In a recent article HuntingtonLive reported the payment to the city of $42,000
in past due municipal fees that city officials say were owed by the tenants of
the Huntington Industrial Center. At the August 19th meeting of the Huntington
Municipal Development Authority, public works director George McClennen announced
he had delivered the check the previous week to the city finance department for
payment of the fees.
When asked by board member Jim Ritter who paid the money, McClennen said that
HMDA paid the fee, and the tenants of HIC would be charged on a prorated basis.
Several members of the HMDA board said they are still in the dark concerning the
details of the payment.
The HMDA has a contract with the Huntington Area Development Council to manage
the HIC project.
The question of the payment came up during the Good & Welfare portion of the
August 26th Huntington City Council meeting. HuntingtonLive directed questions
to the council, as council chairman Cal Kent is also on the HMDA board. When asked
from where the check was issued the mayor answered, “I believe it came from
HADCO. It came from HADCO and they’re reimbursed by HMDA.” Kent immediately
corrected Felinton and explained how the payment was made.
“What happens on this, is there is a trust fund that has been established
for HADCO to which all those rent moneys go, and then HADCO is the one who is
actually responsible for paying those fees out of that trust fund,” said
Kent. “That trust fund is established for the benefit of the HMDA, and HADCO
administers it.” Kent explained that those were HADCO moneys and that was
the reason only one signature was on the check instead of the two that is required
when a check is issued from HMDA.
It is implied by Kent’s statement that the occupants of the HIC are renting
the space from HMDA. Yet, the rent money goes to a fund controlled by HADCO which
Kent said is HADCO money. Also, if HMDA is the owner of the property, then shouldn’t
HMDA be responsible for the municipal fees? At the August HMDA meeting McClennen
said that HADCO employee Becky Boright would work out an arrangement with the
tenants to repay the municipal fees. Kent backed this up at the council meeting.
“The full amount was paid by HADCO, and HADCO is the one legally responsible
for paying the city. Ms. Boright, as an employee of HADCO, works out whatever
deal she can with the tenants,” said Kent.
In Kent’s earlier statement he said that the money was paid from a trust
that is funded from the rents of the HIC. That means HADCO paid the city with
HMDA money, not HADCO money. When the money is paid by the tenants, will it go
back to the trust fund or to HADCO?
On July 26th we submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to HMDA to view
the contract between HMDA and HADCO concerning the management and operation of
the HIC. This request was granted, and we were told to contact Boright for the
information, as that was where a copy of the contract was located. No explanation
was given as to why HMDA does not have its own copy of the contract.
We have talked to Boright twice about making an appointment to come to HADCO to
fulfill our FOIA request. Both times she told us that she needed to locate the
contract, but gave no date as to when the FOIA request could be satisfied.
Chapter 29B, West Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act concerning public
records states: 29B-1-6. Violation of article; penalties. Any custodian of any
public records who willfully violates the provisions of this article is guilty
of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than two
hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars, or be imprisoned in the county
jail for not more than twenty days, or, in the discretion of the court, by both
fine and imprisonment.
§29B-1-7. Attorney fees and costs. Any person who is denied access to public
records requested pursuant to this article and who successfully brings a suit
filed pursuant to section five of this article shall be entitled to recover his
or her attorney fees and court costs from the public body that denied him or her
access to the records.
The mayor, the city council chairman and the public works director gave three
different accounts of how this $42,000 was paid to the city. There are probably
simple and logical answers to questions concerning what should have been an uncomplicated
payment of municipal fees. A public review of the contract between HADCO and HMDA
is a good place to start. The conflicting answers to simple questions and the
fact that we have yet to receive a date to review the contract could leave some
doubt in the public’s mind as to whether anyone in authority has any idea
about what is going on with the financial management of the HIC.