POSF Chairman disputes Supervisor’s assertion county website provides all necessary information to answer Sanitary District revenue/expenditure questions

After hearing from Property Owners of Shenandoah Farms (POSF) Board Chairman Tracie Lane for the second consecutive week on a lack of response to repeated requests for a meeting to re-establish communications between the only two Shenandoah Farms Sanitary District management entities over the course of its nearly three-decade existence, one of those entities, the Warren County Board of Supervisors, approved a consolidated Code of Conduct for itself and its appointed boards, committees, and commissions as part of its Consent Agenda for routine business.

Staff briefs Supervisors on Reassessment Appeal process and scheduled Airport Capital Improvements – And about that proposed Code of Conduct…

That approval came without discussion, but some time after an approximately 10-minute board member report by North River Supervisor Delores Oates on county website postings regarding the expenditure of Sanitary District tax revenues on various infrastructure projects. “I wanted to try and provide some clarification. So, tonight you will see that on the (meeting room projection) screen is the Shenandoah Farms Sanitary District (SFSD). There seems to be some confusion about where to find financial reporting. There seems to be some confusion about the equipment list and the contracts that exist there. So, I would like to do a little tutorial on how to find it,” Oates said in prefacing her visual projection of a search of the “Government” and “Sanitary District” sections of the county website.

The fully-manned Warren County Board of Supervisors gets down to open session business on Feb. 7. Royal Examiner Photos Roger Bianchini

First came a review of monthly Sanitary District Manager Reports on specific projects in the SFSD dating back to the tenure of former Sanitary District Manager and Deputy County Administrator Bob Childress, which Oates noted dated prior to her term in office beginning in January 2020. The oldest posted report, submitted by Childress, was dated July-October 2013. Oates acknowledged what she termed “little” differences in the format of Childress, whose last submitted report to then advisory body POSF was dated August 2020, and current Sanitary District Manager Michael Coffelt, whose first report was dated August 2021. Oates also acknowledged gaps in submission of those monthly reports which she attributed to the COVID lock-down. In fact, there was a gap of a year between Childress’ last report for August 2020 and Coffelt’s first for August 2021.

“And if you look at those (Childress’) and compare them to the format that we currently do them in now, there’s a little difference but the majority of it is written format, it gives up-to-date  monthlies,” Oates noted. One difference we noted in examining about 12 of those Sanitary District Manager reports split between Childress and Coffelt’s tenures was an absence of project cost references in Coffelt’s reports, which generally were made in Childress’s.

Oates then had staff pull up the September 2022 Manager’s Report as a reference point: “There is an entire summary of September to October 13 of what was done in the Sanitary District – there’s a lot of detail there. Those are available monthly on our website. Now there are a couple of months that are missing and I’m not sure why that is and I don’t know the answer. But for the most part there’s a lot of information,” Oates concluded before moving to a new topic link – “Expenditure Reports”.

Oates had staff pull up the most recent of those, a three-year summary of expenditures and revenues for 2020, 2021, and 2022, the years Oates, Cheryl Cullers, and Walt Mabe have been on the board overseeing the county’s Sanitary District management along with involved staff. “And down in that bright yellow-highlighted block… that’s the money in the ending balances – you see that? All the financials are there for those who say they haven’t been provided. I just want to make sure that you knew how to find them.”

Royal Examiner file photo of Delores Oates on the job. Below, revenue portion of referenced Expenditure/Revenue annual report on 2022 Shenandoah Farms Sanitary District from ‘Government’ portion of county website. Photographer’s apology for cutting the referenced yellow-highlighted year-ending balance out, though it will appear in another shot below.

We will note that the three-year ending balances did increase from $2,331,056 in 2020; to $2,684,102 in 2021; and $2,854,458 in 2022. One might imagine a trained finance officer taking these balances, matching them to the listed annual Expenditure/Revenue report totals, and finding answers to some of the questions being sought by Farms resident advisory personnel, past and present. Of course there are other questions revolving around county staff recommended future projects and contracts that conflict with both past POSF and current Farms Advisory Committee recommendations aimed at making the most cost-effective decisions positively impacting the most Farms residents, particularly regarding road improvement needs. Why the current supervisors seem to always side with their staff recommendations over involved resident/stakeholder advisors may be a more nebulous matter to resolve.

Royal Examiner asked Oates and her colleagues by email about when they became aware of these Sanitary District Expenditure/Revenue reports, seeing as they didn’t seem to have been previously referenced despite repeated informational requests by two Shenandoah Farms Sanitary District advisory bodies over the past two-plus years. Oates replied by email: “We have informed financial information to the public through the website for several months and have referenced it numerous times. Last year, (I am not sure the exact date, but you should be able to find it in the Royal Examiner archives), Matt Robertson, our Director of Finance gave an extensive three-year financial presentation on the Shenandoah Farms Sanitary District.”

Not being a municipal finance major, we wondered if the information Oates referenced on the county website and in the above-cited meeting presentation by now another departed finance director, most specifically the Expenditure/Revenue reports and annual balances, actually answer some of the more pointed questions POSF and Farms Advisory Committee members have been asking about the past and future movement and use of Sanitary District tax revenue without a previous, direct response from the supervisors. In an attempt to ascertain an opinion on that, Royal Examiner later contacted POSF Chairman Lane for feedback on Oates’ assertions the county website numbers answer the questions she and her board have been asking. Should we be surprised that she was somewhat skeptical.

POSF Chairman Tracie Lane remakes points on the supervisors’ continued lack of response to repeated POSF requests for face-to-face meetings with them. Below, there’s the numbers – but what do they mean? Lane was critical of Oates’ presentation of financial charts, which she noted her board was already familiar with, in a format not allowing questions to be asked.

“There are numbers – now tell us what they mean,” Lane began of a presentation she described as somewhat “patronizing” in a format that did not allow questions to be asked. “I’m glad they’re putting it out there. It shows that we, P.O.S.F. Inc and residents, are having an impact as we advocate for transparency and responsible use of Sanitary District funds,” she added, noting that the POSF Board of Directors had reviewed the reports on the Sanitary District website. “We are aware of the documents that were there prior to yesterday.  The financial reports have been up for a couple of months and are the basis for some of our questions.

“We have questions and have asked for meetings with the County to get answers to those questions. Mrs. Oates’ presentation during her board member report at the February 7 Board of Supervisors meeting does not answer any of our questions,” Lane concluded.

Why have advisers if won’t take their advice?

As noted above, questions on the location and use of Sanitary District tax revenue haven’t come only from Lane and POSF, but from the supervisor’s own appointed Farms Sanitary District Advisory Committee. That committee was created to provide Farms resident input after the supervisors cut POSF out of the management equation following POSF’s move to end an 11-year written agreement between them as the advisory body to the supervisors on Farms Sanitary District management after having voluntarily handed that authority over to the County in 2011 after 14 years of POSF management. That move last year came, at least in part, as a result of POSF not receiving Sanitary District financial reports over a lengthy period of time during repeated turnovers at the top of the county finance department. But rather than re-position itself for a more direct or prominent role in the Sanitary District management, POSF found itself cut out of the equation entirely by the supervisors after closed door discussion with legal counsel.

File photo of Nov. 2022 Shenandoah Farms Advisory Committee meeting, then Chairman Bruce Boyle, far left hands extended’s, last. Boyle’s pose may reflect his level of frustration at committee-supervisors relations. In announcing his resignation, Boyle noted his family’s decision to move out of the Farms and Warren County. Below, County video of supervisors coming out of closed session into open on Jan. 7. No action was taken out of closed.

Perhaps coincidentally, personnel matters regarding the 2022 board-appointed Shenandoah Farms Sanitary District Advisory Committee (SFSDAC) was one of three topics of a pre-meeting, 6:30 p.m. Closed/Executive Session. There is a vacancy on the Farms Advisory Committee in the wake of the resignation of initial chairman Bruce Boyle a little over three months ago amidst some frustration at a lack of responsiveness by the county’s elected officials to advice offered by and inquiries made by his committee on Sanitary District matters, including past and planned future use of Sanitary District tax revenue. There was no post-closed meeting action taken by the board.

Other closed session topics included EDA personnel matters and consultation with legal counsel regarding the “Warren County Code of Conduct for Boards, Commissions, and Committees” slated for approval as part of the open meeting’s 20-item Consent Agenda. Former Farms Advisory Committee vice chairman and current Chairman Sarah Saber has been one the supervisors harshest public critics regarding a lack of board responsiveness to questions regarding past and planned uses of Farms Sanitary District tax revenue.

But will a new Code of Conduct for participants from both sides of the Sanitary District management debate, along with Oates public presentation about available county website information on Sanitary District revenues and expenditures, lead to a more polite and timely resolution of long-standing unanswered questions and dueling suspicions of the other side’s motives? Or might these efforts simply be another turn down what becomes a blind alley as far as resolution of long-standing and escalating issues between the county’s elected leaders and some of their constituents, particularly those residing in the county’s largest Sanitary District?

Stay tuned, sports fans…….

But in the meantime watch all board, public, and staff actions and comments in the County video. Oates’ presentation begins at the 12:05 mark of video. Lane’s opening Public Comments on non-agenda matters precede that presentation at the 6:43 mark.