Brooklet City Council expresses concerns regarding old Southeast Bulloch Junior High School property

At the Brooklet city work session meeting last week, several key topics were on the table, ranging from property issues to procurement policies. No action was taken at the work session, but some of these items will move on to a future meeting agenda.

Review the discussion below. A full agenda is provided at the end of the article.

SEB Junior High building

First up was the old Southeast Bulloch Junior High School property on Railroad Street. Concerns were raised about the property's condition and its future, especially since the city doesn’t actually own it. With its current state being less of a historic gem and more of an abandoned eyesore, discussions centered around the possibility of hazardous materials like asbestos making any cleanup efforts a pricey affair—think nearly $200,000.

With the property’s history of failed rezoning attempts and its proximity to city-owned land, there’s talk about whether it might be worth the city’s while to acquire it. Next steps could involve a hazardous waste inspection to better gauge the cleanup costs, estimated to be under $10,000, and sending a letter to the current owner to push for action.

Meeting protocols

The council then tackled the issue of meeting protocols. The discussion about public comment procedures saw a proposal for a more structured approach. Originally, a three-minute limit for comments was on the table, but a more generous five-minute allowance gained traction, particularly for more complex issues.

The debate also touched on when public comments should be made during meetings, with a preference for keeping them at the start. This change aims to allow residents to speak without sitting through the entire meeting. The revised protocol will now include a sign-up form for speakers, giving those who register in advance five minutes and latecomers three.

The updated procedures will replace the existing decorum guidelines from March 2020.

Finances

Moving on to financial matters, the draft procurement policy was discussed. City Manager Carter Crawford introduced a new policy designed to streamline spending and improve clarity. The revised policy lowers approval thresholds for purchases, aiming to reduce delays in acquiring essential items.

It also emphasizes consistent documentation for audits and a better approach to capital asset management. The policy will be reviewed in October before potentially being added to the consent agenda.

The SPLOST and TSPLOST updates revealed a surprising $1.34 million in funding since 2019, surpassing the initial $716,000 estimate. The police department reported a positive balance, while the recreation department’s funds are untouched. The water department, however, is running a deficit. Plans for excess funds include community projects like a splash pool and sidewalk improvements.

Water and sewer

In a discussion about water and sewer agreements, the council considered reducing connection fees for a development project. Concerns were raised about maintaining high construction standards and the timing of water and sewer connections. Negotiations are ongoing, and no final decisions have been made.

The council also reviewed a resolution for sewer tap allocations, limiting annual taps to 100 with a reserved pool of 272 for future needs. Any commercial development would require a resolution change to accommodate new projects.

Another topic discussed was the Brooklet to Statesboro sewer project, which includes adding a new pipe to facilitate future connections. The project, with a total cost of around $9.2 million, aims to provide affordable access and allow for future expansions. Discussions are ongoing about managing connection costs and standardizing pump systems.

Funding

Regarding the generator grant, the council is seeking a matching fund to cover the increased costs due to delays. The generator is crucial for public works, providing reliable lighting and access during power outages. The team is considering reallocating funds from recreation to cover this expense.

The GDOT TAP project, involving a $95,795 grant, raised questions about whether a formal vote was needed for the funding source. The consensus was to proceed as planned, following previous payment approaches for similar projects.

Lastly, the council addressed various invoices, including one for maintaining equipment and another for sidewalk repairs on Railroad Street. The sidewalk repair quote of $5,100 raised concerns about the adequacy of proposed repairs and whether a more thorough inspection was needed. This item will be moved to next week’s agenda for further review.

Overall, the meeting covered a range of issues, from property concerns to financial planning, with the goal of improving city operations and addressing community needs.

Continue reading for all business covered at the work session:

1. Call to Order and Welcome

Mayor Nicky Gwinett opened the meeting with a prayer, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVED: 2. Consideration of a Motion to Approve the Agenda

3. Discussion Items:

3.1. Old Southeast Bulloch Junior High School - Railroad Street

Concerns were raised about the building's condition and its future. It was noted that the city does not own the property, which has remained largely abandoned due to zoning disputes dating back over 20 years. The property's original owner had initially planned to turn it into a paint manufacturing facility, but the town council denied his rezoning requests multiple times, leaving the building to deteriorate.

The main issue discussed was the potential presence of hazardous materials, particularly asbestos, which could make remediation costly. Estimates from years ago suggested the cleanup could cost nearly $200,000. Council members debated whether it would be beneficial for the town to acquire the property, citing its location near other city-owned land.

Suggestions for next steps included the possibility of a hazardous waste inspection to assess the property's condition more accurately. Estimates for such an inspection were thought to be under $10,000. Additionally, the council considered sending a letter to the current property owner, urging action to clean up the site.

3.2. Agenda/Meeting Protocol

The discussion revolved around proposed changes to public comment procedures, which were suggested to provide more structure and order during meetings. Key points included:

Public Comment Time Limits: The current protocol suggested a three-minute limit for public comments, but some council members felt this was too restrictive. A more flexible five-minute limit was proposed, especially for cases where additional time might be necessary.
Timing of Public Comments: There was debate over when public comments should occur during the meeting. While the new proposal suggested holding public comments at the end, the council favored keeping them at the beginning to allow residents to speak and then leave without sitting through the entire meeting.
Agenda Topics: Initially, the proposed protocol limited comments to agenda items only. However, council members argued that residents should be allowed to address broader concerns, even if they are not on the meeting agenda.
Consistency: The council stressed the importance of consistent treatment for all speakers. If different rules were applied to some individuals, it could lead to perceived unfairness.
Revised Structure: The council agreed that structure was necessary to avoid chaos in meetings, especially in light of recent disruptions. They discussed adopting a sign-up form for speakers, with a difference in time allowed: five minutes for those who sign up in advance, and three minutes for those who sign up just before the meeting starts.

The council ultimately decided to revise the proposal to allow five minutes for public comments across the board and agreed to include the updated protocol on the consent agenda for the next meeting. This protocol would replace the decorum guidelines previously approved in March 2020.

3.3. Draft Procurement Policy

City Manager Crawford presented this policy, which had been adapted from a sample policy provided by the Georgia Municipal Association (GMA) to better fit the needs of a smaller city like Brooklet.

Key points of the discussion included:

Procurement Policy Overview: The policy is designed to set specific spending limits for city purchases, providing clearer guidance for both city personnel and council members. It addresses a recurring issue where council approval was previously required for purchases exceeding $2,000, which caused delays in acquiring necessary items, particularly for essential maintenance like tires.
Approval Thresholds: In the new policy, the approval level for city spending was reduced, streamlining the process for smaller expenditures. The policy also includes standardized forms for bidding and purchasing.
Auditing and Consistency: Council members emphasized the need to adhere to proper documentation and procedures for financial audits. They discussed how not using purchase order (PO) forms consistently in the past had been flagged during audits. There was a consensus on the importance of maintaining compliance to avoid future audit issues.
Capital Asset Management: A significant portion of the discussion revolved around the city's handling of capital assets. Council members raised questions about how equipment, vehicles, and other large assets are tracked and managed. Currently, the inventory system is inconsistent, and there isn't a consolidated master list for all city-owned assets.
- The council agreed that all assets valued over $5,000 should be inventoried, as outlined in the new policy.
- For smaller assets, such as laptops or computers that might not meet the $5,000 threshold, council members suggested they still be tracked to prevent loss or misplacement.
Next Steps: The council decided to revisit this policy in October to allow more time for review. The policy will be discussed during a work session, with the goal of including it on the consent agenda for final approval.

Overall, this draft policy aims to introduce a more structured procurement process, provide clarity on spending limits, and enhance capital asset management within the city. The council recognized the need for better inventory tracking, especially regarding smaller but valuable items.

Summary of the Proposed City of Brooklet Purchasing Policies

Objective

The City of Brooklet aims to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent economically and efficiently. The purchasing policies are designed to promote open and fair competition through competitive means whenever possible. Purchasing levels are periodically reviewed and may be adjusted with City Council approval.

Use of Policy

These policies are established for the City's fiscal responsibility and benefit. They do not confer any rights, duties, or entitlements to bidders or proposers.

Key Definitions

Capital Asset: Property valued at $5,000 or more with a useful life exceeding one year.
Capital Improvement Projects: Projects involving public infrastructure, included in the City's five-year capital improvement plan.
Competitive Bid Process: Methods like bidding, Requests for Proposals (RFPs), or Requests for Qualifications (RFQs) to secure the best price or contractor.
Emergency Conditions: Situations severely hampering operations or risking life, health, safety, or property, as determined by the Department Director and City Manager.
Sole Source Purchase: Procurement from a single source without soliciting multiple bids under certain conditions.

Purchasing Levels and Approval Requirements

Order Amount	Process Required	Approvals Needed
Less than $100	No prior Purchase Order; submit receipt after purchase.	Department Director
$100.01 - $2,499.99	Purchase Order required.	Department Director
$2,500 - $9,999.99	Obtain minimum of three verbal quotes; Purchase Order required.	Department Director and City Manager
$10,000 - $25,000	Obtain minimum of three written bids/proposals.	City Council approval if not in annual budget
$25,000 and above	Competitive Bid Process; Contract approved by City Council.	City Council

Projects or purchases must not be divided to avoid higher approval levels.
Amendments increasing costs by more than 5% or $2,500 require additional approval.

Petty Cash Requisitions

Used for small obligations not exceeding $50.
Requires departmental supervisor approval.
Sales receipts must be provided within two business days.
Sales tax will not be reimbursed; use the City's tax-exempt number.

Purchase Orders

Required for all purchases unless exempt.
Departments must ensure budget availability and obtain necessary approvals.
Exempt items include council-approved service contracts, debt service, grants, insurance, land acquisition, payroll, professional services, and utilities.

Bidding Procedures

Informal Bids/Quotes/Proposals (Under $50,000):
- $2,500 - $9,999.99: Obtain at least three verbal quotes.
- $10,000 - $25,000: Obtain at least three written quotes.
Competitive Bids (Over $25,000):
- Requires public advertisement and formal bid documents.
- Includes Invitations to Bid, RFPs, and RFQs.
- Steps include developing specifications, public notices, bid openings, evaluations, and City Council approvals.

Bonding and Insurance Requirements

Bid Bonds: Typically 5-10% of bid amount; ensures bid maintenance.
Performance Bonds: 100% of contract price for projects over $50,000.
Payment Bonds: 100% of contract price for projects over $50,000.
Insurance: Contractors must provide certificates covering general liability, automobile liability, workers' compensation, and professional liability.

Sole Source Purchases

Allowed when only one vendor can meet the specific needs.
For purchases of $10,000 or more, City Council must approve waiving bidding procedures.

Local Vendor Preference

Preference given to local vendors if within 5% or $1,000 (whichever is less) of the lowest bid.
Applies to vendors with a valid business registration or sales tax license on file with the City.

Ethics in City Contracting

City officials and employees must disclose any interest in contracts and recuse themselves from related decisions.
They may not influence decisions if they have a personal interest.

Emergency Purchasing

Normal procedures may be waived during emergencies.
Approval authorities during emergencies:
- Department Director: Up to $50,000.
- City Clerk: Up to $50,000.
- City Manager: Over $50,000.
A summary of emergency purchases must be submitted to the City Council.

Receiving Procedures and Check Requests

Departments must verify receipt and condition of goods.
Damaged goods must be reported immediately.
Invoices should be sent directly to Accounts Payable.
All receiving documents must be submitted with check requests for payment processing.

3.4. SPLOST and TSPLOST Funds

During the city’s SPLOST and TSPLOST update, it was reported that the city received $1.34 million since 2019, exceeding the initially projected $716,000. The police department collected $332,748.77 and spent $314,226.67, leaving a positive balance of $8,520.10, while the recreation department has $551,360.86 with no spending yet. The water department, however, is running a deficit, having spent $538,202.24 against $470,675.39 in revenue. By October 2025, an additional $332,738.14 is expected, with earmarked projects totaling $119,686.10. The council discussed using excess funds for community projects, particularly recreation, with suggestions including a splash pool for kids or buying property for future parks. They are also exploring options to use funds for sidewalk improvements.

2019 SPLOST Update

The 2019 SPLOST update for the City of Brooklet reveals that voters approved a total of $716,000 for public safety, recreation, and water projects. To date, the city has received $1,344,786.53 in SPLOST revenues. While the police and recreation projects are under budget or balanced, the water project has a shortfall of $67,685.85. Additional revenues are projected for police, recreation, and water projects, but the water project is still facing a shortfall of $61,691.68.

The recommendation is to use the excess revenue from recreation funds, which exceeds the required $290,000, to cover the water project shortfall. This adjustment could potentially add $397,785.15 to the water project budget, addressing the current deficit and ensuring better allocation of available funds.

2023 TSPLOST Update

The 2023 TSPLOST update for the City of Brooklet shows total revenues of $2,304,000.00 and expenditures of $427,253.85, leaving a balance of $1,876,746.15. Notably, $1,699,599.95 is earmarked but not yet spent, including funds for the 2024 Brooklet Street improvements and the North Cromley Tap project.

Projected revenue through 2027 is estimated at $2,094,777.14, with total unobligated revenue currently at $2,697,632.39. It is important to note that TSPLOST funds must be used exclusively for projects that fall within the allowable TSPLOST categories.

3.5. Discussion of Water and Sewer Agreements with Shelton Hughes and Weyerhaeuser

The discussion centers on a water and sewer agreement with developer Sheldon Hughes and Weyerhaeuser, focusing on the negotiation of connection fees and infrastructure responsibilities. The city council is considering reducing the sewer connection fee to $8,800 per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) from the standard $11,000, due to the developer's proposal to fund their own water line extension to a connection point. The development would use 728 of the city's 1,000 ERUs, and concerns are raised about maintaining high construction standards and a diverse mix of home types. The timing for water and sewer connections is also debated, with a possible need to extend deadlines to align with the project schedule. The council is cautious about finalizing the agreement without clear details on the development’s design and materials, indicating that further negotiations and discussions are necessary before a decision can be made.

3.6. Sewer Tap Allocation Resolution

Water/Sewer agreement

The Water and Sewer Service Agreement establishes the terms between Waterford Investment Holdings, Inc. (the Developer) and the City of Brooklet, Georgia. The Developer plans to purchase a parcel of land from Shelton Hughes for a residential subdivision and seeks water and sewer services from the City. The agreement will take effect once the property title is transferred to the Developer, which must happen within 90 days of the City Council’s approval.

The City agrees to extend its water and sewer systems to the property, including any necessary additions, extensions, or modifications. The Developer will bear all associated costs and must comply with local, state, and federal regulations. There is a restriction of connecting a maximum of 50 residential units to the City’s systems per year, with any unused connections rolling over to the next year unless otherwise agreed upon.

The City will provide connection points for water and sewer services at designated locations. Should the City be unable to secure necessary permits or funding, or if the Developer decides against the subdivision project, the City’s obligations under this agreement will end. The Developer must ensure that all designs and construction meet the City’s specifications, with any deviations needing approval from the City’s Engineer.

Upon completion, the Developer must provide certification from the Project Engineer and submit recordable plats showing public easements. A bond will be required to cover any construction defects, with the City able to claim costs from this bond if issues arise. Construction must begin within one year of receiving a land disturbance permit, and the City will bring water and sewer lines to the property by specified deadlines.

Fees for sewer and water services will be charged per residential unit, and the Developer must pay these fees as development progresses. If the Developer fails to pay all fees within four years, the City may adjust the fees accordingly. The Developer agrees to comply with all relevant laws and acknowledges no right to reimbursement from the City for expenditures. Any modifications to the agreement must be in writing and approved by both parties.

The agreement is governed by Georgia law, with disputes to be resolved in Bulloch County Superior Court. It includes provisions for indemnity, assignment, and is binding on successors and assigns. The agreement is valid once executed by authorized representatives of both parties.

3.7. Discuss Adding an Extra Pipe to the Brooklet-to-Statesboro Project

The discussion focused on a significant sewer project involving the installation of a new 12-inch sewer line on Lane Street, complemented by a parallel 3-inch line to facilitate potential future connections. This setup addresses concerns about infrastructure passing through private properties and aims to provide affordable access for residents. The total project cost is estimated at around $7 million, falling under the $8.2 million bond ceiling, with a $2.2 million grant bringing the total projected cost to approximately $9.2 million. Homeowners will incur costs for sewer connections, including a pump, installation, and tap fees, with estimates around $19,000. There is ongoing discussion about potentially subsidizing these costs to ease the financial burden on residents. The project is designed with future expansions in mind, allowing for extensions as needed, and aims to standardize pump systems to ensure reliable performance. The goal is to proceed with the project while considering ways to manage connection costs and meet both current and future demands effectively. This item will be discussed moved to the consent agenda to be brought up to the citizens to give them this option.

3.8. Generator Grant Discussion and Funding Source

The discussion centered around securing funding for a new generator, which has been a long-term effort spanning four years. The project received a grant, but a matching fund is required. Originally estimated costs have increased due to delays and rising prices, with current projections around $20,000. The idea is to reallocate funds from recreation to cover this expense. The generator is essential for improving the operational capacity of public works, especially during power outages, by providing reliable lighting and access to equipment. The team expressed satisfaction at the progress and emphasized the generator’s importance for future emergency responses.

3.9. GDOT - North Cromley Road Tap Project Payment

The discussion focused on the GDOT TAP project, which involves a $95,795 grant. There was uncertainty about whether a formal vote was needed for the funding source or if it could be handled by assigning the funds. The team acknowledged that not all documents and paperwork were complete, suggesting that action be postponed until everything is finalized. It was noted that the project would need timely payment, potentially by Monday. Previous payments for similar projects were approved retroactively, so the team agreed that the current payment approach should follow the same procedure. The consensus was to proceed with the payment as planned, given that previous approvals had covered similar expenditures. Moving to consent agenda.

3.10. JCB Low Country Invoice

The work has already been done, so the item was moved to the consent agenda.

3.11. Georgia Equipment CO Invoices

Councilman Bradley Anderson states that if we are renting out these pieces of equipment, we need a list of things to do when we got it so that it doesn't just sit there. Carter Crawford assures us that there is a schedule to get everything done within the next month.

3.12. Quote Review: Terry Mikell Concrete, LLC

The quote from Terry Mikell Concrete is for $5,100 to repair the sidewalk on Railroad Street. The issue seems to involve significant damage to a culvert and sidewalk area, likely caused by heavy vehicles. The sidewalk has been described as unsafe due to its poor condition, with the damage being attributed to the sidewalk being poured higher than the street, causing further erosion and collapse.

There was a recommendation to move this item to the agenda for the next meeting, rather than including it on the consent agenda. This approach would allow more time for research and verification of the specifics of the damage and repair needs. The discussion included concerns about the adequacy of the proposed repairs and the need for a more thorough inspection and redesign of the area.

The group agreed that this project should be prioritized and added to the list of upcoming repairs. There is a need to review the existing work orders and ensure that this issue is addressed in a comprehensive manner. This is moved to the next meeting.