Category: News

In Face of Criticism, No Move to Re-Bid Detention Center Roof

WINNSBORO – Responding Monday night to concerns voiced by the public, County Council briefly addressed procurement – for the assessment of the Detention Center roof as well as for the recent purchase of a piece of heavy equipment – but ultimately took no action on reconsidering the purchases.

Beth Jenkins, addressing Council during the second public comment portion of the meeting, asked Council to reconsider the bid for the Detention Center roof.

“I think that you were misled,” Jenkins said. “I don’t think you got the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth as far as the scope of work for the bids, the scope of work, the prices and what all it entailed. This procurement process was put in place for a process. It was not followed. I think we need to un-ring that bell and follow it.”

Randy Bright, also speaking during the second public comment segment, agreed, adding that the County should be putting out bids for more of its purchased goods and services.

“The process was not done right,” Bright said. “Our procurement process still seems to be wanting. I don’t see any bids on legal services, which are extremely expensive. I don’t see any bids on fuel, $80,000 last month. Fuel should be going way down. Consulting. I don’t see any bids on consulting. And I don’t see anything for auditing.”

During County Council time, Walter Larry Stewart (District 3) asked Milton Pope, Interim County Administrator, if the procurement process had been followed to the letter. Stewart also asked Pope and Council if the County should re-bid the roof assessment. When he received no answer, Billy Smith (District 7) followed with the same question.

“We do feel we were consistent with what is in the code to be able to do that,” Pope said after reviewing for Council how the process had transpired. “It was totally transparent from the committee process, the process that went to the physical council.”

Pope said the assessment could be re-solicited, if Council desired, or could be folded into the entire project, to include the replacement of the roof, which would come in the 2015-2016 budget. That process, Pope said, would require sealed bids since it would exceed the $25,000 outlined in the procurement manual (see “Roofing bids open old wounds” in our April 10 edition).

Marion Robinson (District 5), a member of the Administration and Finance Committee that recommended the assessment to Council, said questions about how the solicitations went out might be leading the County down an untenable road.

“Are we saying we cannot do anything without going out for sealed bids?” Robinson asked. “I mean, that is not the way companies operate. They have vendors’ lists that are approved. They may be approved for a year or two years, but no company . . . or anybody can go out on sealed bids for everything they have done. I just wonder if that’s what we’re getting towards, because I’m thinking it’s the wrong thing to do.”

One criticism of the roof assessment process was that it was not advertised either in a local newspaper or on the County’s website, as required by the manual for projects or purchases over $10,000. Although Pope and Chairwoman Carolyn Robinson (District 2) confirmed with The Voice last week that the project was not advertised, Councilman Dan Ruff (District 1) asked again Monday night if it had been.

“No,” Carolyn Robinson said. “When you solicit, you go to that group of people (the approved vendors list) and solicit. But that’s only for small kinds of money. It’s not for big jobs like $100,000 and over, which to me always have to be sealed bids.”

The procurement manual, however, puts the threshold for sealed bids at $25,000. The County budgeted $35,000 for the assessment, and on March 23 approved the assessment for “up to $35,000.” The winning bid, from Goodwyn Mills & Cawood, was for $20,000.

“Since this was the engineering services, we knew – we didn’t even think it would be $25,000 in any way, shape or form,” Marion Robinson said Monday night. “In fact, it was $20,000 on one of them. So I’m real confused as to what we would do different going out to get engineering services to do the job.”

Council also took some heat from Allen Gantt on their March 23 purchase of a $123,000 track hoe for the solid waste department.

“Ya’ll missed a perfect opportunity last Council meeting to show some restraint,” Gantt said. “Mr. Stewart questioned the purchase of the excavator for the Airport Road landfill and recycling center (see “County revisits bylaws,” in our March 27 edition). It was right there on the table and teed up for you guys to at least show some restraint on spending our County money and it wasn’t done. Additional questions should have been asked. What are they going to use it for? Why do they need it? I know it’s a want, but is it a need?

“If the answer is we don’t own an excavator, then the acquisition is reasonable; but to just blindly vote on it based on Mr. Pope’s recommendation based off somebody else’s recommendation doesn’t seem like it’s very good use of the County’s money,” Gantt said.

Stewart voted against the purchase on March 23.

Pope said Monday night that the track hoe had also gone through the committee process and that it was indeed a needed piece of equipment.

“I didn’t want the citizens to feel as though the committee was just going on what I suggested,” Pope said. “There was some documentation and a request of action stating the needs of the piece of equipment.”

Council Urges Citizens to Take Traffic Survey

BLYTHEWOOD – During its monthly marathon workshop Tuesday morning, Town Council discussed a number of topics, but took no votes. Councilman Tom Utroska managed to stir the pot even though he was absent due to travel. He left behind a letter to members of Council suggesting they consider cutting to five the number of appointees on each of the Town’s boards and commissions. All appointed boards now have seven members.

“I feel the increase in the number of members has led to increased lack of resolutions due to management by committee,” Utroska wrote. “By requiring more members, we are restricting our ability to have a fresh pool of new talent.”

He suggested the Council revert back to five members on each board and do so through attrition starting with the expiration of the next two incumbent terms.

While Town Administrator Gary Parker said he had no strong feelings one way or the other, he pointed out that, “Sometimes the more members you have, the longer it takes to come to a decision. But that should be handled by a good chairperson.”

Councilman Bob Mangone was concerned that fewer members might make it difficult to get a quorum. Mayor J. Michael Ross agreed. But Councilman Bob Massa countered, saying, “With seven, we have a better chance of having all areas of the town represented. That’s going to be a concern as our town grows. With only five members, it might be difficult to get good representation for the whole town.”

It was for that reason that Councilman Eddie Baughman said he would like to keep the numbers as they are.

“It looks like the consensus is to leave the numbers at seven,” Mangone said.

“I lean toward five,” Ross said, “with the experience I’ve had in the last three years when these vacancies come up. We really don’t get that much interest. Let’s put it on the agenda and vote at the next meeting.”

Citizen Survey

During opening comments by Council members, Massa called attention to a study that might lead to alleviating Blythewood’s increasing traffic problems on Langford and Blythewood roads. He said the town’s citizens have an opportunity to answer a survey that is part of a study being conducted by the Central Midlands Council of Governments (CMCOG) to determine the transit needs of those living and/or working in the rural areas of Richland and Lexington counties outside existing metropolitan transit service. The study includes a one-page survey that is available at Town Hall and the Blythewood Branch Library.

“The heavy morning traffic on Langford and Blythewood Roads,” Massa said, “and 600 new homes being built in Cobblestone alone will soon create even greater traffic problems. The folks in our community need to fill out this survey. It only takes a few minutes and can be dropped off at the library at 218 McNulty Road in Blythewood by May 1, and will be picked up.”

Mangone agreed with Massa, emphasizing that, “There is no public transportation here in Blythewood. If someone needs to go into Columbia from Blythewood and has no transportation they’re out of luck. We need some kind of regular bus service.”

In other business Council spent half the morning discussing changes to the Employee Handbook, some concerns about enforcing the current tree and landscape ordinance and adjustments to the rates for the manor.

The next Town Council meeting will be Monday, April 27 at 7 p.m., at The Manor.

WINNSBORO – The tranquil setting of Lake Wateree may get a lot quieter in the near future as Fairfield County Council’s Public Affairs and Policy Committee took public comment Monday night on proposed revisions to the County’s noise ordinance.

The Committee is considering tacking on measurable decibel (dBA) levels to the existing ordinance, as well as extending the period of time covered under the ordinance to include 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. The current ordinance covers the 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. time period, but with no dBA levels, Sheriff Will Montgomery said the law was difficult to enforce and convictions were all but impossible.

“The reason for the decibels is for mainly court purposes,” Montgomery told the Committee. “If we don’t have that, we don’t have anything to show the judge that the noise reached this level.”

The ordinance won’t apply to Lake Wateree residents only, but the push to revise the current law began at a Lake Wateree community meeting, Montgomery said. But lake residents on hand Monday night said they were concerned how dBA levels would affect local businesses.

“During the winter months on the lake, if you don’t make some money you’re going to starve to death,” Wateree resident Charles Stogner said. “The only way they make ends meet during that time is to bring in a band or some form of entertainment to attract more customers in.”

The levels listed in the draft ordinance (available on the County’s website, www.fairfieldsc.com) limit decibels in residential areas to 70dBA from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. and 65dBA from 10 p.m. to 6 p.m. In non-residential areas, the levels are limited to 75dBA from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. and 70dBA from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.

Stogner told the Committee that everyday noises like a passing car or a running vacuum cleaner can generate around 76dBA, while things common to the lake area like outboard motors and motorcycle engines can crank out between 90 to 100dBA.

“Not only would restaurants and establishments have a problem, I don’t know how we are going to be able to restrict the noise level of an outboard motor to 70 decibels during the daylight hours,” Stogner said.

Clyde McFadden, another lake resident, said the noise ordinance was a waste of the County’s time.

“I don’t know why the County is even working on a noise ordinance,” McFadden said. “Most of the people at Lake Wateree don’t want a noise ordinance. I think Sheriff Montgomery’s department has more important things to do chasing crack heads and stuff up here around Winnsboro than have a policeman leave Winnsboro and go out to the lake and tell somebody to turn their music down or you’re going to get a $100 ticket or 30 days in jail.”

Councilwoman Mary Lynn Kinley (District 6), who chairs the Committee, said loud music was not the main thrust of the revisions. The impetus to strengthen the ordinance came, she said, after an incident in the lake area involving an individual racing a loud ATV and firing a high-powered rifle near a residence. But with the way the revised ordinance is written, McFadden said, music could easily become a target. The solution, McFadden said, was “common sense.”

“On Jan. 1, I was deathly ill and they were shooting fireworks till 1:30 in the morning,” McFadden said. “What did I do? I put some earplugs in. I used common sense. I didn’t call Montgomery and say ‘Hey come arrest these people’.”

But Lynn Bone said sometimes the loud, offensive noises go on non-stop for hours on end.

“You don’t want to have to wear earplugs 12 or 15 hours a day, I don’t think,” she said.

And neither does Robert Christenbery, the originator of the initial complaint.

“I’m a retired jet engine mechanic,” he said. “I wore earplugs for 30 years. I know what’s loud.”

Lake resident Jack Morris said the Sheriff’s need for definitive numbers in order to convict offenders was understandable, but said Council had its work cut out for it in order to strike the right balance.

“I think people want a simple ordinance,” Morris said. “We don’t want a bunch of oversight and police showing up all the time, but at the same time people need some protection from the really unreasonable neighbor who just won’t come around. I challenge anybody to write that.”

Councilman Billy Smith (District 7), who along with District 3 Councilman Walter Larry Stewart filled out the Committee, said it may be possible to include the decibel limits while also leaving some discretion to law enforcement. Smith said the idea came from reviewing Horry County’s ordinance, which gives deputies the discretion over volume intensity, the unusual nature of the noise, its proximity to residential sleeping quarters, the duration of the noise and other factors.

A date for the next Committee meeting has not been set, but Kinley said at that meeting the members would discuss the issue further, taking into consideration the public input received Monday night. The initiating incident also brought to light the fact that the County has no gun control ordinance, which Kinley said may also be on the table in the near future.

WINNSBORO – An attempt to regulate what topics the public addressed during the second public comment portion of County Council meetings, also known as “public presentations,” failed to get out of the Administration and Finance Committee meeting Tuesday evening.

Councilman Kamau Marcharia (District 4) brought the matter up during Council’s March 16 meeting, asking Council to consider closing the floor to public comment that strayed from the County’s turf, or that deviated into unsubstantiated and personal verbal attacks against elected officials serving on other public bodies. Marcharia told The Voice after the March 16 meeting that he was thinking specifically of the recent request made to Council by Gregrey Ginyard, Mayor of Jenkinsville, for $50,000 in matching grant funds for the completion of a sidewalk in the Western Fairfield town. Marcharia noted that public opposition to Ginyard’s request was accompanied by verbal attacks against Ginyard in his role as president of the Jenkinsville Water Company, with those attacks insinuating that Ginyard had mishandled or misappropriated water company funds.

Council agreed on March 23 to send the matter to committee, where it failed to garner a motion from members Marion Robinson, Mary Lynn Kinley or Carolyn Robinson.

“At the beginning, I agreed wholeheartedly with Mr. Marcharia,” Kinley said Tuesday, “and then I had a citizen write to me (to say) that we saw people and they do not. I kind of feel like maybe these folks do not get the voice that we have.”

Marion Robinson said he would like to be assured by citizens bringing matters outside the County Council’s purview that they first took their concerns to the body with which they have the complaint before airing it out in Council chambers. Kinley agreed.

“That would make me feel better if I knew that they did that,” she said. “If we do our part then they need to do theirs.”

The Committee recommended some technical changes to the bylaws covering public comment, moving items 11 (All comments should be addressed to the Chairman and not individual members of Council), 12 (Council may not respond or engage in dialogue with the speaker) and 13 (Council members wishing to respond may do so during County Council Time) from the rules governing the first public comment segment and into the rules governing the second.

The Committee also recommended adding to the rules for the second public comment segment “Subject matter shall be limited to that which relates to, is associated with or has some immediate, future or long-term effect on Fairfield County.”

The recommendations will be taken up by the full Council during their April 27 meeting.

WINNSBORO – The Town of Winnsboro cleared its first hurdle on the way to the Broad River, receiving its permit from the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) to draw up to 10 million gallons a day from the river to feed into the Town’s reservoir.

Mayor Roger Gaddy made the announcement at Tuesday night’s Town Council meeting. Gaddy said the Town was close to finalizing a deal to purchase land along the river from which to draw the water. State Sen. Creighton Coleman, also an attorney for the Town, said the Town and the land owners had agreed in principal to a deal, leaving just the final details to work out on paper.

“We’re close to the end of the process of purchasing the property where we will have the withdrawal site,” Gaddy said, “and we soon will be working on the engineering portion of it.”

Winnsboro has been working on the deal since last September, when it entered into an agreement with SWS Group; Utility Advisors Network, Inc. (UAN); and the Willoughby & Hoefer, PA Law Firm to assist with the project. Margaret Pope of the Pope Zeigler Law Firm has also been advising Council on the project, which is estimated to cost between $12 and $13 million. Gaddy said after Tuesday’s meeting that another meeting with Pope will be necessary to determine how to proceed next.

Last September, Council said the preliminary engineering for the project would have to be completed next in order for the Town to determine how much they will be seeking in bond money. Last summer, Winnsboro freed up a considerable amount of debt with the final payment on a nearly $12 million bond that was issued for water treatment plant upgrades. Gaddy said the engineering could take up to six months to complete.

Grants and Vehicles

Council approved $70,000 for the purchase of a ladder truck for the Department of Public Safety Tuesday night, as well as $18,135 in matching funds for a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development grant for the purchase of a 2015 Chevrolet pickup truck for the Streets and Sanitation Department. Council also approved $39,540 in matching funds for another USDA grant for the purchase of a data software system.

County Strays from Policies

WINNSBORO – Of the many criticisms of County Council to emerge in the wake of last year’s collapse of a retaining wall around the Drawdy Park football field was the one that appeared at the time to have been addressed even before the concrete blocks toppled over – how the County bid out contracts for projects.

Revealed in the aftermath of the collapse was the County’s practice under former Administrator Phil Hinely of cherry picking construction and engineering firms from a pre-approved list, without putting major projects out for competitive, sealed bids. That practice netted S2 Engineering more than $8.76 million in contracts between December 2009 and September 2013, including the contract for the work at Drawdy Park.

Since Hinely’s resignation in July of 2013 and with the arrival of Milton Pope as Interim Administrator shortly thereafter, the County has consistently maintained that the no-bid days were over. As former Council Chairman David Ferguson told The Voice last July: “Did we bid out every job? No. With Milton (Pope) we do.”

But a contract awarded unanimously by Council on March 23 indicates that the old days may not be in the rear-view mirror entirely.

Detention Center

The Fairfield County Detention Center, constructed in approximately 1998, is in need of a new roof. Leaks have developed, causing water intrusion into the facility and threatening sensitive equipment inside. During a March 9 meeting of Council’s Administration and Finance Committee, Pope recommended Goodwyn Mills & Cawood (GMC), one of three firms he said bid on assessing the damage to the roof. The actual replacement of the roof will not take place until the next fiscal year, Pope said during the meeting.

Pope told the Committee that GMC will “provide for the analysis and construction administration of the Detention Center roof.” Only GMC’s winning bid was included in the information presented to Council members at the Committee meeting. Pope later said “staff should have included all three of the quotes in the A&F packet at the beginning.”

The only question from the Committee came from Councilman Marion Robinson, who unseated Ferguson for the District 5 seat last November. Robinson asked Pope how many firms had bid on the project and why administration had decided on GMC.

“All of (the three bidding firms) were qualified. We liked (GMC) a little bit better on how they had laid out what they would do, and their pricing on the assessment was less, or in the middle,” Pope responded. “Some of the other companies, the County has done a considerable amount of work with and we’re looking to involve and get some new people.”

Pope also said the roof assessment was in the 2014-2015 budget for up to $35,000. The Committee unanimously approved the recommendation, which Pope presented to the full Council on March 23. During his presentation, however, Pope told the Council that the project was for $35,000, although Chairwoman Carolyn Robinson corrected him just before the vote to include the “up to” caveat.

The Bids and the Manual

Contrary to the assertions made by the former Chairman last summer and repeated by administration since then, the roof project was not put out for a competitive sealed bid. Instead, between Jan. 2 and Jan. 16, administration made contact via phone or email with three firms Pope said were on the County’s pre-approved list of bidders. Those included Davis & Floyd, Inc.; Mead & Hunt, Inc. and Goodwyn Mills & Cawood. And that much may in fact be in line with the County’s procurement manual, revised last July.

According to page 28 of the manual, under the header “Bidders List,” the County may compile and maintain a list of “businesses that may be interested in competing for various types of County contracts. It is the responsibility of the supplier to ensure he is on a current bid list . . .”

Awards of bids, according to page 34 of the manual, include 10 factors in addition to “lowest responsible and responsive bid,” none of which entail ‘involving and getting new people.’

According to page 40 of the manual, under “Development of Request for Proposal (RFP),” the RFP “shall state the relative importance of price and other evaluation factors but shall not require numerical weighing of each factor.” The manual places no restrictions on the number or type of factors, “as long as they are stated in the request for proposal and relate to the purpose of the procurement.”

The RFPs sent out by the County between Jan. 2 and 16 do not state any such factors.

Responding to the RFP emailed them by the County on Jan. 2, Davis & Floyd submitted a bid on Jan. 5 for $17,375, while GMC, responding to the RFP emailed them on Jan. 16, submitted a bid on Jan. 19 for $20,000. On Jan. 19, Mead & Hunt submitted a bid for $37,225 in response to the RFP made over the phone on Jan. 15.

The RFP, issued by the County, reads: “Fairfield County is seeking written proposals for the assessment of the Detention Center roof located at 10 Faith Lane. Please include in proposal an assessment and cost proposal for determining the possible cause and remedy for the Detention Center roof. County staff will be available for your review of the site.”

Work proposed by Davis & Floyd included “field investigations to support architectural upgrades as a result of the reroofing;” “construction documents sealed by Registered Architect;” “specifications to define work;” and involvement in the bidding and award process for the actual construction, to include the pre-bid conference; providing the County with plans and specs; and bid opening and award/contract with owner and bidder. Their proposal did not include materials testing or roof coring, nor did it include construction period services.

Mead & Hunt offered project management, to include preparation of the owner/architect agreement, oversight and quality control, document checking and project organization; as well as documentation and analysis, to include a visual investigation of the roof and documentation of existing conditions, an infrared study and core samples of the roof, and to refine architectural roof plans according to their investigation. The firm also offered a design development phase, which would have included roof demolition plans, re-roofing plans and detail, outline specifications, their opinion of probable construction costs and final design documents.

Mead & Hunt also proposed to prepare construction documents and offered to be on hand for the bidding phase and provide extensive oversight and administration during the construction phase.

Mead & Hunt also broke out their proposal in phases, bidding $3,725 for the assessment phase (infrared scan and core test; architectural report; project management); $9,300 for the design document phase, $9,300 for the bid document phase and $3,725 for the bidding phase (each of which included architecture and project management); $9,300 for the construction phase (architecture; project management, construction administrator); and $1,875 for the post-construction phase (record drawings).

GMC’s proposal was offered in two phases. Phase one, for which the company offered the winning $20,000 bid, consists of obtaining a copy of the existing building construction documents for use in their study; investigating the existing conditions of the room systems inside the Detention Center; documentation of probable deficiencies and recommendations for the “replacement, repair and/or modification” of the roof; creating a project budget estimate; and presenting their findings to County staff.

Not included in GMC’s $20,000 bid, but offered in a second phase of the project, are the creation of “construction documents suitable for competitive bidding, including demolition and new construction;” plans for permitting; assistance with bid solicitation; construction administration services; and a meeting between the design team and the County “to ensure the scope of work and contractual requirements are covered.”

“Compensation for Phase II is TBD (to be determined) based upon the approved budget,” GMC’s bid concludes.

Under the header “Bidder Information” on page 28 of the County’s procurement manual, “All procurements in excess of $10,000 shall be publicized in a newspaper of general circulation, or County website (www.fairfieldsc.com).”

Although the lowest bid for the project came in at more than $7,000 over this amount, there is no evidence that the County adhered to this stipulation.

“This request was not advertised,” Pope confirmed via email Tuesday. “Staff solicited quotes. The firms Mead & Hunt and Davis & Floyd are current firms solicited and contracted through the County’s IDC contract solicitation. Two firms were selected from the list and Goodwyn Mills & Cawood was also contacted. They recently performed work.”

That work entailed coming in behind S2 and providing the County with a comprehensive report on the causes of the Drawdy Park wall failure, as well as supervising the reconstruction of the collapsed wall.

According to page 29 of the manual, competitive sealed bids are “required when procurement is anticipated to exceed $25,000.” That County Council planned far enough ahead when preparing the 2014-2015 budget last year to set aside $35,000 for a roof assessment project may indicate that the project was indeed “anticipated to exceed $25,000.”

Pope told The Voice Tuesday that GMC had in fact previously quoted a price of $35,000, although he did not say when or under what circumstances. Nothing in the documents provided by the County to The Voice indicate anything other than the $20,000 bid, which, Pope said, was only for the first phase of the work.

“Goodwyn, Mills & Cawood would be responsible for assessing the building and reviewing previous building as-builts (drawings),” Pope said. “The construction services will be put out for bid.”

While for a lower price Davis & Floyd offered a broader scope of work, to include construction documents and involvement in the bidding process for construction, and Mead & Hunt offered a range of work that spanned from the assessment to construction administration for a slightly higher price, administration recommended and Council approved GMC.

“The proposals weren’t based solely on price,” Pope said. “Currently, Mead & Hunt and Davis & Floyd are assigned to several projects for the County. The decision was made to issue to Goodwyn Mills & Cawood. Any proposal can change pending on the findings, which may determine a broader scope of work. All findings would be brought to County Council to review and act upon.”