they’re in a burning house in the Town of Front Royal,” Ham said of Farrall’s employer, the County Fire & Rescue Department that serves county residents both inside and out of the town limits (and a HEART-felt God Bless Them for that, seven-plus years down the road from one in-town medical emergency survivor).
“And his salary is paid by people who live in the Town of Front Royal, as well as those in Warren County. It’s however you define equitable, and that’s one way to do it,” Ham concluded of a population-and-services formula tied to the federal CARES Act money.
Not on immediate call to run into a burning building to save anyone, the County’s Deputy Emergency Manager continued, “So somewhere between the pure population split and (the cost of shared services) you could negotiate if you will. But at the end of the day it’s up to the County to determine that split. We’re just trying to be nice …”
“At the end of the day we’re all at the benefit of something we didn’t have,” board Vice-Chair Cheryl Cullers injected, adding, “I mean to fight over it at this point – you’ve got to do this a way it makes sense.”
“Well, the County’s not fighting it. The decision just has to be made between the Town and County. And what it amounts to now is just the split. We’ll work out the details, we’ll have to,” Mabe observed.
Noting the earlier observation that the mayor’s presentation of the county proposal to council “didn’t go well” Oates asked, “What were the objections, I’d like to understand that.”
“Just, they want more money. It’s as simple as that. They don’t agree,” Mabe replied, as Oates finished his sentence, “With the equitable solution we’ve come to.
“Okay,” Oates added of her developing understanding of the situation.
For now, listen to and watch the above-described County business in this virtual recording courtesy of Warren County Board of Supervisors:
County debates level of caution necessary as pandemic relief requests come
Following the failure of a majority of the Warren County Board of Supervisors to move a Chamber of Commerce request for “immediate” financial assistance from both the county and town governments to remain solvent through the end of the year in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic shutdown, Happy Creek Supervisor Tony Carter told Chamber President Niki Foster, “I’m sorry.”
Cheryl Cullers motion to postpone action pending discussion at a coming work session, seconded by Archie Fox, passed 3-2 with Carter and Board Chairman Walt Mabe dissenting.
Carter told his colleagues that their agreement would be contingent on the Town’s agreeing to fund its half of the Chamber request of $5,000 a month from each municipality from the July 1 start of the fiscal year through December.
Carter worried that with the Town apparently waiting to see if the County would respond favorably to the request before proceeding toward a decision, the supervisor’s delay on the front end of the request could set the timetable on the approval process of both municipalities back beyond the immediacy of that requested July start of assistance.
Again, as the previous night the potential of utilizing federal “CARES” (Coronavirus Aid Relief & Economic Securities) pandemic relief funding coming to the County, and indirectly to the Town through the County, at a total of $3.5 million seemed to confuse, rather than alleviate concerns about a financial commitment to the Chamber.
As was explained to the town council the previous evening, the Chamber has seen its largest annual fundraising event, the Wine & Crafts Festival, canceled along with other normally-revenue producing events. A May 22 letter from Foster and Chamber Board President Ray Bramble said the organization has seen a drop in membership renewals due to COVID-19 Coronavirus pandemic restrictions on many small business operations.
And the letter observed that the Chamber as a 501-C 6 organization does not qualify for Payroll Protection Program (PPP) federal assistance. The combination of these variables has left the Chamber, which it was noted has served the community for 80 years, like many of its members or former members, in dire financial straits.
The discussion leading to the vote to postpone a decision on appropriating the necessary $30,000 began about an hour and 50 minutes into Tuesday’s meeting.
Emergency Management variables
Also, on the supervisors Tuesday agenda was an added item, an update from County Deputy Emergency Services Director Rick Farrall on the county and region’s COVID-19 statistics and expectations moving toward the governor’s Phase 2 reopening plan. That report came just over an hour into the meeting. Responding to questions, Farrall said details on moving into the governor’s Phase Two of reopening remained somewhat sketchy.
However, at a suggestion the County considers lifting its Emergency Declaration, Farrall urged caution, noting that could jeopardize emergency relief funding now scheduled to come the County’s way.
The board later heard from COVID-19 pandemic response critic Gary Kushner, whose lengthy letter stating the County should end its emergency declaration and go toward full reopening under voluntary decisions on mask-wearing and social distancing was read into the meeting record by Clerk Emily Ciarrocchi; as was a much briefer submission from Kristie Atwood belaboring the County’s expenditure on EDA civil case attorney legal fees.
In varying amounts of detail, the board also discussed four items removed from a seven-item Consent Agenda normally seen as routine business. Those included:
– A proposed hike in hangar rental rates at the Front Royal Airport, a request complicated by the Airport Commission not having met recently due to the COVID-19 restrictions, commission member Archie Fox told the board – action tabled to June 16;
– A request for $17,472 in funding to continue the Warren County Public Schools student meal distribution program through July and August. It was noted that the system has delivered 48,000 meals during the two months of pandemic emergency school closings, with even more meals being picked up. When Vice-Chair Cullers hedged at the financial commitment with unanswered questions on future revenue consequences of the Coronavirus pandemic closings, Chairman Mabe and Supervisor Carter noted that the County would be reimbursed between 75% and 100% of that money through FEMA or CARES relief funding. County Administrator Stanley also noted that without the commitment to run the program the additional months, the system faced the loss of bus drivers to other jurisdictions where jobs were assured. Consequently, Carter’s motion, seconded by Fox, was approved by a unanimous roll call vote;
– After a lengthy discussion about the third annual renewal of four in a contract for environmental and engineering services with LaBella Associates (formerly known as Joyce Engineering) at the closed county landfill, that contract was finally approved by a unanimous roll call vote on a motion by Delores Oates, seconded by Cullers. However, in the climate of social media and new board member distrust of staff, it was far from routine business. Perhaps responding to a posted chat room suggestion from blogger Kristie Atwood that the contract renewals be removed from the consent agenda and put out to bid; Cullers suggested that might be in the county’s best interest to re-establish a competitive bidding process. However, it was explained that the price of the contract had not changed since it was originally agreed to in 2017, and with a limited number of companies performing such work in the state, going out to bid now could see significantly higher bids, including from LaBella, come in. That dose of fiscal dynamics, coupled with a positive report on LaBella’s work throughout the contract moved the board toward approval of the one-year renewal;
– However, with much less discussion a decision on a similar third of four annual contract renewals with H&W Construction was postponed to the June 16 meeting to accumulate additional information. That contract is for “all labor and equipment necessary on an as-needed basis, for general construction, athletic field construction, road maintenance, repair, stormwater management, perimeter erosion and sediment controls, drainage improvement work and utilities for County Departments, Public Schools and Sanitary Districts in Warren County”
And two hours and fifteen minutes into the 9 a.m. meeting, an adjournment to closed session to discuss several items, including EDA litigation, as well as prospective business or industry relocation here, was unanimously approved on a motion by Oates, seconded by Fox. An hour and a half later the board left the closed session to a work session to discuss the acquisition, legal responsibilities, and distribution of federal CARES Coronavirus pandemic relief funding. See a report on that interesting discussion that might be considered “Part 2” of the report on last night’s town council discussion of the same topic, in an upcoming Royal Examiner story.
For now, listen to and watch the above-described County business in this recording courtesy of Warren County Board of Supervisors:
Money, money, money, EDAs and ongoing weekend downtown walking mall
At a Monday night, June 1st work session the Front Royal Town Council wrestled with the legal and financial dynamics of a number of matters, several related to COVID-19 federal and local relief packages, as well as a Chamber of Commerce request that the Town partner with the County in keeping the Chamber financially solvent through the end of the calendar year. That request for $5,000 per month from both the Town and County ($10,000 total) beginning “immediately” is also COVID-19 pandemic-related, as the Chamber noted cancellation of its biggest annual fundraiser, the Wine & Crafts Festival among others, as well as a drop in membership renewals believed related to pandemic restrictions on business operations.
Also, on a busy agenda, the council discussed having its own Economic Development Authority created and a board and staff in place by the July 1 start or close to it, of Fiscal Year 2021. That should answer any county board questions about the status of the Town’s request to become the first Virginia municipality to be authorized to be part of two EDA’s simultaneously, as it was noted the governor had finally signed the request approved earlier by the General Assembly, into law.
The belligerent town elected official stance toward the re-tooled and recovering from financial scandal EDA noted by the Warren County Board of Supervisors on May 4 (see related story: ‘Cancer’ gone from EDA, will Town belligerence follow suit in November?) was on full display Monday night, beginning just over an hour into the work session.
“The Front Royal-Warren County EDA brand is hugely damaged right now – beyond repair. They’ll have a really hard time going forward attracting businesses to our area,” Councilman Gary Gillespie said in support of the rapid movement to creation of the Town’s own, unilateral EDA.
Gillespie said he has championed the distancing of the Town from the EDA, if not it’s total withdrawal apparently hoping for some property to fall the Town’s way along with virtually all the money the EDA is seeking to recover from alleged co-conspirators with former EDA Executive Director Jennifer McDonald.
“The EDA mostly works for the County – and it’s been that way for the last 15 years or better,” Gillespie asserted despite the Town’s current civil legal claim of over $20 million in allegedly lost Town assets from the EDA financial scandal centered on the past four to five years of Town business with the EDA. The EDA’s civil action against multiple defendants stands at $21.3 million in allegedly misdirected assets.
“We need this for the Town of Front Royal for economic development; and more so now with this COVID-19, just for redevelopment. Nobody knows where the chips are going to fall after all this is said and done,” Gillespie said of the chaotic pandemic economy. “And this (new) EDA would go a long way in helping us. You know, I’ve been told by several people, you know, that if the Town wants a say-so in the EDA that we need to pony up. And it makes it really difficult to do that now, because the EDA possibly owes the Town of Front Royal $20-million dollars, you know. So, we need to bring this in house to bring economic development to our town in a major way and in a hurry.”
Jacob Meza concurred with Gillespie’s assessment, saying “the pros far outweigh the cons” in the Town going solo on economic development in the future.
COVID-19 relief impasse
Monday’s work session began with council complaining about a County proposal brought to them by Mayor Gene Tewalt and Vice-Mayor Bill Sealock concerning the distribution of COVID-19 federal grant funds distributed through the state government to counties and cities based on population sizes.
The staff summary noted the Town anticipated a mandated distribution of between $1 million and $1.5 million – approximately $1.3 million was settled on in estimating the Town’s approximate 14,000 (around 38%) of the County’s total population of 40,000 – of the total of $3.5 million the County would receive in CARES (Coronavirus Aid Relief & Economic Security) funding.
Mayor Tewalt explained the County wanted Town agreement on the distribution of approximately $1.7 million for a jointly administered relief program targeting all county businesses, in and outside the town limits.
“They want to take the $3.5 million and use half of it for economic recovery and then take the population and split it whatever that ratio would be with the other $1.7 million, and then they propose that (unintelligible) we want to utilize that amount of money, whether you pay the water bill, the electric bill, whatever. But they just want to know if we’d be agreeable tonight to just split the money and use half of it for recovery and half of it to do the other as far as the government’s concerned. So, we can pay whatever we have to pay, and they can pay what they want to pay,” Mayor Tewalt told the council.
However, a lack of detail or a county official to explain such detail and the lack of a 50/50 split of the funding allowing the Town to manage its half without County involvement seemed to annoy several council members.
“They’re going to get the big chunk of it, and we’re going to get the crumbs,” Gillespie complained.
The mayor reiterated the population-based nature of the general distribution to try and re-explain why it would not be a straight 50/50 split.
Meza noted the Town had a local relief plan in place and suggested the County just hand the Town its share and let town officials work unilaterally to distribute their portion as they saw fit. However, when Interim Town Manager Tederick referenced page 18 of the agenda packet summary of how the CARES money could be utilized, it appeared a big chunk of the Town’s local relief plan – to allow businesses or citizens to pay back town taxes and utility bills – ran afoul of the CARES program guidelines.
Those limitations noted that “Fund payments may not be used for government revenue replacement, including the provision of assistance to meet tax obligations.”
As for utility bill payments, there was a mixed message.
“Fund payments may not be used for government revenue replacement, including the replacement of unpaid utility fees,” the second graph on page 18 of the agenda item summary began, adding however that, “Fund payments may be used for subsidy payments to electricity account holders to the extent that the subsidy payments are deemed by the recipient to be necessary expenditures incurred due to the COVID-19 public health emergency … For example, if determined to be a necessary expenditure, a government could provide grants to individuals facing economic hardship to allow them to pay their utility fees and thereby continue to receive essential services.
In the end, council agreed to table a decision pending further elaboration and documentation of the County proposal.
Weekend downtown street closure thru fall
Prior to adjourning to what ended up being a five-minute closed session “to discuss or consider a bond repayment resolution regarding recent large scale construction the Town has been involved in,” council instructed Interim Town Manager Tederick to make the necessary moves to implement the continued closing of portions of East Main and Chester Streets from 4:30 p.m. Friday to 7 a.m. Monday to vehicular traffic to continue the walking mall COVID-19 business reopening initiative likely through the fall.
As part of that initiative, the council agreed to close Town Hall’s drive-thru Finance Department window on Saturdays.
There was no post-closed session announcement, so which “large scale construction” bond repayment was discussed remains a mystery.
Listen to council’s far-ranging work session discussion in this Royal Examiner recording:
County prepares for next phase of reopenings, explains mask enforcement
After a one week break, the eighth weekly Warren County Joint COVID-19 Emergency Management Team briefing of May 28th featured another appearance by Warren County Commonwealth’s Attorney John Bell. Bell joined County Board and Emergency Management Team Chairman Walter Mabe and County Deputy Emergency Services Manager Rick Farrall at the not-quite roundtable report and Q&A with media.
Mabe gave Farrall the floor to begin the briefing with an update on Warren County and Lord Fairfax Health District (LFHD) COVID-19 statistics and reopening plans. Farrall reported a total of 1,279 reported cases in the health district. That is up 182 from the 1,097 cases confirmed on May 24.
Of that 1279 number, 24 were in Clarke County; 319 in Frederick, 213 in Page, 414 in Shenandoah, 168 in Winchester City, and 141 in Warren County. Farrall noted the Warren number indicated a jump of 12 from the previous day. He continued to explain that county increase was due in large part to the fact that inmates at RSW Jail who have tested positive are classified as cases in this county, while employees are categorized in their home county of residence.
Farrall stated that the RSW Jail Administration and staff were being joined in closely monitoring the jail’s pandemic outbreak by the Virginia Department of Health, the LFHD, private regional medical provider Valley Health, Warren County Emergency Management and the Virginia Department of Emergency Management.
Farrall then said that tomorrow, on May 29, several more-heavily pandemic-struck regions, including all of Northern Virginia, Washington, D.C., the City of Richmond, and Accomack County on the Eastern Shore would begin moving to Phase One of reopening a week behind the LFHD and other parts of Virginia. He then cited anticipated reopening dates for nearby states, including
Pennsylvania’s stay-at-home order expected to be lifted on June 5.
Farrall then noted the mask requirement tied to Governor Northam’s Executive Order 63 and handed the floor over to Commonwealth’s Attorney Bell. Bell expanded on local plans in compliance with Governor Ralph Northam’s anticipated Executive Order 63 that will mandate mask-wearing in reopened public and business buildings. Bell assured the public it would not be a strong-armed, law enforcement reaction.
Rather, the Department of Health would be generally in charge of handling violations, which could negatively affect businesses in which people were determined to be ignoring the mask order.
Noting the hardship such local small businesses have endured, Bell suggested those choosing to be customers of reopened business not risk putting their owners in further jeopardy by ignoring the face mask rules.
See Bell’s explanation of those rules, their potential for being cited for a Class 1 misdemeanor violation and other briefing highlights of the 21-minute meeting, including Chairman Mabe’s ideas for increased community interactions and individual involvement in our recovery in this exclusive Royal Examiner video: