SICDC defaults on payments to town

As “outside agencies” are begging for financial assistance from the Town of Mooresville for the upcoming fiscal year, another organization – the South Iredell Community Development Corporation (SICDC) – is in default of its financial obligation to the town.

The SICDC owes the town for accrued interest in loans of public money made to it between 1989 and 1994. But not only is the organization behind two years on its loan payment – totaling tens of thousands of dollars – to the town, it has also not paid the town, as it is supposed to do, for a percentage of two significant land transactions made in January and February. The SICDC made more than $1 million off those land sales, according to the Register of Deeds.

Mooresville Mayor Bill Thunberg – who has sat on the SICDC board both years that the organization has not paid its bill – signed "release deeds" on the two pieces of property that the SICDC sold in January and February – one to DKOTA Investments, Inc. and the other to Penske Realty, Inc. By signing those release deeds, Thunberg has essentially put the Town of Mooresville in a position where it cannot foreclose on those properties and sell them to secure the money owed by the SICDC in the event that the organization refuses to pay the town.

Thunberg did not respond to a Report e-mail asking why he signed the release deeds, but a “read receipt” indicated that he opened the e-mail at 9:10 a.m. today.

As of Wednesday, the SICDC has not paid the town any percentage of the $1 million land sales, though the loan-payback plan forged between the town and SICDC in May 2002 stipulates that the SICDC would use half of all proceeds from land sold in the Mooresville Business Park to make a payment on the debt to the town. The last land-sale payment that the town received from the SICDC was in October 2005, according to Town Finance Director Maia Setzer.

In addition to half of all its land-sale proceeds in the Mooresville Business Park, the SICDC agreed to annually pay the town 10 percent of its outstanding debt.

But for the past two years, that has not happened.

The SICDC owes the town $388,263 – the same amount it owed in 2006. The organization was supposed to make a payment of $38,826 in February 2007 and another, totaling 10 percent of the adjusted balance, earlier this year.

The town, in arrangements such as the one with the SICDC, does not typically send invoices. However, Setzer said she plans in the next few weeks to invoice the SICDC for two years of payments to the town.

This is not the first time the town has failed to collect the SICDC’s debt.

Rewind to 2002. In the heat of a state budget crunch that left Town of Mooresville officials wondering how they would fund critical services, Tribune reporter Michael Roessler exposed that the SICDC owed the town nearly $850,000 from loans of public money made to it between 1989 and 1994.

Between those years, the SICDC borrowed nearly $3 million from revenue gathered by Iredell County from the January 1986 sale of the former Lowrance Hospital, now the Government Center South on Center Avenue in Mooresville. The SICDC borrowed the money to develop Mooresville Business Park on Mazeppa Road.

The county transferred responsibility for collecting the debt to the town in 1994. The SICDC by 1999 had paid back the loan’s principal, but had not made a single payment on accrued interest between 1999 and March 2002.

Despite that, the organization – whose year-end 2001 audited financial statements indicated it had $913,468 in cash reserves while its debt to the town was $848,969 – awarded two $15,000 bonuses to economic developer Melanie O’Connell Underwood, one in 1998 and one in 1999, for attracting businesses to, and managing the business park for, the SICDC.

Underwood was the executive director of the Mooresville-South Iredell Economic Development Corporation (MSIEDC) before the MSIEDC’s board of directors asked her to resign in January. Before the MSIEDC was formed and split from the Mooresville-South Iredell Chamber of Commerce in 2006, Underwood sat on the SICDC board as executive vice president of the Chamber.

Here is a complete list of SICDC board members from 2007 and 2008, supplied to the Report by the MSIEDC:

2008
Jane Testerman
Mike Harrell, Beacon Properties
Dan Brewer, General Manager, Chas H. Sells, Inc.
Woodrow T. Washam, Jr., Iredell-Lake Norman Market President, CommunityOne Bank, N.A.
Mark Brady, Vice President, Fidelity Bank
Joel Mashburn, Iredell County Manager
Marvin Norman, Chairman, Iredell County Board of Commissioners
Sara Haire Tice, Iredell County Board of Commissioners
Abigail Jennings, President, Lake Norman Realty, Inc.
Holly Forester, Owner, Life Path Mission
Steve McGlothlin, Managing Partner, Sharon-Randall Group, LLC
Ben Thomas, Attorney, Thomas Godley Law Firm
Bill Thunberg, Mayor, Town of Mooresville

2007
Randy Marion, Randy Marion Chevrolet and SICDC President
Dr. Jane K. Testerman
Sandy Mills, Vice President/Banking Center Manager, Bank of America
Benjamin W. Sharpe, Senior Vice President, BB&T
Danny F. Beaver, Assistant Vice President, Carter Bank & Trust
Mike Cook, Cavin-Cook Funeral Home
Don Flowe, Senior Vice President, Citizens South Bank
Woodrow T. Washam, Jr., Iredell-Lake Norman Market President, CommunityOne Bank, N.A.
Jim Hadden, Employment Security Commission
Mark Brady, Vice President, Fidelity Bank
Rob G. Ellenburg, Business Relationship Officer, First Charter Bank
David Steen, Vice President, First Trust Bank
Joel Mashburn, Iredell County Manager
Sara Haire Tice, Iredell County Board of Commissioners
Dr. Terry Holliday, Superintendent, Iredell-Statesville School System
Joe Knox, Joe Knox Properties and Mayor Emeritus
Paul Smith, Chief Executive Officer, Lake Norman Regional Medical Center
Dr. Douglas Eason, President, Mitchell Community College
Dale Brawley, Executive Vice President, Mooresville Savings Bank
Edward L. Marxen, Executive Vice President, Piedmont Bank
Ben Goins, Piedmont National Financial Services
Ben Thomas, Attorney, Thomas Godley Law Firm
Jamie Justice, Mooresville Town Manager
Bill Thunberg, Mayor, Town of Mooresville
W.F. Newell, Jr., W.F. Newell & Associates
Kevin Pote, Assistant Manager, Wachovia

More on Wastewatergate ... The Poisoned Project

The Town of Mooresville’s request to dismiss the case against it by two former town employees was not heard as scheduled yesterday, April 7.

The town’s “motion for summary judgment” was supposed to go before a Superior Court Judge in Statesville. And while it’s unclear the exact reason why the case didn’t make it to court, one could speculate that either the hearing was postponed, or a settlement has been reached.

Either way, in the eleventh hour, the Town of Mooresville amended its motion for summary judgment with a “declaration of Tonia Wimberly,” the town’s current engineering division supervisor. Wimberly began working for the town in August 2004, and she worked beside the two former town employees, Engineering Director Richard McMillan and Utilities Director Wilce Martin, until former Town Manager Jamie Justice fired the two men in February 2006.

Both men had publicly opposed the town’s 2004 hiring of engineering firm CH2M Hill to design the town’s Rocky River Wastewater Treatment Plant expansion. Of all the engineering firms that submitted “Statements of Qualifications” to the town, CH2M Hill was the least qualified for the project, according to town staff -- including Wimberly. The 2004 town board hired CH2M Hill anyway, saying that an official with that firm was a local person who had once worked at the town’s wastewater treatment plant.

That official, David Wagoner, is no longer employed by CH2M Hill. Neither is the firm’s original manager for Mooresville’s project, Mike Osborne, nor (according to new reports) the project principal, Joe Stowe. Engineer Derek Slocum left the town last year. And Justice resigned as town manager in February 2008 per the request of Mooresville’s town board.

These are among the reasons we have dubbed this issue The Poisoned Project … or Wastewatergate -- take your pick. Almost every person who touched this doomed project has either jumped ship or "walked the plank."

In her “declaration,” Wimberly – who took over leadership of the town’s engineering department after McMillan was fired – states that she, McMillan, Martin and Slocum “were responsible for narrowing the Statements of Qualifications down to a ‘short-list’ of engineering firms who were qualified to do the project.

“We narrowed the list to six engineering firms, all of whom were qualified to do the project,” she states.

CH2M Hill “was among the six engineering firms on the short-list,” Wimberly adds.

Stop the bus. What is conveniently missing in Wimberly’s “declaration” is that several Mooresville commissioners in 2004 explicitly instructed town staff to include CH2M Hill on that “short-list.” In other words, the reason CH2M Hill was included was not because it was among the six most qualified. Wimberly also failed to mention that town board members were reportedly pressuring town staff to select CH2M Hill and that commissioners had already decided to hire CH2M Hill before town staff narrowed the field of firms to six.

Moving on…

Wimberly states in her “declaration” that “All of the short-list engineering firms … have performed similar work in the past. Based on their licensing and their experience, any of the six engineering firms on the short-list could have designed the Rocky River Treatment Plant.”

Actually, here’s how three of the six firms on that “short-list” – Black & Veatch (which town staff ultimately recommended to the town board), CDM (which was ranked second by town staff) and CH2M Hill (which the town board ultimately chose for the project) – stacked up to the town’s requirements, based on the firms' own submitted qualifications:

• Black & Veatch listed six projects in which it provided similar services as Mooresville’s in the region within the past eight years. CDM listed four. CH2M Hill listed one, which involved design improvements, modifications and upgrades to a treatment plant, not an expansion which is what the Town of Mooresville needs.
  
• Black & Veatch listed five treatment plant expansions similar in size to Mooresville’s that it had designed in the region within the past eight years. CDM listed one. CH2M Hill listed none.
  
• Black & Veatch’s proposed team included 19 employees that had worked together on a project, which was substantially more than the proposed teams of any other firms. Additionally, the teams listed in the proposals from Black & Veatch and CDM contained more professionally licensed individuals than the team proposed by CH2M Hill.
  
• Though it wasn’t addressed in the Statements of Qualifications, we have discovered in the past year that Black & Veatch, had it been hired instead of CH2M Hill, also would have known to consider phosphorous requirements before it began designing the town’s treatment plant expansion. CH2M Hill, on the other hand, said it was "unaware" of the phosphorous limits until its design was 60 percent complete. And that meant that the firm was going to need to go back and change some things in its design – to the tune of a requested additional $2 million from the Town of Mooresville ... as if we, the town's sewer customers, are expected to pay for the learning curve of such an "experienced, qualified firm." Wimberly was fully aware of the pending $2 million request for at least two weeks before she and CH2M Hill presented it to Mooresville's town board in August 2007. Yet Wimberly did not disclose the amount when a town commissioner specifically asked for it at a public meeting. But that’s another soap opera, for another day…

Back to the firm grading process:

So far, we've established that Wimberly, along with the other three town staff members (McMillan, Martin and Slocum), independently reviewed and graded the firms in 2004. Their review and grading was supposed to be based solely on the information in the firms’ own Statements of Qualifications – and how well those listed qualifications met town standards.

Judging from the first three bullet points above, Wimberly’s information in her “declaration” about CH2M Hill’s experience clearly did not come from the Statement of Qualifications that CH2M Hill itself submitted to the town’s engineering department.

And of all five engineering firms selected as finalists, CH2M Hill was ranked last -- that's right, last -- by all four town staff members, including – you guessed it – Tonia Wimberly.

In fact, Wimberly herself gave Black & Veatch a score of 51. She gave CDM a score of 43. She scored two other firms at 32 and 28. And her score for CH2M Hill: 27.

The highest attainable score was 55. The lowest was 11.

But, interestingly, Wimberly doesn’t mention any of that in her “declaration.” Instead, she states: “CH2M Hill was an engineering firm that was and is qualified to perform the work on the project.

“The Town of Mooresville,” she added, “was required to select a qualified engineering firm based on that firm’s demonstrated competence and qualification for the type of professional services required …”

Again I ask: Where exactly was that “competence and qualification” demonstrated? It certainly wasn’t in CH2M Hill’s own Statement of Qualifications submitted to the town, which was the only information town staff was supposed to use in grading and recommending the firms.

Wimberly is correct when stating in her “declaration” that “The Board of Commissioners for the Town of Mooresville had the final say in selection of the engineering firm that the Board believed was best qualified to perform the work on the Project.”

And, indeed, that board in 2004 hijacked the professional opinion of our town staff -- including Wimberly -- who recommended Black & Veatch for Mooresville’s treatment plant expansion. Town commissioners instead chose CH2M Hill, the firm that town staff – and (should I state it again?) Wimberly herself – ranked least qualified for the job.

Wimberly states in her “declaration”: “The Board’s selection of CH2M Hill was in compliance with the requirements of” state statutes. She doesn't mention, though, that the board was supposed to, but didn't, follow state statutes that regulate the selection of an engineering firm.

Even if the town board's selection of CH2M Hill was 100 percent compliant with state statutes, the question is: was its selection the best one for our town?

And Wimberly doesn’t address that either. Why? Well, I could speculate a number of reasons. Among them:

• Wimberly fears repercussions from town administration and/or elected officials. After all, her colleagues, McMillan and Martin, were fired for standing up for the taxpayers of this town. Why would she risk that?
  
• The town’s “Manager of Engineering” position – once held by McMillan – is vacant and currently being advertised.
  
• Wimberly is friends with JD Solomon, the Vice President and Carolinas Area Manager of CH2M Hill. (Solomon is the same guy, by the way, who put on a show at two different board meetings, saying per the advice of CH2M Hill “counsel,” he would need permission from town commissioners to speak to them since the town and CH2M Hill have a communication protocol which states that CH2M Hill will converse about the project only with town staff. Interestingly, Commissioner Frank Rader, in one of those same public meetings, disclosed that he had a lunch meeting with Solomon that week to discuss some aspects of the project. And rumor has it that Solomon at least tried to meet with other town commissioners, also outside the presence of the public, town staff and administrators. Hmph. So much for Solomon’s “above-board adherence” to the communication protocol…)

But Solomon isn’t the subject here.

The Rules of Professional Conduct for Engineers and Surveyors, Section 21 NCAC 56.0701 (d)(1), states that a licensee – which would include Tonia Wimberly – “shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner and ... shall be objective and truthful in all professional reports, statements or testimony."

Is Tonia Wimberly being truthful and objective? You decide.

MSIEDC should operate more publicly before receiving more public funds

“The public has a right to know how their tax funds are being used. If the EDC does not want to be subject to such provisions, the EDC ought to keep its hands out of the public coffers.” (Cabarrus County Commissioner in 2006)

Not to change the subject, but the Mooresville Downtown Commission isn’t the only “outside agency” asking the Town of Mooresville for public funding this year.

The Mooresville-South Iredell Economic Development Corporation (MSIEDC) wants $100,000.

Last year, the MSIEDC happily skipped away with $95,000 in public funds from the town. Then in January, the organization asked its executive director, Melanie O’Connell Underwood, to resign. In the following days, the Charlotte Observer apparently asked the MSIEDC for Underwood's salary. And in turn, the MSIEDC turned up its nose to the press and the people, basically saying that how it chooses to spend our money is none of our business. In fact, Sara Haire Tice, chair of the MSIEDC board of directors, was quoted in newspapers saying: “we … will not allow our internal business decisions, especially those involving the livelihoods of our employees, to become topics of public debate and display.”

The MSIEDC, since it is a “public-private” entity, does not technically have to disclose its financial information ... despite the fact that it’s funded in large part by tax dollars.

But that could soon change.

The Town of Mooresville has not yet voted on the MSIEDC’s funding for the upcoming fiscal year. And four town commissioners – Thurman Houston, Mac Herring, Miles Atkins and Chris Carney – said this week that they’d like to see the MSIEDC operate more publicly. The other two commissioners – Mitch Abraham and Frank Rader – disagree. (Actually, I can’t say with certainty that Rader disagrees. He told me in December 2006, when I was freelancing for the Tribune, that the MSIEDC should not operate publicly. But he did not respond to several Report e-mails in the last few days, asking if he stands by his 2006 comments.)

Commissioner Thurman Houston, however, said on Monday: “Personally, I would like to see that their financial statement was public record.” However, he added, “As a commissioner, I would need a few questions answered” first.

And that’s understandable. Most would agree that some aspects of economic development should remain confidential … but only for a limited period of time. But, as Commissioner Mac Herring put it, some “happy medium” should be reached so the MSIEDC can maintain the confidentiality of the businesses it’s trying to recruit to southern Iredell and the public can know how its money is being spent.

Commissioner Miles Atkins said this week: “I would expect there to be oversight and accountability for any organization that receives public funding.” The MSIEDC, Atkins said, “should be accountable for those tax dollars by operating publicly, and I would add that as a stipulation to their funding this year.”

Atkins was sworn into office in December 2007 – one month before Underwood was asked to resign. “You may be surprised to learn that since taking office in December, and with the termination of the executive director shortly thereafter, the MSIEDC has not officially communicated with the town board, to my knowledge, as to what their intentions are and where they are headed,” Atkins said.

So it sounds as though at least one town commissioner is as much in the dark as the taxpayers … which is indeed surprising, considering the mayor is also the secretary of the MSIEDC board.

Commissioner Chris Carney said in December 2006, and reaffirmed this week, that he believes the MSIEDC should operate more publicly. “(The MSIEDC) is using public money,” he said. “We understand the need for closed-session meetings when conducting deals, but after the deals are done, the information should be made public.

“I would want to see a happy medium between making sure public funds are being used appropriately, providing some openness, but not taking away from the competitiveness of the economic development group,” Carney added.

In FY2006, the Town of Mooresville and Iredell County approved a combined total of $201,180 specifically for economic development purposes. In FY2007, the MSIEDC – which reportedly has an annual income of $415,550 – received $209,230 in public funds, including $95,000 from the Town of Mooresville and $114,230 from Iredell County.

This year, the MSIEDC is asking for $100,000 from the Town of Mooresville and, according to newspaper reports, $117,000 from Iredell County. All public contributions are sent directly to the MSIEDC.

Despite those public contributions, two town commissioners – Mitch Abraham and Frank Rader – said in December 2006 that they do not believe the MSIEDC should operate publicly.

Abraham, in an e-mail to the Report on Monday, said he stands by his 2006 statements. “To my knowledge the MSIEDC is not a public body and confidentiality is a must,” he wrote.

Though Rader did not respond to this week’s e-mails, he said in December 2006 that “economic development with the town board is closed session with minutes sealed until fruition or not. Until economic development gets to the town board as a deal, the talk/negotiation and name of parties should stay very close to the vest. Otherwise, there will be no deal.”

Making the MSIEDC adhere to the public laws, Rader said in 2006, “would invert the effectiveness of our economic development, to the delight of every competitor in North Carolina and out. We compete with the nation and the world for economic development and need to build our deals quickly and quietly.”

Added Abraham at that time: “We did not make a stipulation that the new MSIEDC run by the open meetings act. It was not a discussion that was brought up in any meeting I attended.”

Carney said that was a mistake that the town board made. “We should have requested that at times when appropriate, the information should be made public. We did not discuss that. That’s our mistake, and it’s something we should keep in mind for next year’s request.”

The request wasn’t made that particular year, but Carney said this week he feels the same now as he did then. “I appreciate you bringing this back up,” he said, adding that he will address the topic when the town discusses the MSIEDC’s funding. It’s unclear exactly when that will happen.

“Anybody who receives public funding should be accountable,” Carney said Monday.

And contrary to what some might say, the arrangement can be carried out successfully. For example, Cabarrus County’s Economic Development Corporation (CEcD) was reorganized in August 2004. And as a stipulation of public funding, Cabarrus County included in its contract with the CEcD the requirement to adhere to the state’s public records and open meetings laws.

“All meeting minutes, annual audits, etc. are available for public review,” said CEcD Executive Director Ryan McDaniels in December 2006. Additionally, he said, “In our contract with Cabarrus County, it states that we follow the N.C. open meetings law.”

However, he added, “We do go into closed session in accordance with (N.C. General Statute) 143-318.11. This allows us to discuss confidentially businesses that may be looking to move or expand in Cabarrus County.”

McDaniels said in 2006 that the CEdC’s total annual budget is $734,000, with $553,000 of that being from municipalities’ public money. Private contributions account for approximately $181,000 of the CEcD’s annual budget, he added.

“With this amount of money,” said one Cabarrus County Commissioner, “the EDC (economic development corporation) ought to comply with the state’s public records and open meetings laws.

“The public has a right to know how their tax funds are being used. If the EDC does not want to be subject to such provisions, the EDC ought to keep its hands out of the public coffers.”

To the contrary, Mooresville’s Abraham said in 2006, and reaffirmed this week, that while he is “100 percent for our compliance to the open meetings and public records act,” he is opposed to adding a stipulation to the MSIEDC’s public funding that would require the organization to adhere to the public records and open meetings laws.

“Many economic development contacts need confidentiality for many reasons,” Abraham said. “I believe in this system. Its past accomplishments in Mooresville-South Iredell are very apparent and monumentally successful. Why change a system that has this type of success?”

Rader agreed. “Mooresville has very effective, efficient, productive and envied economic development program which the Town of Mooresville trusts and supports,” he said in 2006.

Added Abraham: “The Chamber and Melanie (O’Connell Underwood) have operated with great integrity and confidentiality in the past.” That’s why, he said, “no one brought up the notion of the open meetings rules.”

The Danger of Only One Idea

"Nothing is more dangerous than an idea when it is the only one you have." ~Emily Chartier

From time to time, I hope to pull valid ideas from the comments section and give them a little more attention, particularly if they challenge my thinking.

Here was a comment posted on the Report this morning:

The Charlotte Observer reported yesterday that “downtown commission members say the new director must meet measurable goals, such as increasing investment, business growth, residential development and entertainment, or be fired”. How about the current director.

Opponents and proponents alike agree he is not meeting these qualifications, yet he “announced” in January that he will be staying on for another six months. MDC Board: The proof is in the pudding. If you want the taxpayers of this town to back the downtown commission, and if you want to convince us that you are indeed going to start being accountable with our tax dollars, you must start now – by firing Wayne Frick.

Ouch. The truth always hurts.

So basically what this person is saying to the Mooresville Downtown Commission board is this: put our money where your mouth is.

You cannot retain an under-performing director for three more months and then have people believe that you won't do it with the next guy. Truly, if the MDC board wants the taxpayers' blessing on this year's funding, it must prove now that it means business. And make no mistake about it – the MDC board is going to need the taxpayers on its side if it expects to be funded year after year after year.

Right now, the MDC has a lot of momentum and a lot of community support. But if the board members truly made a statement like the one that the Observer reported – and they still decide to let Wayne Frick ride out the next three months, when not one person (including MDC opponents) have come to Frick's defense – I think the MDC board will have a lot of explaining to do.

Then again, I'm only one person. What are your thoughts?

Commissioner Abraham comments on the MDC funding

Ward 1 Commissioner Mitch Abraham e-mailed me a short while ago, responding to yesterday's e-mail to elected officials asking about their stances on funding the Mooresville Downtown Commission (MDC).

Commissioners Mac Herring, Chris Carney and Miles Atkins responded yesterday. I still have not heard from Mayor Bill Thunberg or Commissioners Thurman Houston and Frank Rader

Here are Abraham's e-mailed comments:

"Chris (Carney) cc'd me his email reply yesterday to your questions. My thoughts were somewhat similar in that I didn't want to give any individual comments because I didn't want to speculate on the MDC's report that was coming to us this morning and wanted to hear their presentation.

"They gave a good presentation and have some points that are valid," wrote Abraham, whose ward includes part of the downtown area. He stated that one of the "most notable" points that the MDC made in its presentation this morning is that "the present MDC board is filled with new blood and they have very progressive ideas on how to move the MDC to be a player on the (economic development) level, mainly by getting an active (executive director) and ruling with a stiff hand to make the Downtown a vibrant and economic producing entity!!"

Also, Abraham wrote, "The increased cost is not that much, an (additional $15,000) from what we have been funding the last several years. I have more comments but will get back to you later as we discuss it on the board level."

The MDC has received around $45,000 annually from the Town of Mooresville in recent years. This year, it's asking for $60,000, in part to help offset the salary of a new executive director since its long-time director, Wayne Frick, announced he will retire in June.

Which way is the wind blowing for MDC funding?

How town commissioners will eventually vote on funding the Mooresville Downtown Commission (MDC) is anyone’s guess. But the day before they’re expected to hear a presentation by the MDC’s board of directors, it appears at least two of the six town commissioners will vote to fund the MDC.

A reader, responding to my April 2 blog entry (Why nix downtown funding now?), asked me to track down Mayor Bill Thunberg’s official position on the MDC issue. So I tried.

In fact, I decided to track down the positions of all seven elected officials, including Thunberg and Commissioners Mac Herring, Frank Rader, Chris Carney, Miles Atkins, Thurman Houston and Mitch Abraham.

I sent an e-mail at 11 a.m. today to their town e-mail accounts. (By the way, Mooresville taxpayers provide BlackBerry wireless e-mail devices to elected officials, enabling them to send and receive e-mails wherever and whenever they may roam.) I asked all seven elected officials to provide and elaborate on their stances regarding the MDC, and I requested responses by 6 p.m. Of the seven, I heard back from three: Ward 3 Commissioner Mac Herring, Ward 4 Commissioner Chris Carney and At-Large Commissioner Miles Atkins.

Ward 1 Commissioner Mitch Abraham and Ward 2 Commissioner Thurman Houston – whose districts include the downtown area – did not respond. Neither did Thunberg or At-Large Commissioner Frank Rader.

Herring, who says he’ll vote to fund the MDC, had already posted his position as a comment on my April 2 blog entry. He wrote: “I will levy one of the 6 votes to support our Down Town. The Down Town is in a time of change, and needs our support as much if not more so than at any other time.”

Herring also stated that he will work to ensure that downtown remains a “vital part of our economic infrastructure, just as my family has done for generations.”

Atkins, whose wife owns a downtown business and is chairman of the MDC, said he supports the efforts and direction that the current MDC board of directors is taking the downtown commission. He also said he believes that those board members “should be afforded the opportunity to bring a new executive director on board to demonstrate how effective and accountable it (the MDC) can be with a respected, talented and qualified director to help move it forward.”

Additionally, Atkins said he would support extending/expanding the downtown district, which would increase the amount of money the MDC receives. The district tax is 16 cents per $100 valuation.

As an aside, in e-mails that circulated through downtown businesses recently, a Main Street lawyer accused the Atkins’, because of their positions, of having a “direct ethical conflict.” Miles Atkins publicly disclosed in a recent budget meeting that his wife, Kim, is indeed the MDC chairman.

If I recall correctly, Town Attorney Steve Gambill said at a town board meeting some time ago that unless an elected official stands to directly financially benefit from a matter being voted on, that elected official is required by law to vote.

But back to the elected officials' stances on the MDC:

Though Carney said it’s difficult to answer a question about his stance on the downtown commission before tomorrow morning’s presentation by the MDC board, “I know the MDC has gone through great trouble and effort to be able to present a vision for the Downtown," he said.

“My position has always been one of accountability,” Carney added. “We need to understand what the return is on the taxpayers' investment. That was the question I raised 3 years ago and still today. Any organization that requests money should be able to answer one simple question: how is Mooresville better off for the investment by the citizens’ money?”

Carney also asked: “If we were not going to hold funding back in the past, then what has triggered a change in philosophy?”

That's the question a lot of people are asking.

To the person asking me to get Thunberg's official position: sorry I couldn't accomplish that today. Perhaps those of you reading would have better luck. If you're interested -- for this issue or any in the future -- here are your elected officials' e-mail addresses:

bthunberg@ci.mooresville.nc.us (Bill Thunberg)
frankrader@ci.mooresville.nc.us (Frank Rader)
mabraham@ci.mooresville.nc.us (Mitch Abraham)
thouston@ci.mooresville.nc.us (Thurman Houston)
ccarney@ci.mooresville.nc.us (Chris Carney)
mherring@ci.mooresville.nc.us (Mac Herring)
matkins@ci.mooresville.nc.us (Miles Atkins)

Why nix downtown funding now?

The Mooresville Downtown Commission may soon find out its fate.

Several members of the MDC’s board of directors, coinciding with their annual request for public funding, plan to make a presentation about the value and future of the MDC during a Friday-morning agenda briefing for Mooresville commissioners. The commissioners’ regular monthly meeting is scheduled for Monday, April 7, at 6 p.m.

In recent years, the Town of Mooresville has given the MDC between $40,000 and $45,000 annually. But this year – due mainly to the upcoming retirement of longtime MDC Executive Director Wayne Frick – the MDC is asking for $60,000, mostly to offset a new director’s salary.

Frick has been executive director of the MDC since one year after the organization was formed in 1987. He plans to retire in June.

One or two downtown business owners are using the retirement as a convenient excuse to attempt to nix the MDC, just at the time when all the right people are in place to move our downtown forward and make the MDC the organization it always should have been.

Interestingly, according to its very own website, the MDC “plays a vital role in the success of downtown Mooresville.” Working with civic leaders and merchants, the MDC “has kept the economic vitality and main street values going and growing strong in Mooresville for generations,” the website reads.

The MDC, funded by local government and business and property owners, “develops strategic plans to make downtown economically attractive to citizens, customers, visitors, and other businesses,” states the website, adding that “Mooresville is a great locale for business because it has great people with traditional American values.”

The town also apparently has people who can’t seem to accept change or let go of the reigns of control.

The one or two downtown business owners – including Mayor Bill Thunberg, who owns a Main Street jewelry store – are pushing to abolish the downtown commission, reportedly arguing that the district tax (16 cents per $100 of valuation) to help float the MDC isn’t paying dividends.

So after two decades, they are now apparently arguing that each business should promote and advertise itself, and the MDC has not done much for them in the past.

A couple of others are contending that the MDC executive director should be a Chamber employee or, even more absurd, a town employee … who would report to – you guessed it – the mayor.

On the other hand, another group of downtown business owners and major investors believe that the MDC’s full potential can finally become a reality. They want to help shape Mooresville’s downtown into a vibrant retreat and destination.

This particular group of business owners and investors want to search for a competent, dynamic director with experience and an expansive, futuristic vision for downtown – someone who knows how to vigorously pursue grants and how to recruit and retain professional, quality shops, boutiques, galleries and restaurants – someone with an open mind and an eclectic flair who recognizes the value and uniqueness of a downtown like Mooresville’s – someone whose goal it is to attract a variety of people and businesses to a downtown that desperately needs a shot (or five) of adrenaline injected into it.

Call me an optimist, but I can’t figure out why anybody wouldn’t want to jump all over such an opportunity – and why any elected official who has voted to fund the MDC in the past would not vote to fund it now.

Either the MDC website has been lying to us, or it has been telling the truth and somebody wants to sabotage it. I don’t know which is worse.

A question to our elected officials: After years of providing many hundreds of thousands of dollars to a shoddy-run MDC – and apparently providing those tax dollars for more than a dozen years before the organization had even adopted bylaws – why would anyone consider nixing the MDC’s funding now?

A question to the downtown business owner(s) who say the MDC has never worked for them: Where were you a year ago, or a year before that, or a year before that, or five years before that? You’ve been paying an extra tax for the MDC for years, and we are to believe that all the while the system has been failing you? Where was the talk about dissolving the MDC while Wayne Frick was the executive director?

In years past, town commissioners have rubber-stamped a $45,000 check to the MDC which in turn threw a few token community events, then kicked back and called it a year.

But as soon as the MDC gains a new-school, progressive chairman and a board of directors that seeks accountability … at the same time that outdated, dilapidated buildings and stores are giving way to fresh, trendy shops and restaurants … at the moment when major investors sink roots and millions in downtown and start splashing fresh coats of vibrant paint on storefronts … at the time when we receive the resignation of the only executive director the MDC has ever had – who was given the job 20 years ago because, like everyone else running this town, he had friends in the right places and Belk’s Department Store on his resume – that is when we decide to question our annual contribution to the downtown commission?

Something doesn’t add up.