Tocontinue to expose fund manipulation …….

Thequestionable source of funding and use of the UDAG (Urban DevelopmentAction Grant) Fund has shown up in the workbook for the last councilmeeting.

Fromthe workbook for Council Meeting 7/5/17 presenting the 2018 TaxBudget

Page 11

underGOVERNMENTAL/SPECIAL REVENUE:

eighthline down

Urban DevelopmentAction Grant Fund #238

EstimatedUnencumbered Fund Balance $114,997

Budget YearEstimated Receipt $50,000

Total Available ForExpenditures $164,997

Budget YearExpenditures and Encumbrances Total $ 55,000

EstimatedUnencumbered Balance 12/31/18 $109,997

Theworkbook shows a UDAG unencumbered fund balance of $114,997 but whatis the source of those funds and when did they appear?

Thefund is to receive an estimated $50,000 in 2018, but again, thesource of funding is unknown. Could this be the $50,000 (fromMiddletown taxpayer funds) that DMI receives annually? How could thesource possibly be a grant?

Expendituresand Encumbrances total $55,000. Wonder who will be the recipient ofthese “grant” funds!!!! And do they know that it’s really onlya loan? And do they know that when they “repay” it the moneywill be “recycled” into the UDAG fund which is a grant fund (andby definition does not loan money)? Are you confused yet? Hasanyone really repaid any money received from UDAG funds? ….. Anyvolunteers?

Anumber of important questions from previous posts about cityinvestment in downtown, concerning the use of taxpayers’ money forfacade grants, have not been answered. The “explanation”offered by Mr Adkins on his own blog on CityofMiddletown.org lookslike a Dougie duck which might better be described as an albatross. Adkins said:

“TheCity has also provided funding for the façade grant program. This isa reimbursable grant for exterior repairs to storefronts.   The façade grant program is funded through a HUD program from the 1980’scalled UDAG.   Here is HUD’s explanation of the program:

‘TheSecretary is authorized to make urban development action grants tocities and urban counties which are experiencing severe economicdistress to help stimulate economic development activity needed toaid in economic recovery. There are authorized to be appropriated tocarry out this section $225,000,000 for fiscal year 1988, and$225,000,000 for fiscal year 1989. Any amount appropriated underthis subsection shall remain available until expended.’

Wehave been loaning and recycling that fund since 1989. DMI (DowntownMiddletown Inc.) currently oversees the receipt of applications andthe distribution of funding for façade grants. To date it has beenused for downtown façade renovations. The thought was to utilize thegrants in a small area to make a noticeable difference in storefrontappearance. We have temporarily suspended the program for 2017 andare looking at future uses for theremainingfunds, including opening the program up to some other dedicated areaoutside of downtown.”

Notethat what he describes as a REIMBURSABLE grant for exterior repairsto store fronts is paid for through a HUD program called UDAG (UrbanDevelopment Action Grant). It is NOT A LOAN to property owners ofstore fronts which will be paid back to the city. That’s why itscalled a grant not a loan. How does the word reimbursable apply to agrant? None of the money handed out to the downtown property ownersfor facade grants has been (or ever will be) repaid to the city. Sohow can this be called recycled?

Themillions of dollars that HUD set aside for UDAG WAS FOR THE ENTIRECOUNTRY not for just Middletown! And that was in 1988-89!!!! Thosefunds were only available until expended. It was a one timeopportunity and Mr Adkins said “to date it has been used fordowntown facade renovations (originally for the area where the mallroof was removed). We don’t know what $ amount Middletown propertyowners received to set back and replace the store fronts (whichproperty owners had been forced to move out into the mall), and wedon’t know what $ amount (from what grant) was received for tearingoff the mall roof.

Therewas $13 million in bonds and/or loans taken out by the city for themall roof removal. Was that $13 million paid off when the governmentfunds for that were received??? Isn’t it a Federal Offense to usefederal funds for anything other than their designated purpose??? Andhow can Adkinsclaimthat we have ANYgrantmoney left over from 1989!   What a joke!!  Ifthere is remaininggrantmoney, what fund (orcity coatcloset)hasit been hiding in andjust exactly how much money is there? Whywasn’t that grant money used instead of usingupthegeneral slush fund where enterprise funds, etc. had been illegallydumped and put up for grabs? Wheredo you think he’s reallygettingthis funding? Maybeit’scoming out of ourtaxpayerpockets,betterknown as MrAdkins’ slushfund!!!

Nowhe says that DMI oversees the funding for the“non-existent”facadegrants. Since when can, whatAdkins claims isa non-governmental agency, handle (supposed)governmentmoney?  Weren’t the original facade grants limited to asingle (not multiple) $5000perstore front? Inaddition the “non-existent” facade grant money fundismisused. Mike Presta commented:

“Let'snot forget all of the FACADE Grant money that has been spent on theREAR of downtown buildings facing alleys for such things asrepairing/replacing old doors and windows and painting back walls. This is actually ROUTINEMAINTENANCE,not "façade" work!!!   Why do downtown businessowners have the taxpayers foot the bill for their routinemaintenance whenno other businesses in other areas of town get the fruit ofthe same scam???”

Takenote of Doug’slist(seethe first post underthis topic) ofgrants in 2015-16; someof the$ amounts areoverthe $5,000 limit setforfacade grants andthereare repeatedfacadegrantsto thesameaddressesandowners. Agrant, by definition is just that, a grant, which does not have to bepaid back. How can the city claimto “loanand recycle” grant money (whichis NOTa loan) from1989?

Hidingthe handout of hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars, repeatedly,to favored downtown recipients, behind a “non-existent “grantmoney fund needs to cease. Theconfusing, convolutedand difficult to unravel manorin which such matters arepresented byMr Adkins on his blog, seems to cleverly facilitate a cover-up ofbehind the scenes manipulations of taxpayers’ money.