Center remains in historic train depot operated by Chamber
By Randy Arrington
LURAY, July 15 — The Page County Board of Supervisors resolved a few months of concern and controversy within a few minutes Monday night when they voted, 5-1, to leave the Luray-Page County Visitors Center housed at the historic train depot in Downtown Luray. In addition, the county will continue, as it has for the past three decades, to contract with the Luray-Page County Chamber of Commerce to operate the Visitors Center for the next three years.
“I think the citizens should know…The Board has requested this [information] several times…by the time it got to us, it had made it’s way through social media, through news articles, and that is certainly not the way to handle it in the future,” District 1 supervisor Keith Guzy said prior to Monday’s vote. “I’ve heard from numerous citizens and I’m pretty clear on what I should do tonight. It should have come to us first.”
County Administrator Amity Moler outlined three options for the future of the Visitors Center, including line-item budgets, for board members to consider. The three options were previously outlined and discussed during a recent meeting between supervisors Chairman Keith Weakley, the county administrator, Chamber President Gina Hilliard and Chamber Board Chairman Travis Clark. Summaries of the three options presented by Moler on Monday night are as follows:
• Relocating the Visitors Center to Main Street at Main and Broad (currently Appalachian Trail Outfitters) about one block from its current location. At an estimated $68,900 annual cost, including $40,000 for salaries, it was touted as the cheapest option, but Supervisor Guzy questioned the quote, stating it lacked line items that other options included and seemed to be too low. The “prime downtown location” has more square footage than the available depot space, but accessibility and parking were concerns, as well as ADA compliance. Also listed as a con for the option was a local business would be closing to make way for Center and …”change is hard.”
• Leaving the Visitors Center at the historic depot operated by the Chamber represented the “as is” option, which meant continuing operations as they have been for the last three decades. The annual budget created by the Chamber president was reported at $95,582, with $73,044 in salaries. Numerous pros were listed, such as existing location and existing signage, 30-year track record, EV charging station, adequate parking and restrooms, conference room, farmers market, and a dozen others. Cons listed were staffing and “continuing a tense relationship.”
• Leaving the Visitors Center at the depot and operated by the county was considered the “hybrid” option. Pros were considered the same as the previous option because it’s based on the same location. The annual cost was estimated at $101,672, with $48,000 in salary cost (plus $3,672 in payroll taxes) and $50,000 to sublease the depot space from the Chamber, covering rent, utilities, cleaning services, phone, internet and all maintenance. The cons were the expense, lower traffic area, the requirement of approval by the Town of Luray, and “potential conflicts with multiple organizations in the same building.”
District 2 supervisor Allen Louderback was the only board member to oppose Guzy’s motion to enter into an agreement with the Chamber of Commerce for a lump sum of $95,582 to continue operating the Visitors Center at the train depot for the current fiscal year.
“I think it is the responsibility of the county to monitor expenditures of [Transient Occupancy Tax funds],” Louderback said. The District 2 supervisor complimented Chamber employees he met during a recent visit and noted a need for “a closer working relationship between [Luray], the Chamber and the county.” Louderback supported the hybrid model, leaving the Center at the depot, but under direct county control.
“I think we need our own staff, our own budget,” he said. “I’m just concerned about monitoring TOT funds and accountability.”
A portion of Guzy’s motion, which was seconded by Chairman Weakley, included an expectation for the operation of the Visitors Center from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at least 360 days per year, to maintain proper signage, and to report visitation on a regular basis. The motion also included a mandate to “represent all businesses in Page County equally” and not show preference to Chamber members. As operators of the Visitors Center contracted by the county, the Chamber, in that function only, will report directly to the county administrator.
County attorney Michael Helms will review the agreement with the Chamber. Helms expressed some concern Monday night that he had not been included in the formation of the three options from a legal standpoint.
“I haven’t heard any proposals … I haven’t seen anything in writing…and I have concerns,” Helms said, noting the process for awarding a contract for services without advertisement and making a lump sum payment without outlining specific services. “I haven’t seen it, and I want to make sure we’re doing it the right way.”
“I’m flabbergasted you weren’t involved,” District 4 supervisor Isaac Smelser said. “I find that shocking… Is that shocking to you guys?”
For more information about Page County government,
visit https://www.pagecounty.virginia.gov/
•••
RELATED ARTICLES
County announces ‘potential’ location of new visitors center
Supervisors double TOT rate to 10% and adopt $90.3M budget for FY25
Lodging owners speak out against proposed doubling of lodging tax
Chamber to disband its Tourism Council during annual business meeting Oct. 19
New tourism council cuts Chamber funding, limits tourism operations to Visitors Center
Maybe Mr Helms was surprised because he never seems to be paying attention during the meetings, preferring to stay focused on his laptop, even when citizens are voicing their concerns. He was present at the previous meeting when the 3 options were presented… was he not paying attention then? What did he do in the two weeks between meetings?
Thank you to the board for making the correct decision in the end. This would be a good issue to deconstruct and see where better communications and decisions can be made in the future to avoid the tension and misunderstandings. The Chamber and the County can both benefit from the lessons to be learned. Don’t use this to be devisive, use it to learn how to work better together for the benefit of the chamber, the town and the county.
Among the public comments raised was as suggestion to look at how other jurisdictions handle similar challenges. Working group visits to Farmville VA, Timberville, Staunton, Woodstock and other jurisdictions challenged with limited industry and smaller business opportunities was suggested. The working group? Reps from the Town, staff as well as Downtown Initiative, Chamber And volunteers to see “what works, what doesn’t work” for other communities. Also, grants: it turns out that the Economic Development director for the county is the person with the responsibility for seeking grants according to Amity Moler. What can we do to help strengthen this effort?
I did that and presented the opinion to the BOS. All 6 or 7 counties and comparable towns operate as two different entities. Chamber is private sector, visitor centers financed by local government. But people would do as they feel.
Glad this mess is over.
I did that and presented the opinion to the BOS. All 6 or 7 counties and comparable towns that I called operate as two different entities. Chamber is private sector, visitor centers financed by local government. But people would do as they feel.
Glad this mess is over.
The County administrator needs to be fired! Moving forward with anything such as this, an attorney should’ve always been in the loop! Why wasn’t it run past the attorney? Why was he learning about it after the fact? Seems simple to me… time for a NEW county administrator!!
The County Administrator should have been given a “pink slip” years ago when the former Finance Director “borrowed” 13K and she was OK with it…also, this newest scandal involving EMS overtime is straight up despicable, and shows the wide-ranging incompetence and sloppiness of County management. Ripping off employees is horrible, but creating a scheme to rip off first responders is a new level of low. I think most people agree, EMS workers are underpaid, and work long nights and weekend…and for the County to essentially set up a “wage theft” scheme speaks volumes to the character and incompetence of the CA…she needs to be fired immediately.