Highland County commission, Village of Greenfield sparring over 2 separate financial issues

With apologies to Yogi Berra, it was déjà vu all over again Wednesday, April 26 during the Highland County commission meeting. Individuals from the Village of Greenfield attended a third meeting this month to discuss a federal funding request, while Greenfield City Manager Todd Wilkin and county commissioners engaged in their third public disagreement over finances — on four separate issues — in the past five months.  

As previously reported, the village of Greenfield was one of several local municipalities seeking a share of the county’s American Rescue Plan (ARPA) funds. The village submitted a request for funding to the county in 2022, seeking $550,000 for their Downtown Facade Improvement Program for small business owners.

Wednesday marked the third straight week representatives from the Village of Greenfield had attended a meeting regarding their funding request.

Main Street development coordinator Susan Howland attended the commission’s April 12 meeting, asking for “an update on Greenfield’s request for the ARPA funds.” At that meeting, commission president Terry Britton said he had initially thought they would be voting on it April 12 but that the project would be “awarded very, very soon.”

Howland and finance director Gary Lewis of the Village of Greenfield next attended the April 19 meeting. Lewis said the village wanted to seek another update and offer any assistance the county might need in granting their request.

Britton said at that time they are still “working on it.” Commissioner David Daniels responded that they have “paperwork to clear up,” but that it is the county’s “desire to get it done as quickly as possible.” Britton added, “You’re not the only ones waiting. We’re diligently working through all of them.”

Lewis offered any assistance in helping “expedite things along,” saying the commissioners could call or stop by his office anytime.

On Wednesday, April 26, Daniels solved the mystery of the holdup, as he told representatives from the village of Greenfield that the county was waiting to “clear up a misunderstanding” between the county and the village of Greenfield on an unrelated matter involving the Workforce Development Center.

According to the conversation held in open session Wednesday, the county has invoiced and is waiting for a payment from the village of Greenfield for the center, while Wilkin said the village cannot make a payment because a contract between the parties does not exist.

Daniels said it was “a shame that we need to” address the issue, “but we’re going to.” He said that the Workforce Development Center, announced in November 2021 and opened in Greenfield in October 2022, was a part of both the economic development plans for both the county and the village of Greenfield.

“We had a commitment from the city [sic] of Greenfield for $1,000 a month to continue to pay for the lease payments that we've got,” Daniels said. “I’ve got a copy of that unqualified letter here. There are no qualifications on this letter whatsoever. It doesn't say anything about ‘with the signing of this.’ I think we viewed this as a commitment from the city of Greenfield.”

The letter from Wilkin — addressed to Highland County Economic Development Director Julie Bolender and carbon-copied to Bivens and Lewis — is dated Nov. 2, 2021. In it, Wilkin says, “The Village of Greenfield will partner with the Highland County Commissioners and pledge a $1,000 per month to develop our local workforce for the next three years.”  

“We’ve tried to bill for that,” Daniels said. “We haven't gotten any money back. We’ve been told that you're not going to participate in that program. I hope that's wrong, because I hope that we were able to take this as a commitment and a word for as an honest attempt to be a partner in this.

“Everybody else has met their commitment to this, and I think that we need to come to an understanding about what the city’s commitment’s going to be, and if they choose not to commit, then I think that we've got other opportunities available to us.”

Daniels said the county does “want to be a participant with your success” in Greenfield, but “we never promised anybody anything.

“We told people that came in that we were going to work on it,” he said. “Nobody in the outside agencies got everything that they want. But we have set aside $375,000 for the city of Greenfield’s program, so when we can clear up this misunderstanding about the workforce center, then I think that we can proceed with this.”

Wilkin said there is not a “misunderstanding.”

“Any reasonable person looking at this would say this was a commitment to us,” Daniels said. “If we need to clear paperwork as far as an MOU [memorandum of understanding], or as far as a contract is concerned, that's fine. We can do that.”

According to Wilkin’s comments, the county has made an attempt to bill the village for this “commitment.” The village responded to the county March 5, asking for a formal contract, “and we have not seen a contract since,” he said.

“If you weren't going to honor this, then you should have called us, and we would not have proceeded,” Daniels said.

“We were waiting for a contract from your office,” Wilkin said. “Our law director is here. I've been directed on all documents that I'm not to pay from or sign an MOU unless it is an MOU between police agencies. It's not a legal document. I pledged to pay $1,000 a month.”

“You’re saying your signature is not worth the paper it’s printed on,” Daniels said.

“No, I'm saying that is a pledge,” Wilkin said. “From a contractual standpoint, a legal standpoint, that document means nothing. We say ‘get us a contract,’ yet we haven't seen a contract. For the past three weeks, we're waiting on paperwork for something that isn't even affiliated with ARPA.”

Daniels said he had “an MOU right here.” Wilkin responded that the village “doesn’t sign MOUs, we sign contracts, which is exactly what we told you guys March 5.”

Greenfield council member Phil Clyburn then asked Greenfield law director Hannah Bivens to clarify the village’s policy.

“I explained to Todd that it would be relevant to have a contract so we understand what the commitment is from both parties,” Bivens said.

“That’s what’s holding up your program, guys,” Daniels said. “I’m just going to tell you. That’s what’s holding up your program.”

“So paperwork for a contract that isn’t associated with the ARPA,” Wilkin said.

“I mean, once again, I've said this, we want to participate,” Daniels said. “But we want to be dealt with in what we believe is in a fair manner. I think that most everybody up here believes this to be a commitment from the city of Greenfield. Whether you do or not, we believe it to be.”

“Mr. President, that commitment letter was written in November of 2021,” Wilkin said. “The commissioners’ office has had over a year and a half to prepare a contract. You haven't even given us a chance to even fall back on our word.

“Send us the contract in November of 2021. The story would have been far different, I’m sure.”

“So you say that you were willing to do it then, but you're not now,” Daniels said.

“We don’t have a contract,” Wilkin said.

Britton responded that the county “said we would get a contract or an MOU.” Wilkin said that is what the village is “waiting on.”

Wilkin added that he doesn’t “understand why a commitment not affiliated with” the ARPA funds is “holding up” the county’s commitment to award those federal funds to the village.

That led to yet another back-and-forth between Daniels and Wilkin, with Wilkin insisting there is “no contract” and Daniels asserting “a promise was made” by Wilkin “to fund” the Workforce Development Center and that his “refusal” to do so was holding up their ARPA award.

“When this gets settled, we can proceed,” Daniels said.

Wilkin again told commissioners, “Send us a contract.” Britton said they would.

Before Wilkin and Daniels could engage in another argument, Britton said it was time to “move on,” as they had “beat that horse enough.”

“Amen,” commissioner Brad Roades said.

However, Britton said he thought it seemed that Wilkin had “pulled back” from his original agreement. Wilkin insisted there was “no contract to pull back from” and that he could not pay an invoice without an official agreement in place.

“We’ll get you the paperwork,” Britton said.

As noted at the article’s outset, this is the third finance-related issue between commissioners and Wilkin since November.

Wilkin and land bank representatives, including Britton and former commissioner Jeff Duncan, engaged in a heated discussion at the Nov. 17 land bank board meeting.

At that meeting, and in correspondence for several months leading up to that date, Wilkin alleged that the land bank had “failed to meet” expectations in an MOU regarding the demolition of the Elliott Hotel, using state grant dollars. Commissioners argued that the village took money from “our” (the county land bank’s) million dollars in state fund by applying separately for funding for a former power plant, claiming the village did that without notifying the county, an assertion Wilkin denied.

The issue later was resolved with the land bank board contributing nearly $50,000 toward the property demolition.

Although far less heated, on March 29, it took two appointments in the same day for commissioners to agree to honor their commitment to contribute $125,000 in grant match dollars toward Greenfield’s $3.4 million rail line project. Wilkin attended the 9 a.m. meeting to seek information on how to “draw down” that funding, earmarked for the grant awarded to the village in 2020, ahead of a meeting on financing March 30.

Commissioners first said they had to “take a look” at the request and could “get back with you next week.” They ended up returning to open session five and a half hours later and told Wilkin they had determined they had “the funds to take care of this.”

Back to Wednesday’s meeting, commissioners heard from several other village representatives regarding Greenfield’s Facade Improvement Program. Prior to the exchange between Daniels and Wilkin, those individuals gave testimonials on this program’s impact on their buildings and on local businesses.

Attending the meeting were Bivens, whom Wilkin said benefited from the program; Clyburn; business owner Pat Hays, whom Wilkin said is awaiting funding for his property; and Lewis.

“I think it was 2021 when we started the program,” Wilkin said. “We took all of our coronavirus money, and we wanted to invest it back into the businesses in the downtown. For the first year — really, 2021 to 2022 — a lot of work happened. Last year, we were able to celebrate 15 ribbon cuttings in the downtown. That’s a pretty big deal when you look at what that money was intended to do.”

Wilkin clarified that the program is called a “Facade Improvement Program,” but improvements are for “the building envelope,” including roofing, windows, heating and air, as well as painting and other improvements.

Bivens said that her property, which is actually owned by her mother, received $15,000 from the program, “which was utilized to redo the front, do some painting to the exterior and change the facade, and then also to install a new roofing system on the building.

“Since then, we've been able to use some of our own money to improve the side of the building, which kind of been an eyesore for quite a while,” Bivens said. “Hopefully we'll have some exciting things happening on that side of building coming up.”

(Later in the meeting, Clyburn said there are plans for a mural celebrating the Patterson and Sons Company on the side of Bivens’ building, with a dedication ceremony planned for June 3.)

Wilkin said the village’s initial $15,000 served as a “catalyst to more opportunity,” both for future improvements and for drawing more businesses to the area.     

“That’s what it was intended to do,” he said.

Hays has filed an application for funding, as he said he has a goal to make a community area similar to Hillsboro’s Colony Park at the site of a now-demolished building.

“We'd like to make it a like a park setting,” Hays said. “We'd like to put concrete in the front, have lights up. We'd like to have benches, possibly tables.

“We can have the farmers’ market there, and we could have the First Friday parties at that location.”

Hays also shared photos of several Greenfield storefronts with commissioners, including Robbins Village Florist, Old Town Pizzeria and the Judkins and Hayes law firm, as well as the building formerly owned by Dr. Eric Borsini, that have been remodeled in the village.

“I just want to emphasize that the downtown business owners and the property owners appreciate the commitment from the commissioners of the ARPA money that I believe is going to be coming to Greenfield,” Hays said.

Hays said that whatever contribution made by the county will “be doubled.” Bivens explained that is because “it's a half grant, half revolving loan fund” used to continue the program.

“You get half as grant money, but then also half of the money is collected back to the village over a five-year period at zero-percent interest,” Bivens said. “We reissue that every year so that we can continue to have development in the downtown. “This will be the second year we'll be getting payments back, and we've already had to issue out additional funds to new applicants based upon the award that the village received.”

“It's very important,” Hays added. “We appreciate your support, and I personally appreciate the city of Greenfield and their downtown facade program.”

Roades thanked Hays for his presentation, and Britton agreed that the village has had “a lot” of improvements.

From there, the conversation turned to Britton summarizing the county’s ARPA funding situation. As has been previously reported, the total of the requests — which included asks from Hillsboro, the Highland County Water Company, the Highland County Engineer’s Office, the Highland County Agricultural Society, Highland County Children Services, the Paint Creek Joint EMS/Fire District and Highland County Community Action, as well as from the village of Greenfield — was around $16 million, while the county actually received nearly $8.4 million in federal grant monies.

Britton said they had already decided to devote roughly half of the $8.4 million toward county sewer improvements, leaving them with “three to four million” dollars for other request.

“We set aside money for six out of the 10 projects,” Britton said. “We tried to stretch our money to the point where we could help everybody a little bit.

“So Greenfield, they're going to get a certain amount of money. They're not going to get their ask, but you're going to be close. Everybody that put in for it, we had to trim the dollars down just to get it stretched out enough to where it would help everybody.”

During his address to the Greenfield representatives later, Daniels said that every municipality in the county, including townships, received their own ARPA funds. “Not once did anybody come to us and say ‘we'd like to help you guys in some small way,’” he said. “Not one. But a lot of people came to us and asked.”

Wilkin disagreed, saying that he offered to facilitate conversations between the county and the township trustees on ARPA funding plans. “We have assisted, offered help,” he said.

Britton told the group that the ARPA dollars are “helping everybody in the county. We’re not really spending it on ourselves. We're spending it on projects that need to be done throughout” the county.

Hays pointed out that the village of Greenfield’s new businesses that are coming to their downtown area also benefit the county as a whole.

“I own seven properties in downtown Greenfield, and I can tell you that five years ago, out of seven properties, five of them were empty, and they had been empty for quite a while,” Hays said “That's quite an economic burden for any business owner.  I'm happy to say with the activities that are going on now with trying to make the downtown look beautiful, I have no empty buildings now. Those are businesses that have been brought into this county, that benefits everyone, not just Greenfield.”

Clyburn added that the downtown area is part of the village’s overall economic development plan, as they use their vibrant downtown to attract larger businesses, and keep current ones, in the area.

“This is a big deal to us,” Clyburn said. “This is part of our economic development plan, which we follow, fairly close, so we'd like to go ahead and continue to grow.”

Clyburn presenting that economic development plan was what prompted Daniels to speak about the dispute between the village and county on the workforce development center.