St. Albans City Manager, Dominic Cloud has picked an odd fight with State Auditor, Doug Hoffer over the findings of the auditor’s recent report on the City’s TIF district which identified multiple compliance issues.  

The controversy has seen City dignitaries, including Emerson Lynn, editor of the St. Albans Messenger join Mr. Cloud in circling the wagons of outraged denial with such fury that it invites comment.  Mr. Cloud has somehow enlisted the cooperation of VEPC (Vermont Economic Progress Council) to change the rules, after the fact; thus, bringing the City’s TIF decisions back into compliance.

That’s a pretty neat trick, one that many a private sector business would envy; but as a City taxpayer, I still have a few of questions.

The anger and vitriol exhibited by Mr. Cloud and his colleagues in their response to what is, after all, a professional opinion, is most unbecoming.  I have read the full report and see no cause for the tone of these responses.  

The City made some errors in administering its TIF.  VEPC’s decision to change the rules after the fact does not alter that simple fact.  We can choose to regard those as innocent errors rather than cynical manipulations to cheat the system, but it doesn’t help the situation to try and paint the auditor as some kind of villain. You know the old line about protesting too much?

The reason we have a State Auditor is that public entities in the same interest spheres as their economic “partners” (or clients) should not be relied upon to impartially judge the legal boundaries of how those “partners” manage the assets they have been given.  VEPC has rightly been characterized as a “partner” to the cities entrusted with TIF designation.  For that support, St. Albans City should rightly be grateful; but VEPC should not be in a position to arbitrarily move the boundary lines of compliance when one of its ‘clients’ oversteps. 

In any case, all of the issues raised by the audit report have not been resolved in the City’s favor.  VEPC has no jurisdiction over the taxes the City failed to pay for the Public Garage.  That issue has been conveniently omitted in the fevered reports of full exoneration.  What’s the story on that?