Dear Commissioners: June 20, 2011 | Eastern North Carolina Now

   Publisher's Note: I rather enjoy Warren's missives about the governing of Beaufort County. He projects a well-considered opinion, which must be the product of a curious mind, which was well evidenced by his comments to the County Commissioners at the Budget Public Hearing, June 20, 2011.

    Much of the distrust of the Economic Development Commission is due to its lack of candor, lack of responsiveness and lack accountability. Please comment on the following concerns.


    On May 31, 2011, I wrote to the Executive Director (E.D.) of the Economic Development Commission (EDC) and yourselves regarding questions I had with the EDC Report of 2010.

Those questions remain unanswered and now I have several more:

    a.. The closing date stated for the 2010 Report is July 20, 2010.

    a.. Why does it include the grants approved on November 22 and December 14, 2010?

    b.. Why is no mention made that jobs hoped for from these two grants will be created over three and five year windows respectively? (source: NC One Fund)

    In both cases, dating and project timing are mismatchings of effort with its proper accounting period. For PAS, in particular, this inclines the reader to believe that the 230 jobs referred to in the grant notation existed in 2010. These jobs did not actually exist as of the Report date and may not ever exist.

    b.. "GRANTS" appears artificially increased by a $1,381,000 inclusion of grants postponed from 2008.

    a.. Since no benefit has accrued from these postponed grants during the period covered why are they included? Does this not seem to take credit for projects planned but never actually realized?

    c.. Is the City/County Grant section simply miscalculated? It favors the EDC by $150,000.

    d.. There was a three and one half year period where no grants of any kind were written. Why?


I also inquired regarding the lack of any definable methodology in the EDC Report 2010 concerning "JOBS". I have received no response. I would very much appreciate a response.


Let me be specific:

    a.. The E.D. claimed in a letter to me that 1194 jobs had been created, yet his report mentions 974. Which is it? Is it actually either of these numbers? Will this number be changing soon? Will jobs anticipated but not actualized as of the Report's date be culled from the total?

    b.. The Report data for Impressions in 2007 states 240 jobs at the firm as of 2007, however, the Washington Daily News reported on June 9, 2007 that Impressions had 162 employees. Later on August 31, 2007 the City Council of Washington, NC discussed 160 jobs at Impressions.

    How has the EDC justified this increase of 78 seemingly phantom jobs?

    c.. On December 14, 2010, the NC One Fund described PAS as an employer of 137, yet the EDC Report of 2010 reported 230 employees at PAS.

    How has the EDC justified this increase of 93 seemingly phantom jobs?

    On May 24, 2011, the E.D. of EDC wrote to me saying:

    "Prior to its (EDC/C100) creation, jobs were only going one way - down."

    a.. Why does he believe that jobs were "only going one way - down?" For the decade leading up to the EDC's creation the "Years: Jobs" data is (NC Employment Security Commission)

    b.. In 1990: 19,678 jobs; 1995: 18,274 jobs; 2000: 19,417 jobs


    In the EDC 2010 Power Point presentation slide 24 states: "Tier 1 Battle 2006/7 Session: Job Losses 50%". What possible basis can the Beaufort County EDC have for making this statement?

    a.. In November 2007 Beaufort County had record jobs: 20,429, Average jobs were 20,206.

    b.. Beaufort County unemployment was at 5.6%

    c.. The worst unemployment report in the last twenty years was in February 1996 at 13.2%

    These numbers from the NC State Employment Security Commission give absolutely no support to the EDC's remarks. It is outrageous to describe our local economy in such extreme terms. Why would any one make such a remark?


    Regarding the Washington Industrial Park:

    a.. On the Economic Development Commission website under the "Commercial Property" tab, the Brooks Boatworks are listed as a commercial property "For Sale". It is described as 5.57 acres, approx. 24,000 sq ft built in 2006 with addition in 2007. The price quoted is $725,000 sq ft. This would be roughly $30/sq ft.

    b.. On the same site the Quick Start Building II is listed as available. It is described as 50,000 sq ft building. I believe that it was built in 2007 at a cost to the tax payers of $2,400,000. This is a cost of $48 /sq ft.

    These two properties are across the street from each other on the industrial park map. Can I assume that they are comparable in value and location? Does this support the conclusion that the Quick Start Building II has a comparable property across the street from its location selling for $18/ sq ft less than we have invested in Quick Start Building II? Are we carrying an $900,000 loss at the current time?

    Do the commissioners feel that the tax payers are entitled to a wake up call yet?

   If tax payers are going to fund the Economic Development Commission's spending, then we are entitled to be provided with accurate information, defined methodologies and full disclosure.

   You are not providing it.