EDA Finance Committee scrutinizes FY-22 Budget proposal, dynamics

Friday morning, July 9, the Finance Committee of the Warren County Economic Development Authority met to discuss the EDA’s Fiscal Year-2022 Budget proposal. In addition to Committee Chairman Jim Wolfe and members Jorie Martin and Tom Patteson, present for the in-person meeting at the EDA’s Kendrick Lane Office were EDA Board Chairman Jeff Browne, Executive Director Doug Parsons, Administrative Assistant Gretchen Henderson, and County Board of Supervisors Chair Cheryl Cullers.

From left, Tom Patteson, Jim Wolfe, Jeff Browne, Doug Parsons, Jorie Martin, and Cheryl Cullers were back in the EDA in-person meeting format Friday morning. Royal Examiner Photos by Roger Bianchini

The County Board of Supervisors holds the purse strings for the EDA, as the new EDA board and staff continue to navigate the financial and legal aftermath of the $26-million-dollar-plus financial scandal uncovered during the administrative leadership of former EDA Executive Director Jennifer McDonald and a previous EDA Board of Directors.

How the financial consequences of that yet-to-be resolved civilly or criminally alleged misuse, embezzlement or fraudulent acquisition of EDA resources continues to impact the retooled EDA was a topic of interest during the committee meeting. As annual debt service revenues from property rentals and loan paybacks versus loan debt service expenses were discussed in a second phase of the budget review, that point was made quite pointedly after a debt service revenue deficit of $704,700 was noted.

“Let’s make this clear for the public,” Committee Chairman Wolfe injected with a glance the media’s way, continuing, “So, there are three (primary) figures on the page … there is the $220,000 General Fund Operating Allocation. And the way to think about it is as a matter of public policy the County says, ‘economic development is a good idea, let’s put some money toward that kind of development’.

“There’s another operating supplement of … $39,200.

“And because of all the debts of prior activities, there’s another roughly $700,000 in unfunded debt payments because of past transactions. Those don’t have anything to do with current economic development or moving forward. That’s trying to clean up after the other ones. – Did I misstate that in any way?” Wolfe concluded with a question for his EDA colleagues.

EDA Finance Committee Chairman Jim Wolfe wanted to make it perfectly clear where the EDA’s debt service-revenue deficit originates – in the past under different leadership.

Rather than a correction, Executive Director Doug Parsons elaborated on Wolfe’s observation with added detail on how the deficit numbers broke down between inherited debt versus that acquired by the new EDA – the short answer being all six of current EDA loans with a total annual debt service of about $1.5 million were inherited and none acquired by the retooled EDA board and staff.

During the committee meeting Parson also pointed to a $658,000 General Fund Cap number plugged in by the county administrator that could be adjusted upwards to help cover that $704,700 debt service shortfall. The shortfall was created by the difference in the $1,556,700 annual debt service of the six inherited EDA loans and the $852,000 of Offsetting annual revenue from the Baugh Drive Warehouse rent ($345,600) and the ITFederal Loan payback ($506,400).

The ITFederal loan Albatross – while it generates $506,400 of annual payback revenue, the EDA operates at an annual deficit of $90,900 as it pays a higher interest rate and $597,300 annually on its bank loan to finance the project. And did anyone ever figure out why a previous EDA board okayed a $10-million loan to ITFederal of which only about $2 million had to be spent on its ‘free’ 30-acre Avtex site project? OH, the other $8 million to the Criminal Justice Academy project – you got that in writing, right?

Operations and the Future

In the first phase of discussion it was the Operational Budget under scrutiny as the new EDA board and staff continues to move forward with economic development in the community, while still traversing the legal and civil liability minefield of the financial scandal referenced above. A 28-line-item FY-22 Operational Budget totaling $367,100 was brought to the table.

Major areas of concern discussed included “Marketing” of the community to potential businesses seeking a favorable geographic and social environment; “Maintenance” of EDA properties – variables and potential HVAC costs at Baugh Drive and the EDA office complex were put on the table; “Legal” and “Auditing” fees; “Insurance” including, not only “Property Insurance”, but also “Professional Liability” insurance; the impact of a 2.5% Cost Of Living Act (COLA) increase on staff salaries; and continued efforts on community education to limit and reverse the spread of the Spotted Lanternfly in the county.

Wolfe observed from his experience that marketing was often a first budget line item to be reduced during tight economic times, but added that “it should be the last”. A $10,000 “Marketing” request was reduced to $4,300 by the County Administration. While the importance of advertising was agreed upon, its type and context to achieve maximum positive exposure and result remains an issue the EDA Board has devoted some discussion to recently. How that may translate into a final number submission remains to be seen.

A $10,000 “Maintenance” request was unaltered by the County. However, with looming HVAC maintenance or replacement issues at several locations, the potential need of more than the originally submitted amount was noted.

Well, only the occupied parts will need HVAC work in the immediate future – at the EDA Office complex or other properties.

Legal, Auditing & Insurance variables

Legal fees were listed at $84,000 – pared back from a $96,000 request – and auditor fees at $17,500. It was explained the $17,500 was for one fiscal year’s audit. But the advantage of seeking both the FY-2020 and FY-2021 audits in the coming budget year was broached to catch the EDA up with the County in the auditing process. This past year the EDA went through a lengthy, soon-to-be finalized by the firm of Brown-Edwards, audit of the FY-2018 and FY-2019 budget years when alleged embezzlements and other financial misappropriations were occurring.

Of the coming-year audits beginning with FY-2020, Parsons commented: “They will be drastically more simple than 2018 and 2019 because we were all here” throughout those years’ budget and operational processes.

It was noted that while the EDA must put the FY-2020-and-21 audit services out to bid, due to their experience here through more trying budget cycles it seemed a longshot that Browne-Edwards would not get the call back.

On the insurance front, $10,000 was listed for “Property Insurance” and $400 for “Professionally Liability Insurance”. With the EDA having received a $500,000 “Liability” payoff from current carrier Cincinnati Insurance, the potential of a bidding war to pick up the Warren County EDA’s liability coverage seems slim.

“I’ve been working on this for nine months and nobody will touch us,” Martin told her colleagues of interest from other companies. The advisability of sticking with Cincinnati if possible, but changing local agent Stoneburner-Carter due to proprietor Tony Carter’s current and past seat on the Warren County Board of Supervisors, was broached.