WMC's exemption by classification position / Code of VA - 58.1 Taxation - Ch. 36 Tax Exempt Property

Mr. Merrill says, "We still feel firmly that we meet the exemption by classification and are eager to find out how the commissioner came to her conclusion that we do not meet that definition of exempt by classification. Once we have that information we then will look at what our options may be. An appeal or what other recourse we may have."

http://www.tv3winchester.com/home/headlines/104042003.html

 

Code of Virginia - Title 58.1 Taxation - Chapter 36 Tax Exempt Property

58.1-3603 Exemptions not applicable when building is source of revenue

58.1-3605 Triennial application for exemption; removal by local governing body

58.1-3606 Property exempt from taxation by classification

58.1-3650 Post-1971 property exempt from taxation by designation

58.1-3651 Property exempt from taxation by classification or designation by ordinance adopted by local govern...

Nothing at the local level that qualifies WMC tax-exempt nor state level

After reviewing the Commissioner of the Revenue's report.  There is no formal exemption from local taxes by either designation or classification in the City of Winchester with regards to Winchester Medical Center nor at the state level.

The commonwealth has never had a "community benefit" standard in place for a not-for-profit hospital to abide by, but rather followed those previous 1969 broad and vague guidelines.

Federal Tax-Exemption Criteria for Nonprofit Hospitals:

IRS's community benefit standard to qualify for tax-exempt status allows nonprofit hospitals broad latitude to determine the services and activities that constitute community benefit. Furthermore, state community benefit requirements that hospitals must meet in order to qualify for state tax-exempt or nonprofit status vary substantially in scope and detail.

In the 1969 revenue ruling that established the community benefit standard, IRS recognized five factors that would support a nonprofit hospital's tax-exempt status. These five factors were :

(1) The operation of an emergency room open to all members of the community without regard to ability to pay

(2) A governance board composed of community members

(3) The use of surplus revenue for facilities improvement, patient care, and medical training, education, and research

(4) The provision of inpatient hospital care for all persons in the community able to pay, including those covered by Medicare and Medicaid

(5) An open medical staff with privileges available to all qualifying physicians.

IRS further stated that tax-exempt status would be determined based on the facts and circumstances of each case, and that neither the absence of particular factors set forth in the 1969 revenue ruling nor the presence of other factors would be necessarily conclusive. 

Nonprofit hospitals that qualify for tax-exempt status are exempt from federal income taxation, have access to bond financing that generates tax-free interest earnings for the bondholder--allowing these hospitals to borrow funds at a lower cost than nonexempt entities--and are eligible to receive contributions that are tax deductible for the donors.

In addition, these hospitals may also be exempt under state law from state and local income, property, and sales taxes, which in some cases are of a greater value than the federal income tax exemption.
(Information was obtained from The Government Accountability Office report on hospital community benefit, page 11 and 12 of actual report but page 16 and 17 of the PDF file).

Case Where State Law Superseded Federal Law

City of Richmond v. Richmond Memorial Hospital. In City of Richmond v. Richmond Memorial Hospital, 202 Va. 86, 116 S.E. 2d 79 (1960), the issue was whether the right to exemption “depends solely upon the extent to which free service is rendered.” The court rejected that standard and concluded that the exemption depends not upon the number of patients who are treated free of charge, but upon the nature of the institutions and the purpose of the operations. The constitution of Virginia did not require that services be rendered for free as the basis for exemption.

Burkholder: No 'qualifying exemption' met by WMC

September 30, 2010

By Ann T. Burkholder

    

Tax questions regarding Valley Health and/or Winchester Medical Center have comprised a significant portion of my workload over the past lively nine months as Commissioner of the Revenue.

On Jan. 27, 2010, (City Attorney) Tony Williams, staff member Tina Butler, and I visited the Wellness Center in response to Valley Health's protest of the personal property tax and business license taxes of that site. At the time, Todd Way of Valley Health also asked about the questionnaires regarding the initial triennial review of tax-exempt properties, any need to apply for exemption of the new Diagnostic Center, and options for minimizing tax discussions regarding future construction and usage charges.

Consequently, Valley Health submitted an application for real estate tax exemption for the WMC campus in February 2010, which was scheduled for review at the March 23 City Council work session. Upon seeing the recommendation of the Assessor and Commissioner of the Revenue that Valley Health be denied a blanket exemption, Valley Health then withdrew its application. By filing and subsequently withdrawing this application, Valley Health clearly demonstrated its own awareness that no clear and irrefutable tax exemption exists for the WMC campus.

Since then, the city and Valley Health have gone back and forth on the matter, accelerated by recent meetings between the two parties. In a letter dated Sept. 2, James Daniel, attorney for Valley Health, wrote, "We understand that it is not in dispute that charitable, nonprofit, Virginia hospitals are exempt by classification from local real estate and personal property tax."

I do not agree with this statement; rather, whether Valley Health/Winchester Medical Center qualifies for exemption under that section of the Code of Virginia is specifically what is in question. It is the position of this office that the entity is subject to taxation unless City Council enacts a classification or designation otherwise.

It is likely that the City of Winchester considered the original Winchester Memorial Hospital, on the Stewart Street site, and the naissent Winchester Medical Center to be tax-exempt under liberal interpretation of the language of the 1902 Virginia Constitution. While post-1971 updates to the Code of Virginia include stricter guidelines, nothing has been found which clearly establishes WMC's entitlement to tax exemption under either the current or earlier version of the Constitution.

While correspondence from prior administrations suggests that the issue was examined, by all parties' accounts, the mission and business of today's Winchester Medical Center have substantially evolved from the hospital of yore. As a result, the commissioner has little basis on which to conclude that ownership, use of the property, and, in fact, the property itself, are the same as when the exemption initially came into use.

On Sept. 23, Valley Health officials held a press conference at the Wellness Center to discuss their 2009 Community Benefit Report. As stated by the Valley Health Board Chair, the point was to show what Valley Health gives to the community in lieu of paying taxes. Of the $71.3 million in benefits claimed, over 63 percent consists of bad debt expense and Medicare Reimbursement Shortfall, both of which more accurately fall under the cost of doing business.

Valley Health avers its not-for-profit status and charitable contributions undermine any claim of ineligibility for exemption, yet neither point is relevant to the matter at hand. Not-for-profit does not automatically equate to non-taxable. Moreover, while the City of Winchester is very appreciative of the generosity and community benefits provided by Valley Health, these are not a substitute for the benefits provided by tax revenue. Here in the city, we are blessed with many citizens and businesses that willingly donate goods, money, and services to designated charities, yet also pay their fair share of local taxes for the common good.

Assisted by the City Attorney, City Assessor, and my staff, I have reviewed applicable state and local code, local records of council action, numerous legal opinions and proceedings, and information provided by Valley Health. Considerations in evaluating tax-exempt status have included:

Categories of taxation, to include real estate, gross receipts business license and personal property taxes.

Usage of real property, including undeveloped land, property leased to outside entities, and property used for personal and professional services.

Variety of business units operating under Valley Health, including traditional hospital functions, as well as those in direct competition with fully taxable entities, such as the Wellness Center and physician office practices under Valley Physician Enterprise.

Fair and equitable distribution of local taxpaying responsibility, recognizing that Valley Health will continue to expand its vision, mission, and revenue stream.

The role of Valley Health as a valuable community partner.

At this point, my findings indicate the property and activities of the WMC Campus do not meet any qualifying exemption by classification or by designation and thus are taxable. Within the next two weeks, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, my office will begin preparing the current year real estate tax bills for the WMC Campus and will proceed with other applicable billings.

Ann T. Burkholder is commissioner of the revenue for the City of Winchester.

The Pub's perspective on WMC being voted not tax-exempt

For those who want to start screaming at City Council and the new commissioner of the revenue, do some research and learn more about VHS and how profitable an organization they have been over the last 10 years.


But don’t be misled here, for-profit hospitals that pay taxes, has charity care too, bad debt and also gives back to respective local communities as well that they serve.

Wonder why Mr. Whitworth Jr. did not share nor the community benefit chart in The Winchester Star on September 24th display the excess of revenue over expenses figures for 2005-2009 last Thursday during the press conference when they discussed the VHS's 2009 Community Benefit?  To be more precise, profit/loss figures.

Based on information shared by a VHS official in December of 2009, Valley Health System's five year profit total for years 2004-2008 was a little over $218.6 million.

An internet poster on WincStar’s website Tuesday made a comment that the staff at WMC has not received at least a cost-of-living increase since 2007. Wonder if this is true?

Reference http://winchesterstar.com/articles/view/wmc_might_lose_tax_exemption  and post#2 which is below:

Well...for all those in favor of this...just remember it when you, your friend, neighbor or family member don't qualify for a write off or reduction, or there IS an increase in the rates....WMC is just like every other buisness...budget is already set for the year...AND they are behind budget...just like alot of businessess...

Are you aware staff have not had a cost of living raise since 2007? How many of you, in favor of this have rec'd a raise? Many positions have been reduced..so the next time you are a patient and feel like your nurse, aide or Dr aren't giving you enough attention...remember, they have to work HARDER just to maintain the income they have now....

tiredmom

The “Winchester Medical Center” has been very profitable for years 2001-2007 where their profits increased 460% but dropped off in 2008.

* 2001 - $11.8 million (Quad State Biz Journal)
* 2002 - ?
* 2003 - ?
* 2004 - ?
* 2005 - $54,346,679 (per IRS990)
* 2006 - $57,422,678 (per IRS990)
* 2007 - $66,617,961 (per IRS990)
* 2008 - $ 9,500,911 (per IRS990)
* 2009 - ?

Based on those figures, can anyone tell us why the staff at WMC has not received at least a cost-of-living increase since 2007 according to an individual who posted on WincStar’s website on Tuesday (if those comments are factual by tiredmom)?

For the record, The Pub has advocated that the nurses and blue collar workers are under compensated. Reference this link dated October 14, 2009 ...

thepibbsterspub.blogspot.com/2009/10/valley-health-has-made-epic-strides-in.html

A huge problem for the City of Winchester is that two of the top 5 employers are non-profit (VHS & SU) and that is not a good thing for the tax-base.

The perception is that previous city councils did not have a denied stamp when tax exempt applications came across the table. This present council group has a difficult task of cleaning it up and trying to get a solid tax base again before any further decisions are made about raising Winchester City resident’s taxes.

Is it not time for everyone start stating "regional community" for Valley Health Systems since VHS serves many counties outside of Winchester and Frederick County. VHS is no longer just Winchester and Frederick County.

VHS serves 18 counties to be exact in VA, MD and WV.

How many employees at the WMC campus live outside the City of Winchester?

How many live across the state line?

The charity care and bad debt are isolated benefits to those individuals in need.

The WMC campus is the home base of all of those 18 counties that VHS serves/resides in.

How many of those patients of charity care are actual Winchester and Frederick County residents?

Burkholder's memo challenges the report's "total community benefit and other measures" figure of $71.3 million for 2009. "... Over 63 [percent] consists of bad debt expense and Medicare Reimbursement Shortfall, both of which more accurately fall under the cost of doing business."

Reference the Community Benefit chart in The Winchester Star on September 24th. Maybe the more realistic "community benefit" number is the line labeled "total community benefit" for the 18 counties that VHS serves.

Valley Health System's 2009 Community Benefit Chart

Wonder if the folks with regular insurance are actually making up the majority of differences on Medicaid shortfalls, charity-care and bad-debt?

So really, how can anyone determine how much VHS is actually giving away locally in Winchester and Frederick County? One would think that with the technology and record keeping systems available today, VHS must be aware of that solely based on a zip code of the patients/customers.

The new Wellness & Fitness Center had $1.1 million in revenue during its first three months of operation when it opened their doors in September of 2008.

Wonder how much revenue it brought in for 2009 with their current 5,800 members?

Bottom-line, the perception is that those taxes will be very minimal to WMC overall once compared to the profits that WMC has turned out over the last 10 years. But will have a significant impact on the city’s tax base with hopes of getting it back to a respectable operating status so that City Council will not have to look into raising the city resident’s taxes in the future.

Unfortunately, this will not be an easy task for City officials as it will most likely end up being a long legal battle.

City Councilman Milt McInturff called the council's endorsement "appropriate," but said the issue includes "legal ramifications" that likely will be challenged in court.

"It's just the beginning of a long road," he said. "I think the commissioner of revenue is doing her job, and I respect the job she's doing."

Winchester Medical Center ruled not tax-exempt

City Council votes 7-0 to authorize first-half real estate tax bill of more than $1 million

By Vic Bradshaw

The Winchester Star
September 29, 2010

WINCHESTER- The not-for-profit Winchester Medical Center is not exempt from property taxation, according to a report prepared by the commissioner of the revenue and endorsed Tuesday by the City Council.

In a decision that likely is the first of its kind in Virginia, the council voted 7-0 to authorize Commissioner Ann Burkholder to prepare a first-half real estate tax bill for the portion of the WMC campus that has not been billed, unless compelling evidence is presented that the property is exempt.

That bill would total slightly more than $1 million, Burkholder said, and bills for personal property taxes and up to three years of back taxes could follow.

For the remainder of the story, click below ...
http://winchesterstar.com/articles/view/wmc_ruled_not_tax_exempt

Winchester Medical Center's financial comparison for years 2007 and 2008

	Winchester	Winchester
	Medical Center	Medical Center
	Winchester, VA	Winchester, VA
	2007	2008
Licensed beds:	411	411
Staffed Beds:	411	411
Licensed NISU bassinets:	24	24
Staffed NISU bassinets:	24	24
Staffed normal newborn bassinets:	12	12
Patient Days:	110,115	110,475
Admissions:	25,318	25,040
Full-Time Equivalents - Payroll:	2,297	2,293
Full-Time Equivalents - Contract:	140	127
Gross Inpatient Revenue:	409,766,805	432,444,823
Gross Outpatient Revenue:	263,761,298	306,941,444
Gross Patient Revenue:	673,528,103	739,386,267
Contractual Allowance:	234,014,441	274,805,640
Charity Care:	25,752,576	32,784,775
Indigent Care Trust:	0	-150,000
Net Patient Revenue:	413,761,086	431,795,852
Other Operating Revenue:	13,788,825	12,202,410
Current Assets:	207,181,874	163,881,986
Net Fixed Assets:	276,623,250	310,687,613
Other Assets:	220,606,786	193,139,219
Total Assets:	704,411,910	667,708,818
Current Liabilities:	43,025,848	40,451,147
Long Term Liabilities:	207,765,314	264,403,642
Total Liabilities:	250,792,162	304,944,789
Fund Balance:	453,619,748	362,764,029
Labor Expense:	180,988,686	180,957,635
Non-Labor Expense:	145,327,697	155,439,049
Capital Expense:	37,317,267	42,785,264
Taxes:	$162,362	$59,184
Bad-Debt Expense:	23,331,159	21,253,614
Total Operating Expense:	387,127,171	400,494,746
Operating Income:	40,422,740	43,503,516
Net Non-Operating gains:	26,195,223	-34,002,605
Revenue & Gains
in excess of expenses (profits):	$66,617,963	$9,500,911

Source = Virginia Health Information, From Numbers to Knowledge

Non-operating gains and losses resulting from transactions incidental or peripheral to the hospital’s central ongoing operations. This may include such items as gifts received, tax support and subsidies, returns on investment of general funds, and gain or loss on sale of properties, as well as other items.

The 3rd Wal-Mart is coming to the local area!

It's official, a third Wal-Mart is under way, but what type of affect will this second Frederick County Wal-Mart have on Winchester's store?

Permit approved for area's third Walmart
September 28, 2010
By Cynthia Cather Burton

ARMEL- Site work has begun for the Winchester area's third Walmart store.

Frederick County officials recently approved a land-disturbance permit for the approximately 150,000-square-foot Superstore in Eastgate Commerce Center at Front Royal Pike (U.S. 522) and Tasker Road, according to Candice Perkins, the county's senior planner.

"Building permits have also been applied for," she said, "but they haven't been issued yet."

For the remainder of the story ...
http://winchesterstar.com/articles/view/permit_approved_for_area_s_third_walmart

Wal-Mart to open third store locally
By Lorraine Halsted
05/21/2008



Armel — Wal-Mart Stores Inc. will be submitting plans to Frederick County today for a new superstore to be built in Eastgate Commerce Center at U.S. 522 South and Tasker Road.


The southern Frederick County location will be the third Wal-Mart Superstore for the Winchester-Frederick County area, but will differ in its size and appearance, according to information provided by the company.

Is VHS's electronic medical records living up to the hype? Loading, please wait ...

One Winchester physician explains why, in his experience, electronic medical records are failing to live up to the hype.  To learn more about his experience, click on the following story by Les Sillars of The Frederick County Observer blog.

Is VHS's electronic medical records living up to the hype? Loading, please wait ...

As one reader shared their opinion with The Pub on the electronic medical records system after it was e-mailed out last night ...

"Big government wants to control all computer systems so they can track everyone for back taxes etc.  This health care bill is a lot more than meets the eye. It is a set up for further control of all citizens."

Another article of interest,  also by The Frederick County Observer on June 17, 2010:

Valley Health’s Updated Electronic Medical Records System Goes Online Next Month

Valley Health officials outline contributions

September 24, 2010, By Rebecca Layne WINCHESTER- Valley Health officials gathered Thursday to spread the word that the nonprofit organization is a good neighbor. During an information session in the Valley Health Wellness & Fitness Center on the Winchester Medical Center campus, they discussed their 2009 Community Benefit Report. The presentation illustrates the challenges the six-hospital system has been facing in the economic slowdown and the efforts it has made for the community. For the remainder of the article ... http://winchesterstar.com/articles/view/valley_health_officials_outline_contributions

Nobody in this area is going to dispute the facts that Valley Health Systems provides a lot of great valuable services and gives back to the vast regional communities that VHS is operating in as a not-for-profit institution.

Is it not time for the local media to start stating "regional community" for Valley Health since they serve many counties outside of Winchester and Frederick County.  VHS serves 18 counties to be exact.

The charity care and bad debt are isolated benefits to those individuals in need.  The programmatic community benefit has an affect on every individual within these regional communities.

The programmatic community benefit (community health improvement & community benefit operations; health professions education; subsidized health services; research; cash and in-kind donations) amounts for years 2009 back to 2005 are 7.1, 7.6, 1.3, 1.7 and 2.9 million respectively.

Wonder why Mr. Whitworth Jr. did not share nor the community benefit chart display the excess of revenue over expenses figures for 2005-2009?  To be more precise, profit/loss figures.

Valley Health System's five year profit total for years 2004-2008 was a little over $218.6 million.

But don’t be misled here, for-profit hospitals that pay taxes, has charity care too, bad debt and also gives back to local communities as this side-by-side comparison link below will show in detail.

Healthcaresoundoff.com’s comment on the comparison: “Valid comparison.  Roll with it.”

2007 Winchester Medical Center / Lewis-Gale Medical Center side-by-side comparison

A couple of notable highlights of the 2007 comparison, Lewis-Gale Medical Center paid $12.1 million in taxes as compared to Winchester Medical Center’s $162,362 (one hundred and sixty-two thousand and three-hundred and sixty-two dollars).  Winchester Medical Center had a profit of $66.6 million as compared to Lewis-Gale’s $11.9 million.

Valley Health’s community benefit report information for years 2005-2007 was taken from the pamphlet mailer.

The Big Picture, VHS's 2007 Community Benefit

 The 2008 numbers were taken from VHS’s mailer, no link provided and 2004’s numbers were taken from VHS’s former website.

VHS's 2004 Community Benefit

To get a better understanding of the breakdown of VHS’s 2007 $56.1 million in community benefit.  Again, got a perspective from Healthcaresoundoff.com:

Healthcaresoundoff's perspective on VHS's 2007 CB of $56.1 million

Also, do not forget about how profitable that the “Winchester Medical Center” was for years 2001-2007 where their profits increased 460%.

2001 - $11.8 million (per Quad State Biz Journal)
   '
   '
   '
2005 - $54,346,679 (per IRS990)

2006 - $57,422,678 (per IRS990)

2007 - $66,617,961 (per IRS990)

The Wellness Fitness Center brought in $1.1 million in revenue in just their first 3 months of operation after opening their doors in September of 2008.

Just before the wellness and fitness center opened in September 2008, it had collected 3,200 applications for membership.

Kent said the goal was to reach 5,000 members in three years, but it has moved beyond that. “We hit that number in a year,” she said, noting that the center now has 5,800 members.

Wonder how much revenue did the Wellness Fitness Center generate for 2009?

 

More information on the Zoning Violation issue from August, 4th WincStar article:

The issue arose when Diem determined that the wellness center was violating the city zoning code by marketing its services to the public via a website, direct mailings, and advertisements in The Winchester Star.


Diem sent WMC a letter stating that its marketing efforts must cease because they violate terms set for buildings in the Medical Center zone. Private health clubs are allowed in the zone, but they cannot be marketed publicly.


The zone's definition - including the prohibition on public marketing - was written and submitted on WMC's behalf in 1989.


Butler and hospital officials and board members argued before the BZA that "personal services" best describes the use of the wellness center, a use that allows public marketing.


The BZA quickly rejected that argument, but did not vote to make the wellness center immediately cease its marketing campaigns. Instead, it gave WMC four months to seek an amendment to the zoning code that would enable the center to be marketed publicly.

 
Information from September 8th WincStar article:

The wellness center issue stems from a determination made in May by Vincent Diem, the city's zoning and inspections administrator, that the center was violating the zoning code by publicly marketing its services.


The city zoning ordinance states that recreational facilities and private health clubs or sports-medicine clinics are permitted in the Medical Center District. However, the ordinance includes a provision that the facilities cannot be "marketed to the public-at-large."


Ironically, the restriction was included in an amendment written on behalf of WMC in 1989, and passed by the City Council in 1990.

After reading quotes and statement from the Quad State Business Journal article back in May of 2006, it is safe to say that VHS’s projections were somewhat conservative:

In projections used for COPN (Certificate of Pubic Need) approval, Valley Health said it is looking at a membership of 4,000 persons, targeting the 35-to 80-age group, especially people who don't exercise, said Kent.

"I have met with owners of the local clubs, and some say we will take members away from them," said Kent. "But we are hoping to attract people who don't exercise. In most markets, commercial clubs did not go out of business; their memberships actually went up because of the increased awareness of fitness."


Valley Health is projecting the wellness center business will break even in its second year, and after the third year will throw off cash flow of almost $1.3 million. Funding the cost of the center from Valley Health internal resources means there is no requirement for debt service.


"If it [wellness center] is such a big money maker, others would have come into the market."

The perception is that this information session that took place in the Valley Health Wellness & Fitness Center on the Winchester Medical Center campus on Thursday is most likely a result of City officials calling out VHS in violating their own zoning ordinance that the WMC had drawn up on their behalf back in 1989 and was adopted by City Council in 1990.

WMC zoning issue put on hold, BZA allows VHS more time

WMC had the zoning definition drafted up on their behalf back in 1989.  The BZA is giving the VHS an extension to hopefully get it right.

Not sure how more fair and reasonable the BZA could be than that?

Bottom-line, the Wellness Center does have an advantage over private-tax paying businesses by being tax-free.  Then it was realized the Wellness Center was making quite a bit of money with a large advertising campaign that was having some adverse affects on local private health clubs.

The zoning code within the medical center zone states recreational facilities and private health clubs or sports-medicine clinics services cannot be marketed to the public at large.

The local health clubs cannot afford those type of high dollar advertisements that VHS pays for on the Wellness Center.  The private local clubs just cannot compete with VHS's advertising campaign, they just have too much money.

Then a 50-yr agreement reached on March 4, 2009 requires the Wellness Center to pay 1/3 of their real estate tax just as long as the wellness center is operating as part of the medical center under the zoning definition that was drafted up on behalf of WMC.

If they are allowed to advertise, then that makes the playing field even more unbalanced.


Information from August, 4th WincStar article:

The issue arose when Diem determined that the wellness center was violating the city zoning code by marketing its services to the public via a website, direct mailings, and advertisements in The Winchester Star.

Diem sent WMC a letter stating that its marketing efforts must cease because they violate terms set for buildings in the Medical Center zone. Private health clubs are allowed in the zone, but they cannot be marketed publicly.

The zone's definition - including the prohibition on public marketing - was written and submitted on WMC's behalf in 1989.

Butler and hospital officials and board members argued before the BZA that "personal services" best describes the use of the wellness center, a use that allows public marketing.

The BZA quickly rejected that argument, but did not vote to make the wellness center immediately cease its marketing campaigns. Instead, it gave WMC four months to seek an amendment to the zoning code that would enable the center to be marketed publicly.

 
Information from September 8th WincStar article:

The wellness center issue stems from a determination made in May by Vincent Diem, the city's zoning and inspections administrator, that the center was violating the zoning code by publicly marketing its services.

The city zoning ordinance states that recreational facilities and private health clubs or sports-medicine clinics are permitted in the Medical Center District. However, the ordinance includes a provision that the facilities cannot be "marketed to the public-at-large."

Ironically, the restriction was included in an amendment written on behalf of WMC in 1989, and passed by the City Council in 1990.

Between the Winchester Star on April 9th and NVDaily's April 17th of 2010 front page articles, the following information was obtained:

(NVDaily) - The center, which opened in September 2008, brought in $1.1 million in revenue in its first three months of operation, according to tax records.

(WincStar) - Just before the wellness and fitness center opened in September 2008, it had collected 3,200 applications for membership.

Kent said the goal was to reach 5,000 members in three years, but it has moved beyond that. “We hit that number in a year,” she said, noting that the center now has 5,800 members.

After reading quotes and statement from the Quad State Business Journal article back in May of 2006, it is safe to say that VHS’s projections were somewhat conservative:

In projections used for COPN (Certificate of Pubic Need) approval, Valley Health said it is looking at a membership of 4,000 persons, targeting the 35-to 80-age group, especially people who don't exercise, said Kent.

"I have met with owners of the local clubs, and some say we will take members away from them," said Kent. "But we are hoping to attract people who don't exercise. In most markets, commercial clubs did not go out of business; their memberships actually went up because of the increased awareness of fitness."

Valley Health is projecting the wellness center business will break even in its second year, and after the third year will throw off cash flow of almost $1.3 million. Funding the cost of the center from Valley Health internal resources means there is no requirement for debt service.

"If it [wellness center] is such a big money maker, others would have come into the market."

The results of the study needs to be decided by a referendum

The perception is that more folks who do no live in Winchester are much more in favor of the closure of Millwood Ave.

Should not the citizens of Winchester have more say?

Once the Gorove/Slade group finalizes their study, should not their findings/recommendations be decided by the citizens of Winchester via a referendum?

A referendum, is that not fair?

Is the yield sign in front of the Armory a major contributor to the accidents?

Supporters for the Millwood Ave closure have cited a safety concern due to the accidents that have occurred at the Y intersection in front of the Armory when Apple Blossom Drive merges with Millwood.

Some City folks have stated that the YIELD sign is the problem.

Yield signs exist to remind us that many accidents occur at intersections when drivers lose track of who-goes-when. Many experienced drivers will classify yield signs as the most ignored traffic sign.

Maybe a STOP sign will make motorists more aware by requiring them to stop.

Some City folks have said that yield sign in front of the Armory is located in the wrong place that Millwood should have the “right of way” and the yield sign should be erected over on the Apple Blossom Drive side with those drivers yielding to the motorists traveling from Millwood in front of SU’s OBT coming into the Y in front of the Armory.

Long-standing right-of-way laws are something we usually learn when we first learn to drive. At that point we practice correlating common sense with regulations: any vehicle to the right of yours has the right-of-way, unless you're on the bigger road.

When anyone researches, they will discover intersections with a yield sign in place will result in a higher rate of accidents.

Is not the YIELD sign a major contributor to those accidents at the Y intersection when Apple Blossom drive merges with Millwood?

Would a STOP sign help to calm the so called "raceway" and make it safer for SU students to cross?

Shouldn't Millwood Ave always have the right-of-way sense it’s always been the main corridor entrance of Winchester?

By keeping Millwood Ave open, that’s more of an aesthetically pleasing entrance into Winchester in front of SU's OBT than Jubal Early, is it not?

Should scenarios be tested before making a final decision on Millwood closure?

Should not an official test of a couple scenarios take place before a final decision is made?

Scenario #1 – replace the yield sign in front of the Armory with a stop sign which would give students an area to cross without constant moving traffic for a month. 
    
Scenario #2 – put up temporary barrier to close off traffic from coming onto the Millwood piece down below Bob’s Evans and record traffic flow for a month.  That would be without a right turn-lane being added behind TV3.  

There is a lot speculation that traffic congestion will increase with that stretch of Millwood being closed off.  Now with actual tests being conducted, then this would give City Council real time results of such scenarios to make a well informed decision.

The Millwood Avenue closure debate

Does anyone have any factual WPD data to support how many accidents have happened on this piece of roadway on Millwood between TV3 and OBT over the last 5yrs?

I can recall several at the Sheetz intersection beside the new SU business school but cannot recall piece of Millwood section that is in question of being a dangerous piece of road.

Really, is this not a final piece of the "deal of the century" that took place back in August of 1995 when the City sold the former Rouss Park (7.2446 acres) to SU for $1.5million at 0% interest on a 3yr note?

This is also at the time when the Park & Rec authority board lost their power and became an "advisory" board to City Council.

This should NOT be a land swap deal.  SU needs to pay "fair market value" for the piece of property that sits in front of OBT.

If a deal goes thru ...

SU will own ALL of that property expect the Beltone property which for some reason SU sold that to the present owners back in 1985 which was just before Dr. Davis came on board.

SU will own everything on the southern end of Jim Barnett Park expect the Tennis Courts and Ross Potts basketball courts.

It's been said that a deal was in the works and near completion of SU getting back that Beltone property (unconfirmed if a deal has been completed or not) and that is up to those individual owners on how they decide to wheel & deal on their own personal property.

The former Armory building ... actually Shenandoah University was 50/50 owner of this building already with the Commonwealth Of VA-Dept Military Affairs. So SU bought out VA-Dept Military Affairs half for $750,000.

But were you aware that the City of Winchester owned 50% of this building up until June of 2006 at which time the City of Winchester sold, well gave away their 50% stake to Shenandoah University for just one-dollar, $1.00?  To clarify, it was donated to SU. The $1.00 transaction fee freed the City of Winchester of any future liability from how it was understood.

Wonder why city officials back in 2006 did not at least get "fair market value" for the city’s 50% stake in the Armory building?

Wonder why city officials did not put the former Winchester Volunteer Rescue Squard building/property out on the open real estate market?

A couple of sources shared that OutBack and one of the major drug store chains were interested but the perception is that those tax base generating businesses were never considered.  Do not believe there was never any doubt that it was going to become part of SU's campus and home of the new business school.

Just more prime examples how the red carpet has been rolled by the City of Winchester for Shenandoah University.

As it's been stated previously, give and take, it's a 2-way street but the perception is that it's been 1-way for SU's entire stay in Winchester.

Back on July 25, 2008 … SU’s real-estate portfolio was as follows:

SU had 66.357 acres in the city with a tax assessed value of $62,272,700 and on-line records show that SU's total sum for those transactions was in the tune of $11,140,176.

As for Frederick County, SU owned 78.15 acres with a then tax assessed value of $4,473,000 million and records show that their out of pocket cash paid to obtain ownership was $710,020.

If this deal goes thru …

SU will get the official "entrance" that they have been seeking and everyone at SU will be happy.

The perception will be that "malfunction junction" just became a bigger problem of heavier traffic congestion as the citizens and motorists will become even more disgruntled with the outcome.  Will this perception become reality? 

Who will be responsible for paying to get this problem resolved of malfunction junction? 

How does the motorists and citizens benefit from this land swap deal?

To close, SU is here to stay and offers a lot of positives but again, they are collecting much prime time real estate that they need to pay at least "fair market value" vs. land swap deals and wholesale deals of City owned property.

SU’s economic impact study, really ... has anyone seen an impact study paid for by a university that is not going to cast a positive light?  How much more timely could that study been released, than several days before the public meeting with the MPO committee?

The citizens of Winchester need to voice their opinion come Monday evening.

The Pub stated back on 10/5/2009 that an SU impact study was coming

Reference this blog post:

Monday, October 5, 2009

Has the City of Winchester embraced Shenandoah University into our local community?

SU's local economic impact study released

To review the Executive Summary of the documented study, click on the following link:

http://www.su.edu//www/Shenandoah-Univ-Economic-Impact-Analysis.pdf 

The perception is that the president of TischlerBise, L. Carson Bise II should be somewhat familiar with SU and the local area as he received his MBA in Economics from Shenandoah University.

Other commonwealth university studies that might be of interest:

EMU's
http://www.emu.edu/ir/impact-study/economic/

JMU's
www.jmu.edu/instresrch/resrchstud/economic/EcoImp06.pdf

UVA's
http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/pdf/econ_impact_broc.pdf

Watch City Council Monthly Meetings "on-demand" via DotZot.net

There is new opportunity for the citizens of Winchester to keep more informed with the monthly City Council meetings being recorded and made available on-demand at the following website of www.DotZot.net.

A statement obtained from their website:

DotZot is a local online video network. We are serving the Winchester area by producing programming that engages the community. Our programming aim is to bring local businesses, events, and sports to you.

DotZot.net also is producing a Winchester Weekly spotlight which reminds you of the former Cable Talk show that Barry Lee did on Adelphia Cable Channel 6.

To watch the City Council meetings "on-demand", just click on the following link: www.DotZot.net and click on the Government tab at the top of the screen.

Google Apps, will it be the direction for ALL educational institutions to go?

Just wanted to share ... wonder if the local school systems are looking into Google Apps?  After reviewing what Google Apps has to offer, not sure how any educational institution cannot afford to not take advantage of the free service.

Build your 21st century school, starting today ...
Google Apps' advanced collaboration and communication tools make it easy to help your students acquire the skills that will help them soar, in their education and out in the world.  There's no hardware to maintain or software to install, no ads, and no cost for schools.
http://www.google.com/a/help/intl/en/edu/k12.html

10 reasons to choose Google Apps:
http://www.google.com/a/help/intl/en/edu/sell.html

Customer’s stories:
http://www.google.com/a/help/intl/en/edu/customers.html

Not sure if the Frederick County Public Schools and Winchester Public Schools are exploring the opportunity with Google Apps but the perception is that it will be most cost effective way to go for the future.

It was communicated to The Pub that Shenandoah University has taken advantage of Google Apps.