Overpriced cities - money allocated to Fund of Development of Monotowns went for salaries of officials
The Audit Chamber revealed inefficient use of the funds of the federal budget allocated to the non-profit organization Fund of Development of Monotowns. For example, salary of its employees averaged 280 thousands, and of the CEO – nearly 1 million rubles.
Auditors of the Audit Chamber found out that for November 16, 2016 the Fund of Development of Monotowns had unused 2.2 billion rubles on its balance from 7.5 billion sent to it in 2014-2015 in the form of subsidies. The checking commission came to a conclusion that the amount allocated to the Fund considerably exceeded its real requirements.
The Fund of Development of Monotowns was founded by Vnesheconombank, which fee constituted 16,4 million rubles. Earlier - in 2014, Vladimir Putin ordered the Government to begin financial support of monotowns with the most difficult economic and social situation. It was planned that from 2015 to 2017 regions would receive about 32 billion rubles on joint financing of a construction and reconstruction of the infrastructure necessary for implementation of investment projects. Money should have been sent to the Fund and from there should have been distributed according to its needs. At the same time, the government approved a possibility of an expenditure of these funds not only for projects on support of monotowns as it was initially entrusted by the president, but also for content of the Fund, provision of loans to legal entities, training of management teams of monotowns.
The Fund decided to use it. As the Audit Chamber notes, the salary level of employees of the Fund paid from the account of means of the federal budget was not limited by the Ministry of Economic Development. In case of total number in 57 people, the average monthly salary in 2015 constituted nearly 280 thousand rubles there. The biggest salary was paid to the CEO - nearly 1 million rubles. Total household expenses of the Fund for 2015-2016 exceeded 400 million rubles.
Besides, the Fund also spent money, allocated for development of monotowns, for training of "teams, project managers of development of monotowns". Knowledge gained in non-state educational institution the Moscow School of Management Skolkovo was estimated at nearly 850 thousand rubles for the person. According to auditors, it more than by 11 times exceeds average cost of training in similar programs in other educational organizations of the country. At the same time, as check commission found out, out of seven representatives from urban-type settlement Nadvoitsa of the Republic of Karelia, who were trained in Skolkovo – only two are related to implementation of investment projects in Nadvoitsa.
The presence of unused funds, according to the report of the Audit Chamber, did not mean that there were no objects for their development. For example, in 2015-2016 the Fund signed 16 agreements with regions on joint financing of projects on a construction and reconstruction of infrastructure facilities in monotowns, promising to allocate 8.2 billion rubles. However, as a result, the construction was finished only under 3 agreements - in the city of Anzhero-Sudzhensk and the Yurga city district of the Kemerovo region, and also in Naberezhnye Chelny of the Republic of Tatarstan. Under 4 agreements a little more than 500 million rubles were transferred.
But, taking into account that till January 1, 2016 the subsidy was transferred into the settlement account of Fund in Vnesheconombank, in two years nearly 260 million rubles in the form of percent collected there.
At the same time, money continues to be allocated to Fund, according to the approved plan – in 2016, 7.2 billion rubles were received. And, to the 2019th, the Ministry of Economic Development allocation of nearly 16 billion rubles is planned. At the same time in the ministry in case of reasons for budgetary appropriations there is no information on the estimated cost of investment projects, availability of the project documentation with the positive conclusion of state examination, decisions on provision of the parcels of land under a construction, and also about amounts of financial provision of projects at the expense of means of regional budgets.