Cost Management at the County Jail
At Monday's Board of Commissioner's meeting of May 19th it became apparent that there are some serious questions as to the cost overruns of the new jail extension.
Commissioner Reid Bowman asked some good questions of Roy Clack, Director of Henry’s SPLOST Program. Bowman asked why many of the items that he keeps coming back for approval for that should have been on the original plans. Items include handicapped accessible showers, exposed water pipes, electronic locks, and the security door. These items should have been on the original plans.
Also, Commissioner Johnny Basler made mention of the fact that many people in the community see this project as the same as the Courthouse extension which took a lot of time and money. Mr. Clack explained that the Courthouse was a different scenario from the jail. But Mr. Basler stressed that the public sees things differently. It is hard to explain why the jail has been a work in progress ever since it was built at the new site. Mr. Clack said that the new addition should be finished by September.
The County Manager stated that we needed the addition to keep the county out of trouble with the DOJ. It seems that at nearly every meeting Mr. Clack is coming back before the BOC for more money because of overruns or something that was left off the list. It seems that this project is another bottomless pit where our tax money is disappearing into. What is worse, there seems to be official acceptance of cost overruns as normal procedure.
Mr. Stamey asked also how many more times he was coming for more money and he said they are preparing for more. Mr. Clack said in the previous meeting that when he comes before the BOC that the work has already been done and the money is gotten after the fact. These are not small change orders; they are large amounts of money.
There is something wrong with this picture. At least three of our commissioners are alert and paying attention.
Comments
I agree with Mr. Bowman that
many of the items they keep coming back on should have been on the original plans.
If these things had been on
the original plans then it would have cost us less in the long run. Good call Mr.
Bowman.
The Doctor
Posted by: The Doctor | May 22, 2008 08:49 PM
This is a prime reason why we need new leadership in SPLOST. The SPLOST department is unable to estimate costs for practically ALL projects. I am of the belief that the BOC publishes a list of "possible" projects to be funded and completed under the auspice of SPLOST not because the law requires it, but to bait and switch. Lets get more people to think we are actually going be forward thinking and improve a road that a particlaur block of voters travel frequently only later to tell them "Sorry, we're out of money because a small number of other roads cost us more than 100% over the estimate. Please understand many projects are facing the same fate as your project." As a taxpayer, I am absolutely fed up with the handling of the SPLOST department. In fact, the department needs a complete audit and new leadership.
I'm glad that the BOC is finally realizes that perhaps we have a problem. Take the next step and fix it.
Posted by: Mike Eddy | May 22, 2008 09:30 PM
It is good to see the commissioners question the constant flow of work orders from the SPLOST committee. I have heard also people compare the Courthouse project with the Jail project.
Dark Knight
Posted by: Dark Knight | May 22, 2008 10:54 PM
There was a question asked on another post that applies here too. Who does
read and approve the blueprints for SPLOST projects?
Dark Knight
Posted by: Dark Knight | May 23, 2008 09:46 PM
I feel obliged to add my 2-cents on this topic.
First I would like to positively acknowledge comments by Chairman Harper at another post.
The problems with Henry County's SPLOST, in my opinion, is not about professional management or oversight of the SPLOST Program as directed by Mr. Roy Clack.
The real problems exist among the members of the board of commissioners. In formulating the so-called budget for SPLOST III only one, Warren Holder, came prepared with a specific project list and estimated budget for each project.
If sufficient votes are anticipated from senior centers, then transporation projects take a back seat. If sufficient votes may be gained from a park enhancement, transporation is moved down a notch.
During the public meetings the overwhleming outcry was for at least 80% of the new SPLOST funds to go for transportation - roads, intersections, signalling, etc. What we got was 56%.
Among my favorites to point out are the new roads BJ Mathis setup for District 2. Three roads surround a proposed shopping mall on Jodeco Road. Major amounts of money dedicated to economic development -- NOT traffic mitigation.
During the Program, priorities change. And what we "talked about" this year may be forgotten two years hence. For example, the BoC likes generic budget headings like Parks. We can never know if we are going to pay for a $10 million Moseley expansion or a $20 million "greenspace" purchase. Even under Transporation so many cost variables come into play that "Road A" never gets improved because "B", "C", "D" were quicker, cheaper or more politically expedient.
The expectations set under state law are "only guidelines." Things like a specific project list, with budgets assigned, will never happen. AND WE ALLOW IT.
Also note that such referendum is never set for a major election - when a ma