The Page County Watch BLOG

This came in as a Comment from Rick Buxton. I thought it made a good starting point for our next conversations. Any thoughts? As a candidate for District 1 Supervisor, I’d like to address how I got to be a candidate, how I think I match up to Rick’s criteria, and why I am offering to serve Page County. But before I do that, how about some more comments and additional insight on this set of qualifications? We’ll keep this thread going for a while.

Alice

From Rick Buxton:

Alice, I think I have a good idea of where we are now, some idea of how we got here, and a much better view of the direction I would like to see the county go. I don’t think the current BOS is capable of going where I want to see the county go. I see improvement coming through the careful replacement of Board positions as they come up.

In order for the citizens to make good decisions, they need to be informed with facts. Some of the facts I would like to see presented in advance of any Board member selection is individual qualifications. These could be in separate categories such as educational background, prior civic service, and factors that reflect maturity as well as a variety of morals and ethics.

Beliefs and vision are important as well. I would like to know if someone sees the future of flying cars as the reason to support co-signing for airport improvements.

An important factor is one’s commitment to take whatever steps are necessary to do the job well. It is a crime to me that the Board members are often in the position of not having time, or are not willing to make time, to seek multiple opinions or suggestions. Instead, they must take the word of a few “enlightened” individuals. I want someone who is willing to put an issue on hold and spend evenings calling and asking for comments. Or setting up meetings and asking District members what they think before they decide.

I would like to know how one plans to handle this decision-making process before placing my vote. Giving the job it’s moneys’ worth is not good enough. I want someone who is not working for the money or prestige, but desires to do the job well as the most important factor. Don’t think of, “they don’t pay enough”. I want someone who is driven to do the job well regardless. We already have a record of how the current Board members handle this issue.

Another concern is how do you get this information out to the voters? Perhaps it is too early to put out information now, but some plan has to be established to do so. It must be presented in an honest way, without being spun by the media. I don’t have the experience to know how. I do know that once there are a couple of Board members who see things the right way, they can use their positions to help lever like- minded people when they come up for future elections. The first couple of seats will be the most difficult and the most important.

Okay, I have thrown my gallon of gas on the fire!

Rick
_________________________________________________________

Who else wants to throw something on the flame?

Let’s see. I was babbling along, talking about all these Freedom of Information Act requests. I was waiting for some answers. I was wondering some things about those contracts, which you can download over on the right side of this screen.

And then everything went quiet. People stopped commenting.

Maybe the time for talking is over.

Maybe we’ve heard enough.

Maybe we have no more questions, because we’ve figured out the answers.

Now the question is: What action shall we choose to take?

This is a story about Attitude. The Attitude we are talking about today is the one between the local government and its people. The local government can take an attitude that “we are the governing body, and we will decide what is best for you.” Or, it can take an attitude that “we are your representatives. How may we serve you?”

In the last post, we talked about how a bad Attitude toward a customer is bad for business. Today, we’ll talk about how a bad Attitude toward the citizens is bad for government. Here are examples of two governments. These are true stories, but the names and dates are disguised.

Government #1. We’ll call this the Government of Pastry-Eaters. This story happened a long time ago, long before any of the current Pastry Eaters were “in power.” But it did happen. It’s a true story.

The Attitude of Government #1 was that they were the “deciders.” What the people wanted was not relevant to their decisions.

Government #2. We’ll call them the TV Personalities. This story is also true, and it also happened a long time ago. But in a different county. In this county, the citizens were very involved in their government. They were so involved that every meeting of the county Board was on television. The people of the county wanted to make sure nothing happened behind closed doors or in secret session.

This Board was on television. The Board members knew the parents of these children were watching. The Board members invited the children to be on the advisory team, to help plan the new skate park. The skate park was five years in the making, but those children helped plan it, and they learned that local government works for them. That day, the children learned that they can make a difference in their world, and they can be part of change.

Attitude. It matters. Which of those two governments do we want in Page County? Even if we learned as children that it is not up to us to challenge authority, not up to us to make proposals for change, and not up to us to bring issues to the attention of our representatives . . . even if we think “THEY” won’t hear us . . . we can unlearn those lessons as adults. We elect our representatives. We know their phone numbers. We can make our voices heard.

I read in the Page News and Courier – my favorite newspaper – that the Economic Development Authority is going to publish some questions and answers.

Send your questions! tcardman@pagecounty.virginia.gov
(Be sure to copy the Page News editor@pagenewspaper.com
and me Research@PageCountyWatch.org)

Alice

This letter arrived in my email today. I have removed the name of the restaurant. The restaurant owner knows who he or she is. In a community that was not so small, competition would allow “restaurant reviews” where this type of information would be aired easily. A restaurant where something like this happened, would know that it threatened business. Here, this can happen because competition is not intense.

Someone reading this will know where this happened. Hopefully, the owner of this restaurant will get the point. Perhaps he or she will look for this woman and apologize. We can only hope. .

LETTER SENT TO PAGE COUNTY WATCH:
Recently my family and I dined at a restaurant in PAGE COUNTY. I must say, I don’t think in all of my 23 years I have ever endured a worse meal. It wasn’t just the food that wasn’t up to par, actually the food was the least of my worries. For anyone who is not aware of my situation, I will shed some light. My son was diagnosed with autism in March of 2008, which at the time seemed to be the end of the world to me. Since being diagnosed he has made great strides to recovery. Apparently to ignorant, uneducated people he is still just a bad kid with horrible parents.

At the age of three my son can not use a spoon or a fork. To most parents of an autistic child, this would not be top priority, but to the staff of THIS RESTAURANT it was the end of the world when there was food on the floor.  As soon as we walked in the door, we were greeted rudely. We then asked to be seated in a separate area because Colton was crying very much. Other than us, there was only one table of people and we still decided it would be best to sit as far away from them as possible. Our waitress was the poorest excuse for help, and at one point refused to bring us ice cream to possibly calm him down. After several eye rolls and smart remarks she gave in and brought us a bowl. We had to ask three or four times for two high chairs, because I also have a two year old. We then received only one chair, and again had to ask for another. After five minutes of waiting we got our second high chair. Our waitress then proceeded to walk to the family at the other table, and point at my son. I’m assuming she took it upon herself to have a conversation about my autistic child’s “unruly behavior”. I even decided it would be best to cut the meal short, so we asked for boxes. Our waitress brought the boxes to the table, threw them down, and said “here’s your boxes.” As we were loading the kids into the car, our waitress walked outside..handed us our tip back and said “here you can keep this, its not enough to make up for the mess back there.” I honestly have never felt more insulted. I simply bit my tongue on the ride home, and as soon as I walked through the door I picked up the phone. I explained to the owner that my family was very hurt by the events that had happen and we would not be dining there again. The only thing he could offer was an “I’m sorry you felt offended” and then hung up the phone on me. Everyone in our community knows us and adores Colton. I’m begging with everyone…BOYCOTT THIS RESTAURANT!! Who wants to dine with stuck up people who have nothing better to do than pass judgement on a mentally disabled child? Certainly not me. I have emailed this letter to everyone! I’m hoping word gets out to Alice Richmond and she can do something to help our fight!
                                                                                             Britni Byrd, Mother of Colton Dinges                                      Stanley, Virginia

I am offended by behavior like this. I know Page County is offended, too. It’s best to blow the lid off it. That’s what stops it. Restaurant owner, if you have trouble finding Britni to apologize, just let me know.

Alice

I’m pretty disappointed that I didn’t get an answer to my question I emailed to Charlie Hoke on June 18.

It was a pretty simple question. I was just asking whether the tax-free nature of the interest payments we were making to Mrs. Hudson, for that Project Clover Industrial Park meant that we were issuing Revenue Bonds from the Page County Economic Development Authority, in accordance with Industrial Development and Revenue Bond Act of the Code of Virginia, Title 15.2-4900. Should be a simple Yes or No, shouldn’t it?

I may wait a while for that answer. See, that’s the glitch in the Virginia Sunshine Laws. You can’t just ask a question and get an answer. You have to know what specific documents to ask for. If my District 1 Supervisor, Charlie Hoke, would answer my question, I might just be satisfied with the answer and drop the subject. Maybe he will tell me, “No, we’re not issuing any bonds. This is just some finagling done for the purposes of the Internal Revenue Service. There is no legal obligation here. It’s just a morality thing.” If my supervisor said that, who knows? Maybe I would just forget about it after that. Maybe I’d say, “Oh, well. If it’s just a MORAL obligation, and no real debt is being created, what’s it to me.” But, you see, I’m worried about that statement by the District 5 Supervisor,
Mrs. Strickler, that was printed in the Page News and Courier on June 17. I’m afraid that the bond rating of Page County is at stake.

My goodness! If the Bond Rating of Page County is at stake, what will happen to all that debt we took on to pay for the landfill and the two schools? This could be a disaster of a proportion that may be unfixable, but for a constant raising of real estate taxes, year after year. I don’t want this foolishness to cause real estate taxes to be raised again.

I guess, if I don’t get an answer by tomorrow, I’ll have to come up with a way to ask for a specific document, so I can put in a Freedom of Information Act request.

Let’s see. What should I ask for?

Well, I could ask for the recommendations of the EDA which were forwarded to the Board in accordance with Code of Virginia Section 15.2-4906. This is the part where the EDA has to hold a public hearing before it issues Revenue Bonds.

Code of Virginia Section § 15.2-4906. Public hearing and approval.
A. Whenever federal law requires public hearings and public approval as a prerequisite to obtaining federal tax exemption for the interest paid on industrial development bonds, unless otherwise specified by federal law or regulation, the public hearing shall be conducted by the authority and the procedure for the public hearing and public approval shall be in accordance with this section.
B. For a public hearing by the authority, notice of the hearing shall be published once a week for two successive weeks in a newspaper having general circulation in the locality in which the facility to be financed is to be located of intention to provide financing for a named individual or business entity. The applicant shall pay the cost of publication. The notice shall specify the time and place of hearing at which persons may appear and present their views. The hearing shall be held not less than six days nor more than twenty-one days after the second notice shall appear in such newspaper.
The notice shall contain: (i) the name and address of the authority; (ii) the name and address (principal place of business, if any) of the party seeking financing; (iii) the maximum dollar amount of financing sought; and (iv) the type of business and purpose and specific location, if known, of the facility to be financed.
If after the hearing has been held the authority approves the financing, a reasonably detailed summary of the comments expressed at the hearing shall be conveyed promptly to the locality’s governing body together with the recommendation of the authority.

Of course, since I already know there wasn’t any such hearing, I’d at least have the advantage of getting a letter from Mark Belton saying there wasn’t one.

Or, I could ask for the results of the vote of the Board of Supervisors where they approved issuing this financing from the EDA, in accordance with Section 15.2-4906 Section C

C. For public approval, the governing body of the locality on behalf of which the bonds of the authority are issued shall within sixty calendar days from the public hearing held by the authority either approve or disapprove financing of any facility recommended by the authority.
Action of the governing body shall be by a majority of a quorum set out in a resolution. Such vote shall be recorded and disclose how each member voted.

Or, I could ask for the Fiscal Impact Statement submitted to the Board in accordance with Section 15.2-4907

§ 15.2-4907. Fiscal impact statement.
Every request for industrial development (facility) financing when submitted to the governing body of the locality for approval shall be accompanied by a statement in the following form:

So I guess, maybe I do see the wisdom in Virginia’s Sunshine Laws. Why ask a question, which could be answered with a distraction and a sleight of hand, when you can request a specific document, which defines conformance with the Virginia Code?

Ahhh, well, I guess I’ll just wait a day or two and see if anybody bothers to respond to my email. Maybe I’m just misunderstanding what is going on here. It can probably all be explained away.

Beans can be spilled to my email address at Prof.Richmond@gmail.com

Get a fake “Yahoo” account if you want to be an anonymous bean spiller.

Here is the link to the Project Clover contracts.

Here’s a good one for the day. The Planning Commission is on a “retreat” today. They went someplace outside of Page County, and wrote on the announcement, which they posted on the wall in the county building so no one would see it, that the public was invited, but there wouldn’t be any chairs. They are retreating so they can discuss “making the zoning ordinances match the comprehensive plan.” I hate to say I told you so. But those of you reading who are fighting Century Luray — the Comprehensive Plan says the area they want to put Century Luray in is perfect for that kind of thing.

Oh, and just one more thing for the weekend . . .

When companies consider a location they come and present to the local officials. Like this solar plant considering Front Royal did. They don’t sign non-disclosure statements with the Economic Development Director and tell him it all has to be hush-hush and not even the Board of Supervisors can know what’s going on. Every time Tom talks about all these good things coming he says, “I wish I could tell you about it but I’m under non-disclosure.” If any of our Board members had any business experience whatever, they would know that is smoke.

Waited all day, didn’t get an answer to my question (see Post below). I would have thought those answers would roll off the tip of the tongue of anyone who had actually considered this deal with two brain cells.

Anyway, Jim Turner has set up a way to sign the petition online.

Click here to sign it.

If you want to download a paper petition and pass it around, you can download it here.

In an email dated June 18, 2009, Carolyn Miller, Page County administrative staff, forwarded this answer from Dr. Tom Cardman:

Ms. Richmond,

Mr. Hoke has requested that I reply to your questions below. I have consulted with Mr. Lowell Baughan, Chairman of the Economic Development Authority and Mr. Mark Reed, EDA Attorney. The succinct answers follows your questions.

Dr. Tom Cardman
Director of Economic Development Authority

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:37:30 -0400
Subject: Question about the Hudson farm
From: prof.richmond@gmail.com
To: cmhoke@msn.com
CC: jd@easyradioinc.com; bunnietr@shentel.net; larry_sours@yahoo.com; carollee@carollee.us; gcubbage@pagecounty.virginia.gov; mbelton@pagecounty.virginia.gov

Question from Alice:
Charlie, I have a question about the Hudson farm purchase. Regular citizens don’t have the opportunity to ask these questions. We can only get information that is already on file. Of course, since you are my supervisor, I realized that you would already know the answer to these questions. Or, at least, you could get your staff to answer them.

Well, when I multiply 171.33 X $44,500, I get $7,624,185 left. I add that to the million we already paid, and the deal then costs $8,624,185. This First Amendment to the Purchase Agreement doesn’t actually say anything about any $7.5M

Answer from Tom Cardman:
The final note payout will never exceed more than the $7.5 million purchase price. As you site, the EDA has already paid $1 million of that $7.5 million. Your assertion that every acre after our first 38.67 acres is at $44,500 is incorrect. There is a premium in the agreement at 1.25% of the actual acreage purchase price, this is a standard real estate practice for large parcels of property. This is done in order to protect the note holders’ equity if and when acreage is drawn down. The negotiated rate of 1.25% that the EDA was able to obtain, is in fact, approximately 25 basis points below the industry standard. Thus, in practical terms, once the EDA draws down 146 acres at the 1.25% premium the note will be entirely paid off and the remaining acreage is paid for.

Question from Alice:
I also became confused when I read Mrs. Strickler’s quote in the
Page News and Courier on June 17. Mrs. Strickler is quoted as saying that we would not be able to cancel that contract because it would ruin our bond rating. How Page County’s bonds relate to this purchase is a mysterious claim. I was wondering if you could explain that to me.

Answer from Tom Cardman:
My interpretation of what Ms. Strickler was saying, (if she was quoted accurately) is that because the purchase has been executed and the County has entered into a morale obligation with the EDA as the conduit, any default on that morale obligation would adversely affect the County’s current and future credit rating, thus potentially hampering the County’s ability to do business in future credit markets.

New questions from Alice, sent back in response to these answers:

Thank you for your quick response. To be absolutely clear then, your answer is that Page County’s obligation is a moral obligation, not a legal obligation to pay this note. Is that correct? So if we wanted to renege on our moral obligation to pay Mrs. Hudson, for the purpose of fulfilling our moral obligation to the taxpayers of Page County, we could make that choice without penalty? I ask this because it appears to me that is going to be the choice.

Are Bond rating agencies concerned about moral obligations? Are we actually issuing Bonds?

Wouldn’t a Revenue Bond that was issued by the EDA be required to have a Fiscal Impact Statement submitted to the Board before it was issued? And wouldn’t the EDA be required to have its own public hearings before issuing such bonds?

Or are these not actually Revenue Bonds issued by the EDA? If not, what are they?

_________________________________________________________
Stay tuned to this channel for the answer. I will post it when I get it.

Alice

I must be stupid. I can not make my calculator work correctly.
I was told this land was 210 acres for $7.5M.

Then I come along and read “First Amendment to the Purchase Agreement” (see the contract documents in the post below this one).

It says: 38.67 acres we get for our first $1M that we already paid. Then it says, every acre after that costs $44,500.

So, I subtract 38.67 from 210 acres. I get 171.33 acres.
Then I multiply $44,500 times 171.33 and I get $7,624,185.

I add that to the $1M already paid, and it looks like we are paying $8,624,185 for this land.

Then I add to that the fact that we put a clause in there that says Mrs. Hudson gets to still live in her house as a renter for $700 a month as long as she wants to. I realize that means she stops paying real estate tax on her house.

And I add to that Mrs. Strickler’s stunning statement in the Page News and Courier on June 17 that says “we can’t cancel this contract or it would ruin our bond rating”

And I realize, there must be gold or oil under the field.

Bulldozers Roll at Page County's Data Center

The contract signed by Lowell Baughn, for the Page County Economic Development Authority and Rebecca Hudson, landowner, can be downloaded from these links.

1. Purchase agreement

2. Exhibit A

3. Exhibit B

4. First Amendment to the Purchase Agreement This one is key. This was signed AFTER the Board approved it, and references the tax free nature of the payments, and the “treated as a municipal bond” for tax purposes. I don’t know if it IS a bond, or if it is just treated as one for tax purposes. This relates to Mrs. Strickler’s comments in the post titled “Ruin our Bond rating?”

5. Financing Agreement

Those are the five documents related to the contract. The financing agreement says we owe her our first interest payment on January 1, 2010. This is the payment that was not in the budget, because Mr. LaFrance said we were getting a USDA loan to pay her off before that would happen.

After reading these documents, you might want to consider downloading the petition that Jim Turner is circulating. Get some signatures and then call Jim on 778-2282 or Winnie Kerchoff and turn them in.