Xenia Citizen Journal

On December 11, John Mitchel presented testimony before the newly elected Greene County Commissioners about previous the commission’s oversight of the Wright Patterson AFB BRAC Initiative Agreement and a corresponding unaccounted for $1.9 million deficit in that commission’s budget enactment.

The following are excerpts from Mitchel’s testimony:

There are two elements of the BRAC Initiative Agreement that cause me grave concern. First, during recent and past campaigns, many politicians including Commissioner Perales, Commissioner-elect Reid, State Senator Austria and Congressman Hobson, took significant credit for BRAC success by implying their opponent was less-equipped to address the issue. Rarely, if ever do we hear about the diligent professionals at Wright Patt who go to work every day quietly doing their jobs serving our courageous war-fighters. I would say their hard work and professionalism warrant recognition for Wright Patt’s success infinitely more than the self-directed praise from elected officials who are paid well to serve their constituents, not take undeserved credit for their success. Second, Greene County taxpayers are never recognized for their role in funding the BRAC Initiative Agreement, although I still doubt its value added to the process. In the Economic Development Note dated October 3rd, 2003, County Auditor Delaney describes a “non-interest bearing” loan to the Dayton Development Coalition from Fund 0207-0101 in the amount of $900,000 to partially fund the $1.9 million BRAC Initiative Agreement. In essence, the Greene County Commissioners authorized an interest free loan to the Dayton Development Coalition for $900,000 and then sold the note to Fifth Third Bank with Greene County taxpayers picking up the interest. To add insult to injury, in documents acquired through Ohio’s open records statute, there’s evidence that the Dayton Development Coalition deposited their interest free loan from Greene County taxpayers in an interest bearing account, not to mention that Fifth Third Bank did not pay federal or state corporate income taxes on over $17,000 they collected in interest paid by Greene County taxpayers. Contrast that to the hapless Greene County taxpayer who is late in paying his or her property taxes. If even one day late, a Greene County taxpayer is charged an immediate 10 percent penalty on the unpaid balance and 8 percent annual interest if the tax bill continues to be delinquent. My first question is, “Does it concern you that your constituents paid the interest on a loan to the Dayton Development Coalition who in turn non-competitively awarded contracts to Greentree and The PMA Group, a Washington lobbyist? Does it concern you that your constituents are also hit for a 10 percent penalty plus 8 percent interest if they are late paying their property taxes?

Now let’s take a look at what Greene County taxpayers got for that $1,900,000 the Commission sent to the Dayton Development Coalition by way of the BRAC Initiative Agreement. Here I have Dayton Development Coalition’s 2005 IRS Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax. The Form 990 shows that in 2005, the last full year of the BRAC Initiative Agreement, on revenues of $1,747,719, the Dayton Development Coalition lost $337,325. On page 6 of the Form 990, it shows that the Coalition paid $74,402 to former officer Ron Wine. Page 12 shows that the Coalition paid $285,854 to the Coalition’s President and CEO, J P Nauseef. Those two expenditures alone account for almost $30,000 more than the Coalition lost in 2005. Let me ask the same question. Does it concern you that in 2005 your constituents helped pay over $72,000 to a former Coalition employee and over $285,000 to the President and CEO when the Coalition lost over $300,000 under his leadership.

My next question goes back to the $1.9 million to fund the BRAC Initiative Agreement. Nowhere in the Greene County 2003 budget enactment could I find that this money was legally appropriated. In fact, the entire enactment in 2003 for “Economic Development” was less than $450,000. Fund 0207-0101 does authorize a $900,000 interest-free loan to the Dayton Development Commission, but that does not address my concern that it was legally appropriated in the 2003 budget. And that still doesn’t account for the other $1,000,000 in the BRAC Initiative Agreement including the $100,000 grant. Could the Commission address those concerns and report back to me in January?

Mitchel continued by bring to the attention of the commission about pertinent information that was withheld or suppressed by various officials that could have resolved the valid legal issues.

I wonder what will be the outcome in January?