Why does this town of Seine-et-Marne risk being deprived of millions of euros which should have accrued to it?

Two years after a first article, here we are again asking the same question: will the town hall of Montévrain (Seine-et-Marne) collect the millions owed to it by the Mixed Economy Company of Montévrain (SEMM)? In view of the inventory drawn up by a report of the Regional Court of Auditors revealed at the end of 2024, nothing is less certain. “The worrying financial and cash situation of SEMM […] weighs a major risk of loss for the municipalityfor an amount of 6 million euros at the end of 2022,” summarizes the Chamber. Consequently, it recommends the dissolution of the company “as quickly as possible”.

7.55 million euros in cumulative losses over 5 years

If the CRC is so alarmist, it is because the observation East overwhelming: against a backdrop of opaque management, marred by irregularities and a lack of control, the SEMM committed the profits which were to go to the municipality to finance private projects. These having mostly failed, she found herself in debt to the city. To the point that today, the city may never recover the 6 million owed to it.

But how could the SEMM get there, with 7.55 million euros in cumulative losses over 5 yearsbetween 2018 and 2023? According to the financial analysis carried out by the Chamber, it is indeed the diversification strategy undertaken by the SEMM since 2010 which caused its accounts to plummet.

But to fully understand, a reminder is perhaps necessary. The SEMM was created in 1990 to allow the city to control the development of two zones: the ZAC des Binâches (38 hectares) and the ZAC des Fresnes (75 hectares).

A disastrous diversification strategy

The city ​​hall, 77% shareholder of the company could thus decide what was done, while generating financial benefits. The operation was a success since between them, the ZACs generated a total result of 11 million euros, five of which were paid in advance to the city.

Since 2018 and 2020, however, the development of these two ZACs has been completed. They should have been returned to the cityand the SEMM should have been dissolved. But, since 2012, the board of directors, on which several elected officials from the municipality sit, has supported the company in a diversification strategy.

Objective :

Prepare the financial sustainability of the SEMM when the development of the ZACs is completed (in order to) generate a recurring source of income for the shareholder community.

SEMM has therefore created various private subsidiaries to carry out real estate development operations.

8 real estate transactions canceled out of 11

However, these activities have not met with the same success as the development of ZACs. Far from it… Of the 11 operations launched, eight were unsuccessful. Refusal or withdrawal of building permits, litigation, difficult relations with certain municipalities (such as in Pomponne) or certain partners… not to mention the health crisis, the causes of these failures are multiple. The consequences, on the other hand, are clear: charges and claims instead of profits. Over the period, the result of this activity is -2,51 millions.

Always to diversify its activity, the SEMM took pride inensure management activities. It thus operated the Le Millésime performance hall, which had to close during the pandemic, a senior residence, the Carré M shops… An activity which, again, turned out to be deficient .

Conclusion of the CRC:

The financial situation of SEMM is very worrying with negative equity since 2020 due to heavy losses generated by promotion and management activities.

Losses which were compensated by “ZAC bonuses” to the detriment of the municipality’s budget.

Many irregularities

In addition, the report lists numerous irregularities such as the non-compliance with public contracts, in particular for the construction of the auditorium, discrepancies and unexplained financial participations or even the opacity of the accounts to the point of “calling into question the regular, sincere and faithful character” of the latter, preventing the visualization of a clear and defined strategy.

Concerning diversification, the Chamber also considers that in itself, it was not not in compliance with the law since it is not in the local public interest. The argument put forward by the former general director, Christophe Noël, consisting of demanding the creation of social housing to justify a public interest, is not valid, judges the Court.

No control exercised by the town hall

The town hall is not spared either. According to the Court, the city of Montévrain “exercises no control over the activity of the SEMM” and “does not have any tool for monitoring the activity and financial situation of SEMM” despite its obligations as a majority shareholder. However, with 77% of the capital, the city has, estimates the Chamber, the “desire to maintain a determining influence”on the company's operations. However, this is public money.

The municipality was not unaware of the difficulties of the SEMM since it had undertaken not to demand payment of ZAC profits “until better fortunes”.

What consequences for the city budget?

For the opposition elected official, Olivier Pajot, who has been sounding the alarm for several years, the decision to maintain the SEMM is “incomprehensible” . “There was always this idea of ​​filling. With the sale of a parking lot, of the restaurant, today with a project like in the Fresnes district… But we had to close. Every year, we saw the accounts sinking and no elected member of the board of directors wanted to listen to our warnings. Seems like since it's not their money, they don't care. It saddens me because it’s a big disaster for the city,” he laments.

“Who will pay? »

If the report is very detailed on the findings, it does not advance on the consequenceswhat the closure of the SEMM would have for the city budget. Beyond being deprived of all or part of its bonuses, could the city be held accountable for SEMM's debts? When contacted, the town hall did not wish to answer our questions. In the report, the mayor, Christian Robache, simply indicated “to take note of the recommendations” and to “firmly regret the potential loss of ZAC bonuses” regarding “a real risk for the community” .

The Court advises him in all cases to provision an envelopein his budget. “That’s 6 million less and 8 million in equity. Who will pay? Will any projects be impacted? Without forgetting that we will have to recover the performance hall, which is a loss-making activity, that’s a lot of money to go out,” notes Olivier Pajot.

According to the SEML guide from the General Directorate of Local Authorities, “amicable dissolution entails, for the local authority, the obligation to participate in meeting any liabilities, in proportion to the capital held”. It remains to be seen how much the liability would be.

Follow all the news from your favorite cities and media by subscribing to Mon Actu.