Jul 24, 2006 By Amy Zalar 7 min read

Calling the process used by her fellow Fayette County commissioners to approve a roofing contract for the fire school building and co-sign a mortgage for the county fair board “questionable,” Commission Chairwoman Angela M. Zimmerlink said simply getting two signatures “isn’t a proper, up front way to conduct business.” In response to Zimmerlink’s claims, Commissioner Vincent A. Vicites said county code and every procedure were followed in both instances.

“I know what needs to be done. I understand procedures and know the code,” Vicites said. He explained that a decision to pay for the fire school roof out of the bond issue is permissible because the bond was previously approved for capital improvements.

Zimmerlink is questioning whether proper procedure was followed to approve a $6,100 county purchase requisition to pay G&W Roofing of Eighty Four to repair the roof at the Fayette County Firemen’s Association fire training building, which is owned by the county.

She said using bond money to fund the project should have been discussed publicly.

“You can’t say on one hand you need to have open discussion and then not have it,” Zimmerlink said. She was addressing a comment made by Vicites in supporting the cancellation of the July commissioner’s meetings because all three commissioners needed to be in attendance to discuss issues after Commissioner Joseph A. Hardy III said he would be on vacation the week of the agenda and regular meetings.

Zimmerlink said although Vicites brought up the fire school issue at the June agenda meeting, it was not placed on the agenda for the June monthly meeting, and thus not voted on at a public meeting. She said also as per county code, contracts between $4,000 and $10,000 require three written or telephonic quotes and the only supporting documentation she saw was one bid.

Vicites said he did not personally receive three quotes, but he knows the procedures were followed. Vicites said he attempted to put the item on the agenda but could not because Zimmerlink did not give a second.

Hardy did not attend June’s agenda meeting and could not provide a second to place the item on the agenda for the monthly meeting, which was held two days after the agenda meeting. Hardy couldn’t be reached for comment about Zimmerlink’s allegations.

Vicites said in signing the requisition, he was “just taking action on a very important need that the firemen have.” Vicites, who attends firemen’s association meetings, said because the county owns the fire building and was in dire need of repair, the county has an obligation to maintain the building.

“I brought this up at a meeting, and it didn’t go anywhere,” he said.

Vicites said because action has been taken to approve spending the bond issue on capital improvements, no action was required for the individual expenditure.

Vicites and Hardy signed the requisition. The firemen’s association also agreed to pay $2,000 toward repairs.

County manager Warren Hughes, who also signed off on the roof contract request, said his role is merely to check to see if money is available in an account before signing off on a requisition. He said he looks at the purpose of the request and analyzes the requisition sheet to see if it is done properly and checks to see if money is available to handle the request. He said a quote was received from G&W Roofing because they were putting a roof on the courthouse annex at the time.

“I don’t approve or not approve,” Hughes said. He added that after Zimmerlink questioned the requisition, he turned it over to solicitor Joseph E. Ferens Jr., who did not return a call seeking comment.

“My part of it is if the requisition is done properly,” Hughes said. He added that there are emergency situations in which certain repairs don’t have to be bid, but he was not sure if that was the case for the fire school roof.

Zimmerlink said she understands the need for the firemen’s association to have a building in proper repair because her husband was an active volunteer fireman up until a few years ago. She said it wasn’t uncommon to be having dinner or sleeping in the middle of the night and having her husband go off to fight a fire.

“It hits home directly,” Zimmerlink said. However, she said commissioners still have a responsibility as to how they spend money and a responsibility to adhere to the county code.

Zimmerlink is also taking issue with a decision by Vicites and Hardy to sign mortgage documents with National City Bank for a $300,000 mortgage being undertaken by the Fayette County Fair Board. She said the only action taken at a commissioner’s meeting was to extend the lease at the Fayette County Fairgrounds to the fair board for 30 years, and not to sign a mortgage.

Zimmerlink said she opted not to sign the mortgage documents until she could ask Ferens to determine if a resolution was approved to enter into a mortgage, Ferens responded in writing by saying he was never asked about a resolution nor was he directed to determine whether or not a resolution existed. He also responded that, “the county can ratify their decision at any board meeting after the fact.”

Zimmerlink said Ferens remarks are not they type of legal advice or opinions that she expects from a county solicitor.

“Ferens has a responsibility to determine, whether asked to do so or not, what necessary documents are needed. For him to say that this can be ratified after the fact is not the way I wish to conduct Fayette County business. Still today, he has not provided me with any information about this mortgage other than his letter,” Zimmerlink said.

At the March commissioners meeting, Ferens said the lease was needed because the fair board wanted to do some “financing and developing.” No additional discussion was held.

Zimmerlink said her issue is the fact that she was given signature pages hours after the June meeting when the mortgage could have been discussed, and she was told only two signatures were needed and the papers were going to the bank when she questioned the action.

In correspondence from Vicites, he told Zimmerlink she had “no authority” to hold up legal documents, because only two signatures are needed and the fair board needed to move ahead.

Vicites said the county owns the fairgrounds and had to co-sign a loan by the fair board. He said the fair board is adding bleachers for a larger seating capacity. He said because the county owns the land, the commissioners had to sign the mortgage documents. He said the lease at the fairgrounds was signed in order for the fair board to go for the mortgage.

“We’re trying to help these groups out. I’m going to work with them. Hardy agreed to help them, we like to build bridges. We have to grow the county,” Vicites said.

Zimmerlink said she believes the commissioners should support agriculture and the fair board, but they also need to “fully and publicly disclose when signing mortgage documents.” She said it is not acceptable to her to do it last minute.

“If it is important enough to secure the signatures of the county commissioners, what is our liability?” Zimmerlink asked.

Vicites disputed Zimmerlink’s assertion that she only received signature pages and was unaware of the details of the mortgage, saying she had the same information that he did.

“Either you support them or you don’t,” Vicites said of the fair board. “I think it’s a very good project and they have the funding source to pay for it.”

Hardy could not be reached for comment.