City of Dawson ‘out of compliance’; excavator questions, missing audits, loan concerns intensify

DAWSON — New details presented during last week’s Dawson City Council meeting further contradicted earlier public statements surrounding the city’s inoperable mini-excavator, while city officials again failed to provide commissioners with repair records, diagnostic reports or clear information about the machine’s current condition.

The discussion at the council meeting centered on replacement quotes presented to the city by Interim City Manager Roxie Powell for new excavators, ranging from roughly $57,000 to nearly $69,000. The proposals included two Kubota models and a Bobcat compact excavator.

Questions from council members quickly turned to conflicting explanations previously given about the city-owned mini-excavator, which has remained out of service for months.

During an earlier April council meeting, Powell stated the city had purchased a rebuilt motor for the machine that “won’t turn on.” Subsequent reporting and records requests later showed no replacement engine had been purchased or installed, according to City Attorney Tommy Coleman and manufacturer information from Yanmar confirming the machine still contained its original factory engine. 

At last week’s meeting, Powell acknowledged the previous statement was incorrect and said the city had only purchased a replacement starter.

“Yes, ma’am, I was mistaken,” Powell said during the exchange.

However, despite the clarification, neither Powell nor Public Works Director Michael Sinquefield provided documentation showing what repairs had actually been performed, whether a full diagnostic had been completed, or the precise operational condition of the excavator.

Powell told commissioners the excavator “turns over and cranks” but “won’t stay cranked,” while also speculating the machine could have “shot pistons” or “valves that have intertwined somewhere.” No written mechanic’s assessment or diagnostic paperwork was presented to support those claims. 

Council members also questioned whether the replacement starter itself was functioning, what the city had ultimately spent on repairs and whether the machine’s engine had ever been formally inspected by the manufacturer or an authorized mechanic.

Powell was unable to provide clear answers to several of those questions during the meeting.

When commissioners referenced the earlier approximately $10,000 engine discussion, Powell stated the city had purchased only a starter costing less than $300, though no invoices or repair summaries were presented during the meeting. Previous records released by the city showed a starter purchase order totaling $381.37. 

Commissioners also questioned inconsistencies between statements made during the meeting and emails included in the council packet.

One email from Southern Sales & Rentals General Manager Andy Bass stated Yanmar “only offers a new motor” for the machine at a cost of $9,965.87 and suggested the city could send the excavator “to auction” because it still contained usable parts.

Yet when asked directly during the meeting whether auctioning the machine for parts had previously been recommended, Sinquefield answered no.

Additional confusion emerged over replacement excavator quotes presented to the council. Councilwoman Sondra Walker noted all three proposals included in the packet had expired dates. Powell responded that Sinquefield had contacted vendors and the companies would still honor the pricing, though updated written quotes were not presented publicly during the meeting.

The excavator discussion occurred alongside broader concerns about the city’s financial and administrative condition.

Earlier in the meeting, officials discussed the city remaining out of compliance with state financial requirements because multiple annual audits still had not been completed. Under Georgia law, municipalities are required to complete annual independent financial audits and submit them to the state. Those audits are intended to verify a city’s financial condition, spending practices, debts, internal controls and compliance with grant and loan obligations.

The issue surfaced during discussion surrounding two Georgia Fund Authority loan modifications tied to water and sewer infrastructure projects. Powell told council members the city would require additional time before repayment obligations begin because delays in drawdowns and project completion continued.

According to Powell, one loan modification extended the repayment timeline until Aug. 31, 2028, pushing back the original 2027 deadline. She said the extensions were necessary because of labor shortages, supply delays and administrative backlogs affecting funding drawdowns. 

Commissioners questioned whether the city could continue accessing the funds while remaining out of compliance on audits.

“We’re still able to draw those funds down?” Councilwoman Sondra Walker asked during the exchange.

Powell responded the city could continue drawing existing approved funds but could not borrow additional money. The meeting discussion referenced two major loan amounts tied to infrastructure projects, one totaling approximately $2.18 million and another roughly $2.2 million. 

The prolonged audit delays raised additional concerns because council members were simultaneously being asked to consider moving forward on equipment expenditures potentially exceeding $60,000 while key financial reporting remained incomplete.

Despite the ongoing audit issues and infrastructure loan concerns, council members were given no new update on the city’s progress toward completing overdue audits, and no financial report was presented during the meeting, marking at least the third consecutive month without a public financial update during a regular council session.

Likewise, no mention was made during the meeting that the city had recently hired a new finance director, and no update was provided regarding the city’s search for a permanent city manager following months of interim administration.

As discussion continued, council members appeared uncertain how to proceed without clearer information regarding the excavator’s actual condition, repair history or the cost-benefit analysis of repairing versus replacing it.

Mayor Robert Aaron ultimately recommended the council “table” action on how to proceed until a future date, though no timeline was specified during the meeting.

Despite extended discussion among city officials and council members, no opportunity for public comment or questions was invited or permitted before the meeting moved into executive session.