The Mirror generally does not insert itself into Town Meetings, but sometimes you just have to experiment and try things, just to see. While we were already writing about the proposed 3rd Amendment to the infamous Annexation Agreement, we thought we would submit a set of comments to be read into the record. We knew they would not have the class, integrity, or cojones to actually read them, but we did want to see what level of douchebaggery this current TC was capable of. They did not disappoint.
On Thursday, the Mirror submitted the comments to Town Clerk Libby Hume (the last person left with any class, intelligence, integrity, grace, and work ethic), who, even while on travel, was still answering emails. Ms. Hume received the comments and passed them to Julie (not sure which Julie, would the real one please stand up) to be included in the public comments section of the meeting.
This is where it gets weird. Before the comments were even read, Councilman Andrew Follmer immediately objected. Follmer has a thin, high voice, so if you were listening on the phone, it was hard to tell exactly what was being said, but we think the gist was that the Mirror, since it was not a homeowner, and did not have an address in Bay Creek or the Historic District, was not allowed to submit any form of commentary. This supposedly is a way to keep folks with weekend or vacation homes from being able to comment on Town Council business. Okay….but, the very next comment was submitted by some lady in YORK, PENNSYLVANIA!!!, complaining that the few times that she comes to Cape Charles, it is very upsetting because there is nowhere for her to charge her Tesla, and the town should use taxpayer funds to install new superchargers (it was kind of cool though, since the band LIVE is from York, Pa, and they wrote a song about it titled “Shit Towne”, which gave us the idea for the article’s title).
To recap, someone in YORK, PENNSYLVANIA!!!, that only comes to town once in a while, has more standing than the editor of the Mirror, who has lived in and around Cape Charles for over 23 years, and has retained an address in the 23310 the entire time. Got it!
Let’s be real. It wasn’t about the address, it was the content.
How did Follmer know what was in the comments? It appears that someone on Town staff read them, and then somehow felt it was their ‘duty’ to inform Town Council of the dangerous content. Does this happen all the time? Does Town Council read and curate public comments? Town Council had to come up with a scheme to stop the comments from being read because they are schemers, and that’s what schemers do. It’s the old ‘who has standing’ that they have used numerous times to pull off shady backroom deals in the past. So they were able to quash public commentary on their dubious dealings. We guess this is Mayor Charney’s way of keeping Cape Charles Charming. Same crap, different day. Nice work fella.
Here’s how bright these people are. They stopped four very sleepy people in the room from hearing a legit critique of their actions, but the Mirror has thousands of subscribers, not to mention the folks that tune in via phone and computer or access the content via social media platforms. Aside from exposing their lame douchebaggery to the world, what did they really accomplish?
Below are the comments they refused to read on Thursday night:
Honorable Mayor and Town Council, after reviewing the proposed 3rd Amendment to the 1990 Annexation Agreement between the Town and Brown&Root, there are several issues that need to be addressed.
- Page 1 of the proposed Third Amendment identifies Baycreek LLC as the successor in interest to Brown & Root, Inc. This is a significant error. Baymark Construction Corporation was the successor in interest to Brown & Root, Inc., as found on the recorded Purchase and Sale Agreement of December 17, 1997. How could the town and its esteemed and highly competent legal team miss this? This alone casts extreme doubt on the “negotiation” and the intent and validity of the “negotiation”.
- The 2nd Amendment was never publicly displayed. I had to request a copy from the Town Manager. This critical amendment required the re-zoning of the land from Industrial/AG to residential. Also, as far as I can tell, this document is not part of the land records at the County Courthouse, which is required by Law No.27, of the Agreement. This is a significant violation of the agreement until the 2nd Amendment is confirmed to be part of the land records. The Town’s legal team’s presentation in 2018 skips over and never mentions the July 14, 1992 Amendment – Why?
- When will the town require Bay Creek South LLC to post a surety bond to complete the abandoned Marina Village East subdivision? The Town Agreement with B & R states the Town will enforce its and the State requirements. Both require a Surety Bond. Another example of how selective the Town is in enforcing its own Ordinances, like the failure to implement its Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances in the North Tract of Bay Creek.
- The proposed amendment only accomplishes one thing—it relieves the developer’s financial obligation and transfers the cost to the taxpayer. The Town claims it will somehow get $150k per year out of this deal, but this is pennies on the dollar compared to what a full-blown expansion of the wastewater plant will cost. So, VA American Water will absorb the cost, and full control of the expansion onto Rt. 13 and into the County, and that cost will be spread out across its state customer base.
Given the errors, and non-compliance found here, it is fair to ask how much this negotiation cost. How many man-hours were spent by the staff, and how much did the legal ‘advice’ cost the taxpayer? The Town needs to be transparent and post this information to the public website and include it in the next edition of the Gazette.
In a nutshell, what happened is that the Town Council passed a resolution that is riddled with errors, yet still transfers the debt and obligation of the developer onto the taxpayer.
What is annoying and insulting is how Town Manager Hozey keeps saying how complicated the Annexation Agreement is. It’s not complicated at all–it’s simple, dry, and very straightforward. It only gets complicated when trying to come up with a scheme to transfer one entity’s obligation onto another.
Here are segments from the Town Attorney’s report (2018). These are the highlighted sections for ’emphasis’:
. . . . Brown and Root agrees to pay the cost of the physical expansion of the Town’s sewer and water treatment systems i.e. collection, distribution, and treatment, to accommodate the additional treatment demands of the Brown & Root property beyond the limits of the Town’s current permitted capacities.” (para. 10).
…In the event the Town conveys or receives compensation for the water and/or sewer treatment systems, following improvements to either of those systems by Brown & Root, Brown & Root shall receive a share of said compensation in direct proportion to the Brown & Root share of funded flow capacity.” (para. 10).
“…the subsequent purchasers of individual lots or other incidents of individual ownership shall not incur the obligations of Brown & Root contained herein. It is the intent of the parties not to impose the obligations of Brown & Root contained herein upon the consumers who purchase lots, condominiums, and/or memberships with AccawmackePlantation.”
See, it’s pretty simple.
So, good citizens, what are you going to do about it? Nothing, of course. You’ll just roll over and take it like you always do because that’s the easy way out. The New Cape Charles is old, white, and rich, with a horrible sense of fashion–most can afford to just absorb the pain. Plus the high cost of living and taxes keeps the riff-raff out, amirite?
If impacted landowners in the County (perhaps over 51% of Town property owners) wanted to take a stand, they would have to have to bring a Complaint in the District Court to overturn the Ordinance. But, as we found out with the old-school debacle, who has standing to do this? Probably nobody and the schemers know this.
Can Virginia American Water bill the residents for the improvements Bay Creek South LLC has the obligation to provide? Can the Town enact a change without stating that in the new Amended Ordinance? Time to lawyer up all you Bay Creek Residents/lot owners unless you want Bay Creek South to avoid their obligation and foist the future improvement obligation onto you via utility rate increases.
So it goes.
Very, very, very AWESOME!
Loved it!
Am still laughing!
What a clown show!
Or more appropriately, a real **** show on steroids!
Observations:
1. The Town’s Va. Beach legal counsel’s presentation in 2018 skipped over Amendment # 2 (a Town Ordinance) because it was not filed in the County Land Records, therefore most likely invalid, since the Special Annexation Court Ordered all Agreements to be filed in the Land Records under Public Law No. 27
2. File a FOIA and see how much money the Town has spent on this veiled effort.
3. Amendment # 3 is probably invalid if the named parties are not correct – Baymark Construction v. Bay Creek LLC
4. What happened to the funds requested by Major Dora Sullivan in March 2009, requesting builders/developers/lot owners to pay deposits on future connections?
5. Recall Oral Lambert’s Written Confirmation as to Bay Creek’s obligations, as stated below.
From: Oral Lambert
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 2:06 PM
To:
Subject: Comments in 1/20/09 Publication
Importance: High
Please share this message with your readers.
To Readers of “All Around Our Town”
The edition of “All Around Our Town” that was distributed earlier yesterday, 1/20/09, publishes a copy of the remarks delivered by Ms. Karen Jolly Davis during a recent Town Council meeting. In those remarks the statement is made:
“Since July of 2006, the town has spent $7,169 in attorney’s fees, attempting to get Bay Creek to pay its share of the costs for a new, state mandated water and sewer system. By July 2008, Bay Creek owed the town $42,000 for their portion of the system’s design costs. That debt is still unpaid.”
We have purposefully not engaged in the public discussions regarding the recent actions before Town Council, however, the writer of the statements about Bay Creek is misinformed and may not have read the Annexation Agreement. We can not allow these allegations to go unnoticed. Bay Creek has a reputation for paying its debts and in fact has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Town of Cape Charles during the course of our business with them as well as having spent hundreds of thousands of dollars toward construction of the water system. The $42,000 “debt” the writer refers to has not been paid because it is not owed by Bay Creek. The Town Council is fully aware of our position on this as we have met with the Council in executive session to discuss the Annexation Agreement and to explain our position…we haven’t paid it because we don’t owe it. We have not until now made a public statement on this out of respect to our continuing discussions and negotiations with the Town. The Waste Water treatment facility project that is the subject of the state mandate is a replacement project…the existing treatment plant is wearing out. It is outdated and it must be replaced…replaced even if Bay Creek was not here. This is a cost that all of us who live here in Cape Charles must share in. The cost of replacing the plant will be paid for by all users and of course Bay Creek will pay as a user of the system like everyone else.
Bay Creek does have an obligation to pay to expand the plant when it becomes necessary. The Annexation Agreement requires Bay Creek to participate in the cost of expanding the plant once the permitted capacity of the plant is reached. The Town’s consultant has made that point clear by his statements during public meetings. At a recent public briefing he stated and then repeated for emphasis his understanding that Bay Creek’s participation in expanding the plant is tied to “permitted capacity”. In other words, when the plant reaches its current permitted capacity Bay Creek must then pay to increase its size sufficient to cover the additional needed capacity that is generated by the Bay Creek development…new capacity over and above the existing permitted capacity. That has not happened and is not likely to happen for a number of years into the future. Bay Creek plans to fully meet its obligations under the terms of the Annexation Agreement when that time comes.
As an aside, we are also in disagreement with the current thinking that a 500,000 gallon a day treatment plant should be built before it is needed. This is a major, major cost to the taxpayers and utility users in this small town and we believe all options should be considered before incurring that debt…a debt that every utility user will be strapped with for many years to come. We are willing to pay our part but we have repeatedly taken the position that the utility expenditures must be based on a sound and affordable business plan to address what is needed and not so much what might be nice to have.
The writer goes on to suggest that Mr. Bennett may favor density because it benefits Bay Creek. I do not know how Mr. Bennett will vote when the time comes, but I believe I know him well enough to say that when the time comes for him to vote his decision will be based on what he believes is in the best interest of the community…just as I am sure was the basis of Ms. Davis’ decisions when she voted to approve land use decisions that increased densities as a member of the Planning Commission.
If I may say, on a personal note, for the good of our community and the potential it holds for our future I encourage all who have gotten emotionally caught up in what has turned into a “bitter” debate to slow down and rethink what we are all about. We strengthen one another by sharing differing opinions. There is always room for disagreement, healthy debate and even dissent, but I see evidence of too much ugliness and too little faith in one another. It is not serving our community well and I believe it is disrupting long and deep relationships.
C. Oral Lambert, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
Bay Creek Resort & Club
I take offense at this, Wayne. I drive a Volkswagen ID-4. I wouldn’t be caught dead in a Tesla. Sincerely, The Lady from York.
Note: Okay, this is funny! Thanks for the correction!