Should EDA Borrow Money to the City's General Revenue Fund?

The EDA do you trust what they are doing? As indicated in numerous threads on this site the EDA and its leadership continue practices that are questionable. As a result, city leaders and especially the elected officials, Craig Randleman and Angela Doren have special duties to insure the integrity of this organization.

Recent Minutes from EDA appear to be making questionable actions and further investigation needs to take place.

It appears in the following minutes that Blair Johnson is recommending to the EDA to borrow almost $40,000 when the account is already $29,000 in the red.

Maybe I am wrong but this seems illogical. Any information would be helpful. If this is right maybe if the EDA has all of this money in the red they could borrow it to the General Revenue Fund of the city?

All of these questions are being raised because the people at the top have not always been square with the public.

The best that I can read in the minutes above it states:

Blair Johnson provided an overview of the Fairway View financials, noting that the undesignated fund balance is a negative $29,262.09. Johnson advised that the SCDG loan match was to be provided through a loan by Fairway View in the EDA and further noted that even with a negative fund balance Fairway View is still capable of lending the $40,000.00 for the SCDG.

This thought process is astonishing. Here we have Blair Johnson, a CPA, stating that their fund is in the red and yet they can still get the money from Fairway View. If they haven't been responsible for the undesignated fund in the first place and ran it into the red what makes them think they can be responsible with more money from Fairway View? Will the city wait until the EDA has bled Fairway View dry and put it into bankruptcy before they stop this spending spree?

What is this money being used for? $12,000 of it is to fix Blair Johnson's office roof. And he is the one making the recommendation?

Where did this undesignated fund come from? In the minutes of April 2, 2008 the EDA discusses an unrestricted fund. Is this the same fund?





According to the minutes above the unrestricted fund had over $273,000.00 in it. They moved $120,000.00 of it for "designated funds?" "Capital replacement dollars?" Then they designate $5,000.00 every month. Where did all this money go? It is uncertain if the unrestricted fund is the same as the undesignated fund but in any case what we have here between the two funds is around $300,000.00 that is questionable as to where it went. There is no audit of the EDA. There is no Profit and Loss Sheet or Balance Sheet that has been forthcoming from them so one is left to wonder exactly what did the EDA spend $300,000.00 on?

On page two of the meeting for the EDA on 021710 is the last item in which the EDA generously votes to feed the public who will come to their free classes. Some people might think that makes the snow job complete. Bring people in and show them on how "good" you are and feed them for free. Then they will like you and support you. Who benefits from this sales promotion? The EDA of course. While the EDA has run the undesignated fund $30,000 into the red they still spend like they have it. While the city is losing funding and trying to balance their budget the EDA fed not only themselves but gives free bread to the public. They used to do that in the Roman Days. They did it to get the public support and votes.

What is further disconcerting is the fact that the vote on this free food was unanimous. Are their any independent thinkers in there? Was there no voice of concern? Is everyone trying to be good friends and get along? Is that why the public elected a new city council so that they could keep spending money like it grows on trees? I don't think so.

The last thing I noticed about the minutes was on page two where they gave $8,000.00 to the Chamber. The vote was unanimous. Considering that Katie is the Chamber Director wouldn't you think she would have abstained? Even if she had abstained the vote would still have passed. Why do people not see conflict of interest issues?

There are really two more things that stand out. We are going to spend another $10,000 on a housing study.

The numbers are so small that they are statistically flawed. What is the need for the study? We all know that another Fairway View type project would be supported; although, may I suggest that the EDA not be used as a managing partner. The EDA continues to spend money like a drunk in a casino?

Just look at the facts, a $10,000 expenditure for another housing study and the only fact that has changed is that there will be no Big Stone II. Even I could estimate the impact on housing in Ortonville and I will only charge the city $5,000 and I will put the charts up using modern colors instead of traditional colors.

Then $8,000 to the Chamber. For what purpose? Then borrow $40,000 when you are already in the hole $29,000.

Where are the two elected officials? Randleman and Doren. Come onto the site and explain this. To think we at one time trusted the leadership in this organization.

Someone at EDA explain this for all of us.

To coin a phrase this is voo-doo economics.