After so much talk about $20,000, interpretation, and judge and jury – FYN decided to look a little deeper at past purchasing by the County. We know the Gilmer County Civic Center went way over budget. The original estimate that was voted on by the previous BOC was $437,000.00.During the 3-24 BOC workshop a lot of discussion swirled around the County charter section 10. This section deals with the Board of Commissioners ability to make a purchasing decision on behalf of the County. (See Below)

Section 10. – [Purchases by board of commissioners; disposal of surplus property.]
(a)
The board of commissioners may purchase necessary machinery, tools, equipment, supplies, and services (hereinafter referred to collectively as “goods and services”) for county use. All purchases of goods and services, wherein the purchase price is expected to be in excess of $20,000.00, shall be made by a sealed competitive bid. Notice of the time and place where bids will be received and opened shall be advertised in the local legal organ of the county once each week for two consecutive weeks immediately prior to the opening of such bids. Such notice shall also include a description and specifications of the item or items to be purchased. All bids shall be received in sealed envelopes. If more than one bid is received for any purchase, all such bids shall be opened and thereafter filed for two years in the office of the board of commissioners for public inspection. Goods and services shall be purchased from a responsible bidder and in determining a responsible bidder such factors as distance, past dealings, financial responsibility, expertise, experience and price may be taken into consideration. This section shall not apply to the repair of goods nor to the purchase of goods which have been declared surplus by and which are purchased from or through a federal, state, or other governmental department or agency or when purchased as used equipment satisfying needs of the county or whenever an emergency condition exists which presents a threat to the safety, health and welfare of the citizens of the county and whenever such requirements would cause an undue delay in the delivery of essential county services under such conditions. Exempted from this section is the procurement of professional services (e.g. architectural, engineering, legal, accounting and construction management) which shall be procured by the Board based upon qualifications that satisfy the needs of the county and deemed to be in the best interest of the county. Further exempted from this section is the procurement of insurance, including but not limited to liability, property, casualty, and group disability, health, and life, and insurance brokerage services by the Board for the county and its employees.
(b)
The board of commissioners may dispose of unserviceable county property in any manner deemed in the best interest of the county as decided at a regular meeting. Legal notice of a detailed list of the unserviceable county property shall be advertised for a period of two weeks in the legal organ prior to said regular meeting. Any proceeds received therefrom will be deposited in the county treasury.

If the expenditure exceeds $20,000 the charter mandates the purchase needs to go out for public bid.

Commissioner Beattie said in the workshop “it’s not up for discretion, there was a legal opinion given in an open meeting by the County Attorney, that is the way it has always been interpreted”. To which Chairman JC Sanford replied, “If it hadn’t been written the way it was I would have been questioning it two years ago. I went right back and read it for myself and its plain. David (referring to County Attorney David Clark) can give us legal advice but it boils down what would a jury say or what would a judge say.” He went on to say, “Charter can be interpreted either way.”

After so much talk about $20,000, interpretation, and judge and jury – FYN decided to look a little deeper at past purchasing by the County. We know the Gilmer County Civic Center went way over budget. The original estimate that was voted on by the previous BOC was $437,000.00.

As referenced in New Agenda Item # 5
Resolution #10-015

Civic Center – Plans and approvals are proceeding. The plan is to restore the gym as a practice gym for use by the younger age groups, finish a youth wing where the ambulance office was previously (this area is anticipated to be operated by the Boys and Girls Club at no cost to the county) The kiddy pool area will be converted to a patio for tables and chairs. The restroom and changing area of the pool will be updated and brought up to code. Re-roof and insulate dome roof: $44,000; windows and doors package – including the high windows in the gym portion and all renovations: $48,000; Electrical work, lighting package, alarm and alert systems: $84,000; HVAC: $56,000; Plumbing and fixtures: $55,000. Materials and labor for walls, ceilings, outside finish (by county forces): $150,000. Total budget estimate: $437,000.00.

FYN found that the project exceeded a million dollars. We pulled a vendor payment register on the project through 12-09-10 and found that six vendors were paid amounts exceeding the $20,000 limit. Those invoices were paid for work that should have been put out for public bid but was not. We found several payments that looked to be split to meet the limit but went to the same person. One such example; vendor # 5590 (High Integrity Flooring LLC.) received $19,370.00, Vendor # 5650 (H.I.C.S.) received $19,820.00. What’s wrong with that? It’s under the $20,000 limit so why question it? Except after reviewing the invoices submitted by the contractor we find that: both vendors have the same physical address, same office phone number, same cell phone number, same email address and the same owner name. So to sum it up the same person received a total of $39,190.00 for work that did not go out for bid. We can’t help but ask, who explained to this person it had to be under $20,000 and if that section on purchasing was open for “interpretation” why bother splitting up the invoice under different names?

We took this information to the current Board of Commissioners and asked some questions. See videos below for BOC’s response:

FYN asks the tough questions at 4/28 Gilmer BOC meeting from Fetch on Vimeo.

FYN continues to inquire on Section 10 & purchasing limits from Fetch on Vimeo.

FYN asks about Chastain’s attempt to raise spending limit from Fetch on Vimeo.

FYN has been informed that this matter and many other previous County BOC expenditures are under investigation by the District Attorneys’ office.
We have not attempted to contact former Chairman Commissioner Mark Chastain for a statement at this time. However we do welcome him an opportunity to contact FYN with a statement.