Dear Editor,
The only things adding up on the SPLOST No. 10/Bond issue are the questions and lack of answers. To better understand the SPLOST No. 10 bond debate, I completed several open-record requests on the road bond earlier this year for $22 million plus interest and fees.
For the $22 million bond, legal fees for processing the bond cost the taxpayers $217,500 (approx. 1% — Ed.), plus another $2,500 for out-of-pocket expenses; $96,250.00 (approx. .4% — Ed.) was paid to our county attorney (The Nelson Law Group); and the remaining legal fees went to a Savannah Law Firm handling the Bond and Disclosure Counsel.
Davenport & Company LLC. was hired to manage the bond without a competitive bid process. They were paid $78,382.29, including $75,000 for financial advisory services, $3,000 for fees, and another $382.29 for direct expenses, including meals and transportation.
An open-record request for the financial policy and any service contract that allows the county to award contracts to companies without competition came back with only an economic policy. The policy states, “Purchases greater than $75,000 shall require a formal (advertised) competitive sealed bid.”
Another open-record request showed no state contract to bypass a bid process with the company. This lack of competitive bidding raises serious questions about transparency in our local government spending.
It would seem that the county manager, Paul Van Haute, and Chairman Sharp have a duty to be good stewards of taxpayer money.
Why did they not look at various options to see what other companies could offer? Could we not find a local bank to assist with the bond? Are the legal fees excessive? Without looking at different options, how would they know? Or perhaps they do not care since it is hard-earned taxpayer money they are spending?
Chairman Sharp and Commissioner Brown are actively campaigning for voters to vote yes for SPLOST No. 10/bond. Why such a significant interest?
These actions violate SPLOST guidelines provided by the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia, which state, “It is critical, however, that such descriptions do not express an opinion regarding the SPLOST proposal or advocate for which way a person should vote.”
Commissioner Brown visited A.S Steel Welding & Fabrication (located in an area outside Commissioner Brown’s district) on Monday, Sept. 23. This business, which has operated within the county for 23 years, has a message board on its private property that states: “Vote No on SPLOS Tax 10.”
Commissioner Brown asked the owner to remove the message from the sign (the welding shop owner and two witnesses informed me of this incident). I am very thankful the owner did not cave under such intimidation.
Regarding the SPLOST No. 10 being tied to a $33-million bond, Commissioner Hersey previously noted, “This would be the first time in over two decades of sales tax that bonds are to be issued. Why now?”
I have more questions than answers, so I will leave it to the readers to determine if this makes sense. Under the circumstances, do you have confidence that our local officials (excluding Commissioner Hersey) will do what is best for us?
At the ballot box, you must decide if letting our county get into more debt with SPLOST No. 10 tied to a $33-million bond is a good choice.
Sincere thanks, Jennifer Ray, Putnam County