Smyth County debt - courthouse issue

Information on the Courthouse Smyth County Debt, in more detail.

Note that this is now a done deal and we cannot easily stop any of it since the Board of Supervisors has signed off on it.  Some records are at www.smythcounty.org  I also have a copy of the Davenport county financial report if anyone wants to see it.  It was created to help the County Board of Supervisors understand the impact of borrowing $50 million.  It is in this report that it states that the property tax rate will necessarily go up by $0.07 cents per hundred if the money is borrowed.  In the last two years, the tax rate has increased by 35 percent.  Have you noticed that in your property tax bill?  The report also outlines the debt payment for the next 35 years.  Let’s hope we don’t need to borrow again within the next 40 years.  What are the chances of that?  Also, there is no Literary Loan.  It may or may not be reinstated.  That too is in the Davenport report.

The $25 Million loan for Smyth County Courthouse Renovations approved in 2010

The Circuit Court judges brought a lawsuit against the county to state their security was at risk while on the job.  Another judge agreed and issued an order.  According to Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, the Board of Supervisors was not obligated to use the plan the judges wanted and could have made a different plan that was cheaper.  The board allowed the judges to dictate to them what to do, based upon the advice of County Attorney John Tate and encouragement from Supervisor Charlie Clark. (Charlie Clark is on the board at the Bank of Marion, where the county borrows its money.) Then the plan was added to by county employees who must have decided that since it had to be done anyway, it would be a good time to get changes they wanted too.  We are not clear who pushed for the parking garage but it is ridiculous.

The plan grew and grew until it encompassed adding more parking by creating a three level parking garage (which means buying the land and demolishing the building on it), moving the 911 center (which means buying a new building or constructing a new building and getting new equipment for them), moving the Sheriff’s department, adding a private entrance and elevator for the judges, getting new furniture and fixtures, putting an addition onto the courthouse in the back, and of course other renovations to use the space that the 911 and Sheriff free up by moving out to another building.

Scott Simpson is the County Engineer and he has a copy of the final plan along with the budget.  His email is: ssimpson@smythcounty.org, his phone is:  (276)783-3298 ext. 207.

 Tom Burkett, county treasurer, spoke at a meeting I attended just last week (July 20th, 2011) and said that the county finances are not stable since the tax base is small and not growing.  He was concerned about the $25 Million in debt last year and is concerned about growing it to $50 Million this year with the new school loan. 

Bill Carrico was at the same meeting last week and confirmed what we suspected.  The judges could not have ordered a tax increase or forced the Board of Supervisors to spend or borrow $25 million for that courthouse.  He spoke with Mr. Cuccinelli personally.

Bottom line:  the county employees wanted a better work area and were willing to take advantage of this lawsuit to get what they wanted.  The board did not have the back bone to stand up to the judiciary branch and defend us from their infringement into executive branch duties (increasing taxes).  Judges are not allowed to set tax rates or force boards to spend specific amounts of money.  They can only make recommendations and the board can choose to ignore those recommendations and come up with their own plan.

Last year property taxes were not only reassessed but the tax rate was increased by 25%.  The year before the rate went up 10%.   Here is the quote from the Board meeting held on June 14th last year.

Effective Rate Increase: Smyth County, Virginia proposes to adopt a tax rate of $0.69 cents per $100 of assessed value. The difference between the lowered tax rate and the proposed rate would be $0.138 cents per $100 of assessed value, or 25 (%) percent. This difference will be known as the “effective tax rate increase.”

Courthouse Budget as of 1/7/2011

Courthouse Project Budget
Accounts	Amount
Borrowing costs	$         250,000
Basic Architecture	$      1,364,404
Advanced Sitework Package	$      1,300,000
Courthouse Construction	$    15,500,000
Asbestos Contingency	$         250,000
Data Systems and Cabling	$         300,000
Furniture Allowance	$      1,250,000
Geotech and QA/QC	$         125,000
Construction Manager	$         400,000
Parking Site Acquisitions	$         600,000
Parking Architecture	$         125,000
Parking Structure Construction	$      1,500,000
911 Relocation	$         900,000
Temporary Sheriff's Office	$         125,000
Radio System Improvements	$         800,000
Contingency	$         960,596
	$    25,750,000

Chronology:

1.  On 16 Sept 2005, under the name of the Commonwealth of Va., the following judges of the Circuit Court of Smyth County signed an order to show cause, in which they effectively were plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Smyth County Board of Supervisors.

Judges are appointed by the Virginia legislature.  In some states, the judges are elected.

Judges: C. Randall Lowe, Larry B. Kirksey, Isaac St. C. Freeman 

You can get a copy at the Courthouse - it's in BOOK 84 PAGE 744 and 745.

2. In the intervening years the lawsuit went to court and eventually Judge Doherty (not one of those on the lawsuit) sided with the judges (naturally) and said that the Smyth County Courthouse did not provide adequate security for the judges. 

3.  There were several plans created to address this lawsuit over the years.  They ranged from $12 million and somehow grew to $25 million.

These are minutes from the County Courthouse Committee meeting held October 8, 2009 with Supervisors Clark (Northfork district), Neitch (Rye Valley District), and Dishner (Park District.)  The second sentence is not true.

A possible hearing will be set if the County does not enter into this current Order. Judge Doherty can order the courthouse to be built, and set a tax rate to pay for it. Mr. Tate feels the judges will not pursue a hearing. If the Board “asks” for this order, the Board will have no control over the courthouse renovation.

The plans have been changed several times to meet the judges “wants”. The plans have now been agreed upon between the judges and the County.”

4.  Last year (February 2010) when I personally entered the courthouse, I noticed metal detectors tucked in under the stairs.  They were not in use.

5.  On June 24th, 2010 the County Board of Supervisors approved borrowing $25 million dollars for the plant that ‘satisfies’ the judges.  The votes were as follows:

Roscoe Call (Saltville) – Yes

Todd Dishner (Park) --  Yes

Brenda Waddell (Atkins) – No

Charlie Clark (Northfork) – Yes

Darlene Neitch – No

Wade Blevins (Chilhowie) – No

Regina Davidson (Royal Oak) – Yes

The County treasurer, Tom Burkett, and the Commonwealth Attorney Roy Evans opposed this expensive plan.  They both expressed this to the citizens in various ways and means.  They both understood that the court order needed to be followed but that the plan did not have to be this expensive.  It was Roy Evans who told me that there was an earlier plan of half that amount and he didn’t understand why they did not use that plan.

The documentation for these events is public record and might be found online or may be obtained at the courthouse or the county administrator’s office.