Augusta Riverfront LLC Feels Entitled to Taxpayers' Money

Wednesday, Feb. 29, 2012
Augusta, GA
CityStink.net Commentary


At Monday's committee meetings, Augusta Commissioners refused to endorse a controversial $836,288 change-order for the TEE Center. Causing the most consternation was approximately $400,000 for a more expensive air handling system. The current one meets state standards but The Marriott hotel wants a more premium HVAC system that provides nearly four times the air exchanges required by state standards. The problem is, Augusta Riverfront LLC, the owner of the Marriott wants taxpayers to pay for it. Paul Simon, the head of Augusta Riverfront LLC threatened commissioners that if they  did not approve the change-order then they "could not operate" together.

For Paul Simon and Augusta Riverfront LLC to threaten to sever ties with Augusta over the  TEE Center project because they may not be able to get their hands on more taxpayer money demonstrates a galling arrogance that has reached an apex of absurdity. The taxpayers have given Augusta Riverfront LLC and The Marriott a $38 million dollar gift in the TEE Center, but to hear Simon speak, they are doing us all the favors. To hear Simon speak, you'd think the Marriott was the only hotel in town. We'd like to remind Mr Simon that there are other hotels located in downtown Augusta and in other parts of the city that have never asked for nor received the generous government hand-outs that his Marriott hotel has. These hotels also draw in visitors year round and they also pay the hotel-motel tax which is being used finance bonds for construction of the TEE Center and  to pay Augusta Riverfront LLC a generous $350,000 per year to manage their $38 million gift from taxpayers plus an additional $350,000 for the Convention and Visitor's Bureau to market the facility. What are these other hotels getting for what they pay into the city in hotel-motel taxes? It seems that it is all going to Augusta Riverfront LLC.. ..their competition.

For Augusta Riverfront LLC to be issuing any ultimatums at this point over the TEE Center is ludicrous. This project has been entirely funded through taxpayer dollars and public bonds. Augusta Riverfront LLC has to date pledged zero dollars of their own money towards the construction of this facility. And to top it off, taxpayers even built them a $12 million parking deck on their own property giving them control of the entire ground floor. And we would also like to remind Mr Simon, that his Marriott hotel and adjacent office building was built partly with a $7.5 million taxpayer funded UDAG loan, that Augusta Riverfront LLC never repaid. In the late 1990s, he was able to strong-arm commissioners into forgiving that loan over the objections of then City Administrator Randy Oliver.

It seems that Augusta Riverfront LLC has an addiction to taxpayer money and now they want more. And they aren't asking politely; they are demanding it. They feel entitled to it! And it's no surprise really that they have this attitude because commissioners likely will give it to them like they have so many times in the past. Despite the tough talk at last week's commission meeting and Monday's committee, several commissioners hinted that they would likely change their votes next week and go ahead and approve the change-order. But considering how little Augusta Riverfront LLC has contributed to this project, why not ask them to pay for the fancier HVAC system?

The TEE Center can be completed without the more expensive air handlers.  If The Marriott wants a more premium system then why not ask them to pay for it? Let's think about it. The taxpayers are already chipping in an additional $350,000 to market the facility, something that should be the responsibility of the management firm, Augusta Riverfront LLC, who will be paid $350,000 per year to operate the TEE Center. That's about the cost of the premium HVAC system that the Marriott is demanding. So how about they pay for the more expensive air handlers in exchange for the taxpayer gift to market the facility for them? Seems only fair, right? Especially after all of the other generous hand-outs Augusta Riverfront LLC have managed to get courtesy of the taxpayers.

It's about time for Augusta Commissioners to show some backbone and stop bending at every whim of a spoiled brat who wants "MORE, MORE, MORE" and then threatens to pitch a temper tantrum if they don't get everything they want from the taxpayers. It's time to say "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!" ***
CS

Lori Davis: Putting Slumlords on Notice

Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2012
By Lori Davis

If you live in Augusta Georgia, or the surrounding area, the neighborhood, “Harrisburg,” conjures up all kinds of thoughts and verbal reactions from those who are familiar. Those who are most familiar know that the remaining homeowners of Harrisburg have been fighting a no-win situation in the effort to take back the neighborhood from the area slumlords. For those of you who are new to this subject, Harrisburg is an historic mill village which is situated between Summerville and Downtown Augusta. It is an island unto itself of prostitutes, drug dealers and their slumlords who continue to enable this type of behavior with total disregard for those of us who live here.

We have waged a very public battle for over 5 years. (See the Augusta Chronicle for the many related articles). The traits that our most notable slumlords have in common are:

Their names are well known among their peers in the community.
They have excelled in their personal areas of business and are quite affluent.
Most are church going types.
They promise you that they would never knowingly rent to drug dealers as they collect their rent in cash.
They will tell you that until it can be proven in a court of law that problems are occurring on their property, they cannot evict.
And lastly, it is the problem of RCSO to take care of the issue.


Guess what slumlords, we have really had enough and will go to great lengths to expose you and the addresses where you harbor your antisocial renters. Know that we can expose those addresses at any time because they are a matter of public record. Facebook also is a powerful tool and will be used to our advantage…. To the slumlord who continues to set up boarding houses when he knows it is illegal, I hope your Daddy is proud of you. He has a very good name; what happened to you?

To the Slumlord who told an 80 year old woman she could move if she didn’t like her situation living between two of your crack houses, there are many who use your downtown insurance services that might just discontinue the patronizing of your business.

To the slumlord who got caught with the many custom outfitted boarding houses without a single fine from code enforcement, may your patrons leave your Walton Way bar.

To the slumlord who has rented for years to drug dealers on Tuttle St., and says it is the Christian thing to do, may you end up living next to them.

 And lastly, To the slumlord whom we found out your identity today, may those who trust you as their senior account executive for their business advertising think twice before making you a wealthier man.

On a lighter note…. Many thanks to the Harrisburg landlords who do the right thing. Those that come to mind and have been most active in our efforts to clean up Harrisburg are Tyson Schuetze, Gail Kaitschuck, Butch Palmer, Fred Daitch, and Phil Williams. These landlords have a true heart for Harrisburg and show it by renting to those that they would not mind living next door to. This, dear Slumlord is, “Landlord 101.” May I suggest that you get a copy.***
LD

Augusta Elections Date Change a Dirty Trick?

Saturday, Feb. 25, 2012
Augusta, GA
CityStink.net Commentary

UPDATE:  After the GA Senate defeated a bill earlier on Tuesday that included moving Augusta's local elections to the July 31st, primary, the GA House resurrected the effort later that night by amending Senate Bill 92 to include the elections date change. The vote came at 10pm. So what's going on here?

******

We first told you about an effort to move all non-partisan elections in Augusta from the November general election ballot to the July general primary ballot back on December 5, 2011 (See New Elections Law Could Save The Cabal here). GA House Bill 158 was passed into law by the Georgia General Assembly in the 2011 session. It shifted all county and consolidated  non-partisan elections from the general election to the mid-summer general primary ballot and would go in effect for the 2012 election season. However, an official opinion from the state Attorney General  said that Augusta was exempt from this law because it was considered a municipality under its charter.

But that still wouldn't stop proponents insisting on moving Augusta's local races to July. Just yesterday, the Georgia House passed a bill sponsored by Barbara Sims (R-Augusta) that would force Augusta to move its non-partisan races from the November general election ballot to the July primary ballot. The bill passed along party lines 95-58. Local Democrats vow to fight it.

Proponents of the bill say it is all about saving money for costly run-off elections. They contend that non-partisan races often result in run-offs and it's better to lump those with the primary run-offs in the summer instead of create new run-offs in early December. But the bill does not guarantee that there won't be anymore general election run-offs. Georgia law requires any candidate to receive 50% plus one vote to win an election outright. That's only 100% certain in a two-candidate race. Any race that has a third-party or Independent candidate can result in a run-off. A Libertarian forced a run-off in the 1992 Senate campaign that resulted in Republican Paul Coverdell unseating incumbent Democrat Wyche Fowler. Will the Republicans in the Georgia General Assembly try to now ban Libertarians, other third parties, and independents from running on general election ballots in the name of avoiding costly general election run-offs?

If Republicans were really serious about saving taxpayers from extra run-off elections then they would instead pass a bill instituting Instant Run-offs. Also, known as preferential voting, voters rank their preferences of candidates on the ballot. This way if their 1st choice is knocked out in the first round, then their second or third choice will be counted in an instant run-off. This method has been used for many years in Australia and is employed in several US jurisdictions from Maine to Minnesota, and to parts of California. If avoiding costly run-offs is the goal, then IRV (Instant Run-off Voting) is the way to go.

But let's be honest, this is not about reducing run-off elections in Georgia. This is a blatant attempt to suppress black voter turnout for these local races in an effort to help the ruling establishment cling on to power in places like Augusta-Richmond County, which has become increasingly majority African-American over the past decade. With a majority African-American population approaching 60% in Richmond County, it seems inevitable that this majority will take the reigns of power in local government sooner or later. Well this effort to move the local elections to July seems to be an attempt by Republicans to push that inevitability to later.

It's not surprising that an Augusta politician would be the sponsor of this bill. It's been no big secret that the ruling establishment in Augusta has been in panic mode over the likelihood that blacks will soon take control over most areas of local government. There has even been a concerted effort to beg Sheriff Ronnie Strength to run for one more term because they think he is the only one capable of withstanding a challenge from a strong black candidate. With new redistricting maps, the racial balance on the  Augusta commission could  easily flip, especially with a large surge of black voters showing up in November to cast a vote for President Barack Obama. And that seems to explain why this change is to go in effect for this election year instead of delaying it to the 2014 election season. Could this change also be insurance for candidates like Matt Aitken, if he decides to run again?

Having such a major change in the elections date for local races in the same calendar year will also put extra burdens on candidates. They will have to scramble to qualify and then raise money for an election nearly four months earlier. And a mid-summer low turnout election will likely drastically change campaign strategy and the dynamics of the race. It also makes it very difficult for candidates to enter the race if they don't know exactly what date the election will be held on.

There is a very good possibility that the Department of Justice could throw out this legislation on the basis that it violates the Voting Rights Act in diluting minority voting strength. The motivation behind this move seems obvious enough. So after all is said and done, this could all be thrown out and the date for local elections remains in November. But until there is official word, there will be uncertainty for candidates and voters, and that's not a good thing.

Some people justify the elections change even acknowledging that it is likely motivated by suppressing black turn-out by saying that Democrats gerry-mandered districts and used dirty tricks to maintain power for years. But do two wrongs make a right? Even Augusta afternoon radio talk-show host Austin Rhodes said that the motivation behind this was obvious; that it was about suppressing black voter turnout. He told listeners that this did amount to a dirty trick, and that just because Democrats used similar tactics in the past did not make it right now because Republicans are in control. He said that Republicans should be better than that and take the "higher road."

The fact is there are many large cities that have switched to majority black rule, and they did not fall apart into chaos. Power shifted towards a black majority in Atlanta in the 1970s.. and the city actually experienced its greatest economic booms since that time. Corruption can come in all shades and Atlanta has had its fair share, but then so has Augusta.

This unfounded terror coming from the white  political and business establishment in Augusta over an inevitable majority black rule is a manifestation of  a deep-rooted racism that has continued to hold this community back for decades. And with this last ditch effort to cling onto power through dirty tricks, it's rearing its ugly head again and undoing years of what seemed like progress in race relations in Augusta. The people pushing this move need to be concerned about what kind of statement this is making to the outside world about Augusta and the state of Georgia. They are doing more damage by keeping the politics of racial division and mistrust alive than any imagined harm they see coming from inevitable majority black rule.***
CS
Related Stories:

• Mayor Deke Plays Both Sides Over Redistricting
• New Elections Law Could Save The Cabal
• Sen. Hardie Davis Jr Takes Aim at The Cabal

***Do you have a story idea, a tip, or would you like to write for City Stink? Then please contact us at: citystink@gmail.com***

Share this on Facebook by clicking the icon below

Serious Problems Plague Augusta's Private Contractor of Public Transit

Saturday, Feb. 25, 2012

Augusta, GA

By Loris Davis

From CityStink.net Reports

City Stink reporters along with other members of the media were invited to sit down with Commissioner Bill Lockett for a presentation concerning Mobility Transit, the company that is now managing Augusta's city bus service. To say that Commissioner Lockett was upset about the recent shenanigans of this company would be an understatement . He poured over pages and pages of notes that he had taken obviously from many conversations that he has had with disgruntled employees, trainees, and bus riders.

It was his intent to make the media aware of what all has been going on since the city outsourced it's public bus service. The picture he painted for us was not a pretty one. He succeeded in piquing our interest as reporters to investigate the allegations that he was presenting to us. Investigative journalism is certainly not at a premium in Augusta so this story looked like another good one for City Stink to look into. Following will be a brief overview of the reported problems as told to Commissioner Lockett by many who have been affected by what appears to be total ineptness of this company. We at City Stink will need a bit more time to piece together just who this company is, and why they were chosen for the job. Looks to be another interesting Augusta saga.

Mobility Transit is a company out of Knoxville, Tennessee that claims that they contract with cities to manage and operate public transit. The thing that I found most interesting is when you do an internet search on this company the first page that comes up says,"Mobility opens it's doors in Augusta as APT's new transit operator." Hmmm. Interesting first page for a company website. The other thing that I found interesting was the city of Augusta began business with them in August, we are almost into March and this is still up on their website. Kind of interesting that claims that they have gotten so many recent contracts that they can't keep up with the financial end of the job. Maybe this is why the power was turned off at the Broad Street station last week.

What we know:

Preliminary searches for information shows us that Kevin J. Adams is the President and CEO of the company. Mike Rosson is the agent of record for the LLC as registered with the State of Georgia on 6/17/11. The filing address is listed as 1535 Fenwick Street which doesn't seem to exist, and attorney of record is Alan I. Shanahan who is in Michigan. Another interesting address associated with this company is 1800 Hickory Glenn Rd. Knoxville, Tennessee. When using google maps, it appears to be a house out in the country. Another Hmmm.

What We Have Been Hearing:

Now to share what we are hearing which certainly warrants further investigation: These are the complaints that have been reported to us about Mobility Transit.:

*Employees who are new trainees will make $25 per day during their two weeks of training and upon  completion will receive a $750 bonus. If training is not completed, their is no pay.

*Employees were taken off hourly wage and became salaried after it was noted that some were working 30 and 40 hours of overtime.

*The jobs of mechanic, tire maintenance, and general maintenance were replaced with one employee making $11 an hour. A mechanic's hourly wage previously was $17.50.

*There is one employee handbook that is specifically for bus drivers but is used as well for all other employees.

*Mobility Transit inherited $200,000 in bus parts and declared them obsolete asking the city to replace them. The company also supposedly runs a side job selling scrap metal.

*Employee health benefits and life insurance benefits were cut off for non payment.

*Business License is dated February 7, 2012 when the company has been operating since August 1, 2011.

*Vendors claiming that they have not been paid for their services are: Ga. Power, NAPA,Truck Parts Specialists, A and W Oil, GNK Uniform Service, and Fleet Care.

*Some management level employees paid rank and file employees out of their own pockets.

 It doesn't seem that anyone associated with this company and it's way of doing business is happy with the way things are going. Employees as well as bus riders are filing complaints which have gone unanswered as turn over has escalated, forcing more and more overtime for fewer and fewer bus drivers.

I guess one would have to agree that this is quite a list of problems for a company that advertised themselves as totally solvent as well as experienced in running an operation of this magnitude. All of this begs the question; How in the world did procurement choose this company, and how much research was done to make sure that what they put in their application and contract was true? City Stink will continue to follow this situation closely until we are satisfied that all of our suspicions have been researched. We will keep you informed as we continue our investigation.***
LD

TEE Center Update: Did Fred Fix the Kitchen But Fail to Execute?

The Convention Center Agreement Today

Fred and Barry's Unexecuted Fix?

Friday, Feb. 24, 2012

Augusta, GA

In TEE Center Kitchen Costs Leave Taxpayers Burnt! , yesterday's City Stink exclusive, this writer covered deficiencies in the City of Augusta's Tee Center Term Sheet with its partner in the project, Augusta Riverfront LLC, which was approved by the city commission on August 21, 2007. This was the approved document recently cited by attorney Jim Plunkett's resolution recounting the history of commission votes ratifying TEE and parking deck agreements. A formal agreement was belatedly drafted and conditionally approved for the Reynolds Street Parking Deck on February 7. 

 

Despite references in Board of Commissioner meetings all through 2009, no formal contractual agreement has been found executing the final Tee (now conference center) operating agreement. The original operating agreement for the Convention Center was recorded in the office of the Clerk of Superior court. There doesn't seem to have been any modification nor has there been any action to define rights with respect to the .23 acre tract that the LLC owns under the Tee Center. Like the parking deck agreements the formal agreement seems to have lagged negotiations by years.

Based upon a schedule obtained in an earlier open records request by City Stink contributor Lori Davis (See Modifications Sheet Document Here) and informational updates made since the August 21, 2007 approval of the original term sheet that was unfavorable to Augusta, as noted yesterday, it looks like Augusta City Administrator Fred Russell and city Convention and Visitor's bureau chief Barry White actually may have done an exceptional job of renegotiating the deal so that it is dramatically more favorable to the city!

The proposed modifications put the City in control of the Center's finances, gives it catering revenues, provides for a set fee rather than profits from operations, and provides that profits from operations go to Augusta. If this modification represents the final agreement, it is vastly superior to the original deal and is actually a very good deal for the City of Augusta.

From here it looks like the original Term Sheet stands as the only basis of an operating agreement actually approved by the Commission and that the final agreement has been mired in what have to be tremendous legal complexities of merging the Tee agreement with the existing Convention Center agreement.

The final agreement should take care of the issue of the new kitchen equipment and replacements of that equipment going forward, but the Issue of how the new agreement relieved the LLC's responsibilities going into this transaction, up to and until the combined Tee Center starts operations, still stands as does the issue of LLC responsibility for the proposed HVAC changes demanded by the Marriott.

Leaving issues like these, which should have been finalized before construction, hanging for 4 ½ years is a huge failure of administration, despite Fred Russell's accomplishment of what looks to be a much, much better deal.

This story will be updated as new developments are known.***


A.G.
** Pdf files referenced in this article can be found below.


Related Stories:

• Exclusive: TEE Center Kitchen Costs Leave Taxpayers Burnt!
• TEE Center GMP Construction Contract Provides No "Guarantees"

Term Mod Sheet

Augusta's Contract With Heery International Contains More Surprises

Hear Ye, Heery is Here

More Overpriced Payees for the City?

In 2003 the City of Augusta did a wise thing in a very foolish way. The administration saw an enormous upswing in capital spending that it lacked the staff and expertise to plan, engineer, procure, manage and control. A large, growing, and respected Atlanta-based firm, Heery International was selected to perform these functions. The strategy was sound.

The execution was horrible.

This blanket order was executed with 4% annual rate increases mandated. Despite the downturn in construction and the overall economy, in which labor, overhead and profit have tended to fall, the compounding of Heery's rates continued unabated. The rates established for next year are up an incredible 48% over the initial rates. A Principle in Charge then was $162.16 an hour, this year one is $230.81 and next year it would be $240.04. A project manager then was $87.32. Now one is $124.28, rising to $129.25 next year. An administrative assistant went from $42.41 to $62.78 an hour.

The cumulative effects are stunning. In July 2010 the contract was extended to 2013. At the time, the contract price was raised from $7,082,355 to $10,317,906.

Amazingly, the total overhead and fee in RW Allen's contract to build and equip the entire Tee Center is $1.8 million, while Heery's program management fees will top $1.2 million. There is another $1.3 million slated for the Webster Detention Center Phase II. The Reynolds Street Parking Deck is a surprising $549,390.

A defense can be made that division of duties between the construction management firms and Heery reduced the costs of the former. That is a valid point. The difference in rates probably negates a lot of this advantage, however.

A fairly common approach is for the hourly rate for such services to be based upon some verifiable figure, usually the salary rate of the employee divided by 2080 (52 weeks, 40 hours per week) times a multiplier that is negotiated. 2.0 to 2.3 is a normal range. The Heery contract does not accomplish this. The rates were firmly set on an unknown basis back in 2003 and 2004. Augusta did not negotiate controls over composition of rates.

Beyond this, generally there is a firm division in setting rates that only people directly engaged in the project or on site are billed. Principals, Project Directors, and home office administrative assistants, all of whom appear on Augusta's contract, are included within the markup applied to the directly-engaged employees. Augusta's Heery contract allows these employees to be billed in addition to the marked-up billing rates of the direct employees.

Augusta is only permitted to audit the hours billed and the employee classification. Augusta is not allowed access to payroll records to ascertain accuracy of the rate billed or upon what basis the rate is determined. The language is blunt: “OWNER may only audit accounting records applicable to a cost-reimbursable type compensation.”

What this says is that the public can never know how community liason Butch Gallop's Heery billing rate got to be a whopping $177.91 an hour billed, with the potential of being billed at the $240.04 an hour on the rate sheet for next year!

The contract is nearly always advertised as a joint venture between Dukes Edwards Dukes and Heery International. Indeed, Dukes Edwards Dukes principal Winfred Dukes appears on the billing rate sheet at $240.04 an hour in 2013, up from the initial $162.16 an hour. For the sake of clarity and honesty, Dukes bills only about 4 hours a month. He is one of several Heery executives who Augusta should never have allowed to be billed in this writer's humble opinion, since they are at supervision levels above the Senior Project Managers and directly-engaged staff on Augusta's projects.

To summarize, the Heery contract has been on auto-pilot with compounding rates, unverifiable rate bases, and apparent inadequate division of direct labor versus overhead. The fault lies with Augusta, not its contractor, in this case as in all of the others recently reviewed. Augusta is profligate with taxpayer money, in this case by not revisiting a blanket order for services, electing to extend it untouched for years.

Who is Winfred Dukes? Well we found him under the Gold Dome in Atlanta.

State Rep. Winfred Dukes

 Who knew Augusta had another state representative in the Georgia House?

Mysterious bodies abound in Augusta's contracts. So far there are two in the Heery contract.

Stay tuned, there is more to come, as the deciphering of Augusta's contracting continues.

Much more.***

A.G.

Related Stories:
"Galloping" Away With Taxpayers' Money

**View Heery Document Below

Heery

There Will Be No David Fry Trial

David Fry is accused of attempting to bribe 2 commissioners

Thursday, Feb. 23, 2012
Augusta, GA
From CityStink.net Reports

After more than 2 and half years since Augusta attorney David Fry was arrested for the attempted bribery of two sitting Augusta commissioners over the controversial TEE Center, it appears there will not be a trial after all. Fry has entered a plea and will be sentenced March 8th.

The details of the plea deal have not been released. Could it be an Alford Plea do-over? The last time Fry tried that it was thrown out by Judge Wayne Brown. But Fry's attorneys were successful in having Judge Brown removed from the case by hiring his daughter as part of the defense staff. We have to wonder how a trial would have went with Judge brown presiding.

This all seems to be an anti-climactic ending the the David Fry saga. Will we ever know what really happened? Many people do not believe that Fry acted alone. And what Fry was offering the commissioners in his attempted bribe continues to raise eyebrows with recent revelations over the controversial TEE Center parking deck. In late Augusta of 2009, Fry promised commissioners Alvin Mason and Corey Johnson profits in the parking deck if they switched their votes in favor of passing the TEE Center agreement. But what did Fry have to gain in all of this and why was he willing to commit a felony to get the TEE Center passed?


WRDW News showed a glimpse of the bribery note that Fry allegedly gave to commissioners Mason and Johnson. Two names stood out. Morris and Simon. Could this be referring to William S Morris III, publisher of The Augusta Chronicle and Paul Simon, Morris' business partner and head of Augusta Riverfront LLC?

For many people, it is still hard to believe that Fry was just some over zealous long gunman, and the offer of parking deck concessions beg for more scrutiny. But will people ever get answers to the many questions that abound in the David Fry saga? Well it all depends on what information comes out in the plea deal, but it appears now to be a convenient way to sweep it all under the rug. Even the local media seemed to forget about the trial that was expected to get under way more than two weeks ago.

We were hoping for a trial that would offer the opportunity to bring in witnesses and cross examinations. How much did commissioner Jerry Brigham really know about Fry's plans? When did he know it? Why did he not notify police? What did former commissioner Don Grantham know?  A trial would have likely brought them to the stand to testify. A trial could have examined new evidence regarding the ownership of the ground floor of the parking deck that makes Fry's offer of parking concessions more plausible. Who was Fry really working for? Will we ever know? Will this all be swept under the rug?

Well at this point, with more scandals unfolding each day over the TEE Center, the Fry affair actually seems to be small potatoes. Even if we don't get all the answers of what really happened in the bribery attempt, there is ample evidence mounting of impropriety over the TEE Center in other areas. But many people will still think that the plea deal is yet another convenient way to cover all of this up. But at this point a complete cover-up may be impossible.***

Related Stories:

• The Ghost of David Fry
• Exclusive! TEE Center Kitchen Costs Leave Taxpayers Burnt!

Exclusive: TEE Center Kitchen Costs Leave Taxpayers Burnt!

!!CityStink.net Exclusive!!

And Now, The Tee Kitchen Saga

A cost recovery opinion and perspective

Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2012

Augusta, GA

CityStink.net

In a very heated Augusta Richmond County Commission meeting last evening, February 21, 2012, a proposed change order totaling $836,288 for modifications to the Tee Center Contract with RW Allen was disapproved (See The Change Order 2 document here).The substantial price increase was really the aggregate of 13 different change orders combined for the purpose of gaining Commission approval, usually a rubber stamp. This time the commission balked because of a stench boiling out of the unfinished Tee/Convention Center Kitchen. $399,823 of the increase was an HVAC upgrade to the kitchen area at the insistence of the city's partner in this public-private partnership, Augusta Riverfront LLC, operator of the Marriott hotel.

Neither side of the vote on the commission was wrong. Augusta's entire project management team had signed off on the change order four months ago, so disapproving it now was a moot point. Some commissioners accurately saw it that way and voted for approval, yet they all have serious questions. The rest missed the point about construction contract law and jumped to the real issue – are the Augusta Riverfront partners in this project controlling and expanding the scope to their benefit, yet totally at public expense?

The change order is a “done deal.”  A war appears imminent between the partners over financial responsibility for various areas of the project.

There is a powerful ODOR coming from the kitchen.

The parties jumped into this agreement based upon a document entitled Management Agreement Term Sheet – Trade Center, Version 6 dated June 29,2007, which the Commission  approved on August 21, 2007 (See TEE Center Term Sheet Document here). The purpose of the term sheet was to set forth that the “City of Augusta (“Augusta”) and Augusta Riverfront LLC (“LLC”) are interested in entering into a joint venture to own, build and operate a Trade, Exhibit and Event Center (“Trade Center”).”

This controlling document failed to establish effective dates or define WHEN operations start and construction ends. It would appear to embrace start of operations before project completion because it requires the Convention and Visitors Bureau to expend city funds 18 months before the project is complete. Aside from this, the project itself was scheduled to accommodate ongoing operations.

Let's see what the Term Sheet says about cost responsibility. “LLC has total responsibility to provide all operating cost of the Convention Center, including, but not limited to, labor cost, supply cost, insurance and all repair, maintenance, and replacement of equipment. These replacement costs include replacing kitchen equipment, laundry equipment, HVAC equipment, outside walls and roof.”

Then there is this section:

AUGUSTA AND LLC AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING TERMS TO OWN, BUILD AND

OPERATE THE TRADE CENTER

5.  OPERATIONAL & CAPITAL FUNDING: It is anticipated that the new Trade Center's rental revenues may not be sufficient to cover its operating expenses, particularly in the early years. The Trade Center will have capital needs for addition and replacement of various fixed assets. Augusta and LLC will participate in these Operational and Capital Funding needs as follows:.......

  d…......Augusta's Capital Funds shall specifically not be used for items related to Kitchen Equipment, Laundry Equipment, and any Convention Center or Hotel capital cost.

Remember there are no dates given to establish when operations start because operations were ongoing and overlap construction activities. Even more confusing is what is “Convention Center” versus “Tee Center.” Indeed, by actions of Augusta Riverfront LLC publicly acknowledging that BOTH are the "Convention Center" hasn't that partner effectively agreed that its financial responsibilities for the combined total include those that previously existed for the Convention Center?

Interestingly, the Term Sheet provided that the kitchen for which Augusta Riverfront had equipment repair and replacement responsibilities would be consolidated with the Tee Center kitchen.

7.      KITCHEN AND BACK-OF-HOUSE: LLC and Augusta will allow the necessary modifications to the Convention Center to provide for the combined use of the kitchen, laundry and back of the house areas. The modified kitchen and back of the house space will be designed for use for both the Convention Center and the Trade Center.

In so combining the “Convention Center” with the “Tee Center” did Augusta Riverfront's existing financial responsibility for kitchen equipment disappear? Or did it carry over?

4. TERM OF AGREEMENT: Augusta and LLC agree to modify their agreement for the operation of the      Convention Center to include the Trade Center.

The Term Sheet also clearly stated that catering revenues produced by the kitchen equipment do not result in any benefit for Augusta.

APPENDIX A: Definitions

For purposes of calculating the “Trade Center Operational Funding” described in Section 5., the Operating Revenues shall not include the following:.....

m.     Trade Center Catering Revenues

2.                   Trade Center Catering Revenues: shall consist of those food and beverage revenues generated on formal, catered meal functions held in the Trade Center.

City Stink and Augusta Today contributor Lori Davis obtained the December 31, 2012 project billing from Construction Manager at Risk RW Allen to the city (See Document here: Attn to Kitchen Equipment Line Item Item 19 on Page 3). This billing includes a line item of $1,376,987 for Kitchen Equipment, $275,946 of which has already been billed and presumably paid, less the retainage. Examination of the supporting subcontractor invoice shows thousands of dollars to repair and clean existing equipment that would have apparently been the responsibility of the LLC under the previous agreement. The controversial HVAC change order to meet Marriott standards can be added to the total.

It is clear that the infrastructure and building costs for the kitchen are the responsibility of Augusta. These costs are included in the building mechanical, electrical, HVAC and other contracts. No potential issues are apparent there, other than cost issues that might be unearthed in the future by a construction auditor.

Adding the $1,376,987 of kitchen equipment to the Marriott-directed kitchen HVAC upgrade $399,083 means a total of $1,776,070 of kitchen equipment capital costs that are potentially disputable by the City of Augusta as costs to be born by Augusta Riverfront LLC.

Questions abound. Has the City backcharged the LLC for any of the $275,946 paid to date for kitchen equipment and repair or cleaning of existing equipment the LLC seems responsible for? Isn't the full $1,776,070 capital expenditures for which the LLC is responsible under the existing agreement and the Term sheet?  Was an intent to treat the capital expenditures for new kitchen equipment as an Augusta cost adequately stated in the term sheet? Are the provisions for the LLC to be a partner in the project mean it can claim one start date for its project start date, yet another as the start date of 'operations' under the same agreement when no dates are stated in that agreement? Hasn't the LLC by announcing that the whole is now the “Convention Center” legally shot itself in the foot by in doing so embracing responsibility for kitchen capital expenditures? How many other costs of the Tee Center construction supplant existing LLC responsibilities for operating and capital costs from the existing Convention Center agreements? Where are the backcharges to the LLC?

Summary

To summarize, the Term Sheet establishing the relationship between the City of Augusta and the LLC for the Tee Center Project seems to be flawed in terms of effective dates; makes repeated statements that capital costs of kitchen equipment, which cost more than $1.7 million, and other capital costs are LLC responsibility; combines the existing “Convention Center” agreement with provisions making the LLC responsible for kitchen equipment with the new Tee Center construction and operations; and excludes Augusta from any apparent benefit from use of this capital equipment.

Somebody has a grand mess in their kitchen. This writer would be hard-pressed to decipher financial responsibilities under this informal, rushed, and incomplete Term Sheet “agreement.”

The lawyers are salivating because dividing this baby is going to take more than the wisdom and judgment of Solomon. The opinion from this quarter would be that it could be split 50-50. Given the size of these costs, that won't be an easy pill to swallow.

The commission is, yet again, in an impossible position with respect to this project. Can they get any more Tee'd off?

Stay tuned for more cost recovery analysis  as the Tee Center documents are dissected while the project nears completion.***

 Al Gray

Editor's note: City Stink contributor Al Gray is President of Cost Recovery Works, Inc., a Lincoln County, Georgia-based firm focused on construction, public administration, policy and cost recovery reviews on a guaranteed results basis. 

** Below are pdf files of the documents referenced in the above article:

Related Stories:
TEE Update: Did Fred Fix the Kitchen But Fail to Execute?

RWA December Pay App. (Atten to Page 3. Line Item 19 "Kitchen Equipment")
RWA December 2011 Pay App
TEE center Term Sheet Document:
TEE Term Sheet (1)
TEE Center Change Order 2 Document:
Tee Center Change Order 2 R W Allen

Barry White About to Abandon Ship?

Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2012

Barry White, President and CEO of the Augusta CVB

Augusta, GA
By The Outsider

On the day that Barry White, President and CEO of Augusta Convention and Visitor's Bureau is scheduled to speak before the Augusta Commission to give details on a $350,000 marketing plan for the TEE Center, there is news floating around that he is being considered for a similar job in Jacksonville, FL. So does that mean that Barry White may be about to jump ship before the controversial TEE Center opens, a project that he was instrumental in getting passed?

Right now we are hearing that everything is very preliminary and that it was all initiated by  a search firm and not by White himself. But regardless how "preliminary" the Jacksonville job prospect may be, it will  likely be on the minds of   most people at today's commission meeting. How much confidence will commissioners be able to put in a marketing plan being developed by someone who may not even be around by the the time the TEE Center opens for business?

White was an early cheerleader of the TEE Center project and came before the commission on many occasions hyping the need for an expanded convention center adjacent to The Marriott hotel. White dismissed other locations and steered commissioners toward the Marriott and Augusta Riverfront LLC to manage the facility at a cost of $350,000 per year. White maintained, that  because Augusta lacked an expanded convention center, many conventions and meetings were passing us by and that was costing us tens of millions of dollars in economic impact.

However, the initial bookings for the TEE Center have been less than encouraging. Not one meeting is on the schedule for the first four months the center will be open, and that's after a nearly six month delay in the opening date. Could White see the writing on the wall and now is trying to abandon ship before it sinks? It would be hard to blame him  for not being interested in greener pastures, and for someone who's business is tourism, certainly a coastal Florida city would present more exciting opportunities. Outside of The Masters, there's only so much one can do to market Augusta to tourists on the shoe-string budget the CVB operates on.

But the timing does seem rather interesting with all of the controversy swirling around the TEE Center and its companion parking deck: Land that was supposed to be donated that never was, and then to find out that it has liens on it for over $7,000,000. A questionable $800,000+ change-order on the construction of the TEE Center itself for more expensive air handlers when the current ones fully meet state code. A Hyatt Place hotel that commissioners were told was practically inevitable back in 2009 only if they approved the TEE Center, that has yet to break ground two and a half years later. Questionable financial relationships between The Augusta CVB and Augusta Riverfront LLC, the prospective operator of the TEE Center and owner of the Marriott, that begs for more thorough auditing but has been carefully shielded from public inquiry. It all seems to be coming to a head all at once.

But as White gives his presentation today, one question commissioners may have is why the CVB is assuming the responsibility and cost for marketing the TEE Center when Augusta Riverfront LLC  is getting a very generous subsidy to manage it. Should that management contract not also cover marketing the facility? Global Spectrum, the private company hired to manage the James Brown Arena and Bell Auditorium handles the marketing of those two facilities, so why wouldn't Augusta Riverfront LLC do the same for the TEE Center? And $350,000 is not chump change for the Augusta CVB. Could that money not be better spent marketing Augusta overall as a destination to tourists and conventions instead of being spent to market just one facility attached to just one hotel? How must the owners of other hotels and meeting facilities feel that so much of the CVB's budget is going towards exclusively marketing one facility? One that will compete with them for business?

It's these kinds of tough questions which may be prompting Barry White to gaze South towards the sunny beaches of Florida. But for his own sake, we hope he makes a better impression than Fred Russell did when he went down to The Sunshine State looking for a one-way ticket out of Augusta. And  for Augusta's sake, if White does get the job in Jacksonville, maybe he can take Fred Russell along with him, but this time for good.***
OS

Related Stories:
LipStick on a Pig: TEE Center Marketing Plan Falls Short
***Do you have a story idea, a tip, or would you like to write for City Stink? Then please contact us at: citystink@gmail.com***

Share this on Facebook by clicking the icon below

Al Gray: TEE Center GMP Construction Contract Provides No "Guarantees"

When A Guarantee Isn't One

Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2012

Augusta, GA

By Al Gray

Augusta Commissioners on February 21, 2012, today, face a thorny vote on whether to approve a very expensive Change Order 2 (See the document here) to R.W. Allen LLC's Construction Manager at Risk Contract for construction of the Tee Center. The contract is structured as a cost-plus arrangement with a Guaranteed Maximum Price. Such deals are commonly called GMAX or GMP contracts.
Under a cost-plus GMP contract, the construction manager starts construction before the design and specifications are complete in an effort to accelerate project completion. Otherwise all of the design, specifications and plans must be complete in order to bid the job on a lump sum or fixed price basis. Under a GMP contract, the construction manager mobilizes, awards the early sitework, underground piping, and preliminary concrete work while the architects and engineers complete packages for the various construction disciplines (steel, electrical, HVAC) that occur in later stages. When the overall design reaches majority completion, in this case 65%, the construction manager has enough data to provide the owner with a Guaranteed Maximum Price.

RW Allen and Augusta agreed to a GMP of $27,900,000 in January 2011.(See Document here)

The public highly distrusts cost-plus contracts, even those capped by a maximum price “Guarantee.” In this instance, properly done, cost-plus should have saved money and been the best choice method of project delivery. RW Allen had to deal with a brownfield site (unknown underground obstacles and conditions), coordination with ongoing operations of the hotel and convention center, in a congested area, and in conjunction with new design. Trying to force fixed price contracting intended for a set design would have resulted in risk-loaded contract prices where the real risk remained with the owner, the City of Augusta. The unknowns and variables were too great.

Because the Guaranteed Maximum Price assumes set design parameters at the time the price is set, every GMP contract allows for change orders in the event that the design changes in the later stages at the recommendation of the architect and engineers. A change order increases the guaranteed maximum price.

Change Order 2 totaling $836,228 is actually the aggregation of 13 component change orders, including a controversial $399,083 change to the HVAC system to increase air turns to 8 over the base design standard of 2.5. Augusta's architect approved this change months ago.

Some Augusta commissioners are grumbling because they confused “Guaranteed Maximum Price” with “Lump Sum.” In either contracting method there still would be change orders and they would be legitimate. The commissioners reticence to accept price increases because there is a price “guarantee” is a misunderstanding of the deal.

When a change order like this one gets to the Board of Commisioners it generally is a fait accompli. This looks to be the case in this instance. Under the RW Allen contract, the city is already bound. Look at the dates and signatures on the change order. The master change order 2 is dated October 17, 2011 and is more than four months old! The component change orders have to be of even earlier vintage. RW Allen's contract for the Tee Center spells out that change orders increase the contract price in Article 15. (See Document Here)

There is little doubt that RW Allen was given the authority to proceed. The City of Augusta's architect/engineer, program manager, and city administrator have all signed the authorization. (See Document Here) Under the Tee Center contract, the commissioners have no real options.

Augusta commissioners really should not want a lump sum at this point, because a lump sum contract has fewer options for cost reductions and cost recoveries as the contractors have born the risks and have earned the rewards of bearing those risks. (This doesn't mean that lump sum contracts do not bear auditing, though!).

Commissioners can look forward to reductions in the Guaranteed Maximum Price as the Tee Center is completed. Allowances will be adjusted to actual cost both in the construction manager contract and in the component subcontracted packages. Contingency in this contract was $566,000 and that will be adjusted, too. Adjustments of 'costs' may or may not happen, depending on diligence.

Augusta Commissioners should be happy with the contract that they have and not yearn for a counterproductive fixed price that never would have been a lump sum. Just because a contract and change orders to it set a contract price, that does not mean that an evaluation of the scope documents cannot later reduce that price.

The administration and Board of Commissioners need to take prudent steps to verify the costs at completion. In fact, this needs to be performed for all of the various cost-plus GMP contracts the city has done in the last 3 years. Based upon the volume of these contracts, this writer projects that the costs recaptured by a comprehensive effort would range from $1.25 million to $5 million.

Nothing much is “guaranteed” in a GMP contract, just that the contractor keeps the change. Rarely is the change of the loose pocket variety. Augusta has let its contractors keep $millions in change by fruitlessly grumbling about change orders, then closing out “completed” contracts with nary a care.

That does guarantee a price.

Not if Augusta commissioners get wise.***

Al Gray

* (View pdf files of the documents referenced in this article below)

Editor's note: City Stink contributor Al Gray is President of Cost Recovery Works, Inc., a Lincoln County, Georgia-based firm focused on construction, public administration, policy and cost recovery reviews on a guaranteed results basis.

Below are the documents referenced in this story:

Tee Center Change Order 2 R W Allen
r w Allen Gmp G-1 Tee Center
RWA - Tee Contract

Dr. Craig Spinks: Important Information Missing from ASU's Annual Report

Monday, Feb. 20, 2012
Augusta, GA
By Dr. Craig Spinks, Ed.D


Recently, I received a copy of Augusta State University's The President's Report 2011. The impressive annual periodical, which is distributed free-of-charge to ASU's friends, alumni, faculty and staff, contains sections typical of other universities' marketing efforts. The ASU periodical features highlights, news, class notes, alumni & development, financials and giving. Paid particular note were the $1.1 million grant provided by the National Science Foundation to finance scholarships for students who agree to teach science-, technology-, engineering-, and math-related fields in Burke, Jefferson, McDuffie and Warren counties; the ASU's Division I Golf Team's winning its second consecutive NCAA National Golf Championship; the work of ASU's College of Education's Fulbright Scholar, Dr. Olajide Agunloye, to build a mentoring program for teachers in Nigeria; and the work of Helen Hendee and her associates to build the corpus of the Augusta State University Foundation, Inc.

Missing from The President's Report, however, were systematic data documenting the efficacy and efficiency of ASU in producing the leaders Augusta and Georgia will need to meet the civic, economic, social, and moral challenges of the new century. While the graduates' anecdotes provided in the report make for interesting reading, they cannot provide a complete picture of ASU's success in producing needed graduates. Absent is any chart depicting the size and majors of ASU's most recent graduating class and any longitudinal data comparing the most current class with earlier ones. Moreover, there is no information regarding the characteristics of the most recent freshman class and other under-classes. This absence of any data regarding enrollee-inputs and leader-outputs makes any measure of ASU's efficacy and efficiency in leader-production impossible.

However, while the efficacy and efficiency of ASU as a producer of long-term leadership for greater Augusta and Georgia may not be feasible, we might gain an insight into our university's success in satisfying a shorter-term performance criterion, the school's six-year graduation rate. This rate is one of the prime criteria used by The University System of Georgia(USG) to judge the efficacy of each of its member institutions.

Here, the efficacy of my alma mater was not sterling. Of the thirteen four-year schools operated by the USG, ASU had the lowest specific-institution(20.8%) and system-wide (28.5%) six-year graduation rate during the 2009-10 school year, the latest year for which data were available. For comparison, the USG's six-year graduation rates were 51.7% for specific-institutions and 58% for the system as a whole.

Moreover, ASU's success in retaining students during the 2009-10 school year was not stellar. Only Columbus State(64.5%) and Armstrong Atlantic(69.3%) state universities had lower institution-specific retention rates than did ASU(69.8%) during this school year. Only Columbus State University had a lower system-wide retention rate than did Augusta State(73.3%) in 2009-10.

So what do these graduation and retention data mean? What do they imply? Working students? Surely working full-time while one attends college might be expected to interrupt one's enrollment and to slow one's progress toward graduation. But I'd bet that ASU's not the only four-year school in the USG with a sizeable proportion of working students.

Is "unprepared students" another possible explanation for my alma mater's dreadful graduation rate? ASU runs a sizeable academic remediation program. Many area HS grads who have attempted to enroll at ASU for college-level work don't demonstrate the Reading, Math and Writing skills necessary for success in such work. Failing scores on COMPASS tests indicate these deficiences. Many kids who apply and are admitted to ASU earn failing scores on these college-readiness measures.

A reasonable, concerned taxpayer might ask, "Why are so many area HS graduates unprepared for college-level work at ASU?" "What can we do to insure that our area's high school graduates are ready to succeed at ASU and at other post-secondary educational institutions?

Are you reasonable and concerned?

Dr. Craig Spinks, Ed. D.

Ignored Study Raises Doubts About Need for Expensive Parking Deck

Parking study says deck may not have been necessary

Saturday, Feb. 18, 2012
Augusta, GA
From CityStink.net Reports

As Augusta leaders consider spending money on yet another study, this one focusing on ways to streamline  government operations, we are reminded of a parking study that the city paid to have conducted in 2009 that seems to have been ignored, that could have saved taxpayers millions of dollars.

At behest of the city of Augusta, a TEE Center Parking Study was conducted by Tim Haas Engineering and Architectural firm on September 18, 2009. Their findings were released in a report on Nov. 9, 2009 *(view the pdf of the report at the end of this article).

The study concluded that because of the displacement of 275 parking spaces from the construction of the TEE Center, an additional 300 spaces were needed to accommodate expansion. To achieve this, the study recommended two options:

Option 1 was developing a 300 space surface parking lot along 9th street at The Riverwalk directly across from the Marriott and TEE Center. The study cited several advantages for this option:

• inexpensive surface parking construction costs
• opportunity to develop revenue for the land owner
• safer link to the hotel as one would not have to cross Reynolds Street for access

The study did list a couple of disadvantages to this option:

• possibility of future building development displacing the surface parking leaving inadequate parking for the TEE Center
• Assumes land is donated If not donated then the land acquisition or lease cost will add to the total project budget

The total cost for Option 1 was $1,094,444.


Option 2 was building a 400 space parking deck across Reynolds street on land mostly owned by 933 Broad Investment, LLC. The study cited several advantages for this choice:

• Building one structure capable of handling all parking needs
• Relatively close to the conference center
• Once purchased this site is committed to parking with no risk of displacement

We didn't underline that last bullet point for added effect; it was also underlined in the study (the preceding ones were not). The study seems to be adding emphasis to the belief that the site would be purchased by the city (or donated).

But the study also cited several disadvantages with the parking deck option:

• Greater construction and land acquisition costs
• Crossing busy Reynolds Street to access the conference center
• Assumes land is donated If not donated then the land acquisition or lease costs will add to the total project budget

The MAJOR disadvantage with the deck option was the cost, nearly 10 times more expensive than the surface lot option, totaling $9,489,540! And that figure assumed the land being donated.

As we all know, the city went with Option 2, The Parking Deck, which ended up costing $12,000,000 on land that was NOT donated to the city and still under ownership of a 3rd party, 933 Broad Investment, LLC.

So why was the more expensive parking deck built? 
Well it is not entirely clear that commissioners even saw the findings of this parking study. Did they even know that a much cheaper alternative was available before signing off on the parking deck?

Also, the study was conducted on a day when The Marriott was 100% booked and with evening events. When they arrived at their conclusion that an additional 300 spaces would be needed to accommodate an expanded TEE Center, the study made it quite clear that this was based on the assumption that the Marriott would be 100% booked with a full schedule of evening events. So the recommendation for 300 additional parking spaces was in a sense over planning for a very busy TEE Center at peak times. So far the facility is struggling to attract events. But the parking study also made it very clear that a combination of expanded surface parking and shared parking strategies would be more than adequate to accommodate peak parking needs for the expanded TEE Center.

Not only did the city go with the much more expensive deck, when it was probably not even necessary in the first place, but they even added two more levels to it. That increased spaces in the parking deck from 450 to 650. Remember that the 2009 TEE Center parking study recommended that only a 400 space deck was necessary if that option was chosen. This meant that the city had built 350 spaces more than what the 2009 parking study said was necessary to handle peak TEE Center traffic. Was this because the city did not own the ground floor of the parking deck and it's parking spaces? The parking study also made it clear that the parking deck option was predicated on the city acquiring the land, but that never happened.

So why was an even bigger, more expensive parking deck built? As we told you in our previous article, The Hotel That Never Was, around the same time this parking study was being conducted, local businessman Julian Osbon, was issuing  ultimatums and deadlines to commissioners to hurry up and approve an agreement to build the TEE Center or they risked losing a $25,000,000 Hyatt Place hotel, which coincidentally was proposed to be built directly across the street from where the new parking deck sits. Osbon told commissioners that he had a deal with Courtland Dusseau of  Legacy Hospitality LLC to sell his downtown property and develop it into a 139 room hotel and business center, but only if commissioners hurried up and approved construction of the TEE Center.

So we have to ask, did the promise of this hotel and business center factor into the city's decision to go with the more expensive parking deck option, believing that another hotel in the area would put greater stress on downtown parking? The TEE Center and Parking deck were approved by commissioners on December 9, 2009.  But now more than two years later, there has still been no groundbreaking on the Hyatt Place hotel, and it doesn't look like there ever will be.

Courtland Dusseau has said he has been having difficulty securing financing in this tight credit market. But coincidentally, when he came to the city in December of 2010 looking for backing for loans to build the hotel is the same time when the two additional floors of the parking deck were added. The city declined to become a co-signer to any debt to build the hotel, but did the city add expense to the parking deck in an effort to help Dusseau get financing elsewhere? Dusseau's original plans called for a parking garage at the new hotel to accommodate 180 spaces. By adding 200 additional spaces to the parking deck,  was the city trying to shave off expenses for Dusseau's hotel project to aid him in attracting financing? So did the city end up building a parking deck and later expanding it based on the notion of a hotel that has yet to materialize and may never will?

The Ballpark Theory
There has been quite a bit of speculation that the real reason the $12,000,000 parking deck was built  was to accommodate the increased parking needs from a proposed downtown ballpark at the former Golf and Gardens site on Reynolds Street. The downtown ballpark proposal has been a hot topic for more than 5 years now, with the prevailing public sentiment being against using public financing to build it. In fact, in the summer of 2009, just before the TEE Center parking study was conducted, 77% of Democratic party primary voters came out against public financing for a new downtown ballpark. Besides the cost, the other major criticism of a ballpark being located downtown at the former Golf and Gardens site is the lack of parking.

But wouldn't it be rather convenient for ballpark proponents like Mayor Deke Copenhaver, if a new 650 space parking deck was built on Reynolds Streets just a stone's throw from the Golf and Gardens site? Could the ballpark have influenced the city's decision to go with the more expensive option 2 (parking deck) over the less expensive option 1 (surface parking)?

The parking study does not reference a ballpark in making its recommendations. The study clearly looked at the parking needs of the Marriott hotel, Augustino's restaurant, and an expanded TEE Center at peak levels of activity. As we mentioned, the study concluded that only an additional 300 parking spaces were needed to accommodate peak parking needs after TEE Center expansion. The study also made it very clear that additional parking could have easily been achieved with a much cheaper surface parking lot and shared parking strategies instead of a costly parking deck. And even when it came to the option of a parking deck, the study only recommended a 400 space deck with the assumption the land would be donated or acquired by the city.

But the city ended up building a 650 space parking deck costing $12,000,000 on land that it did not acquire (except for a 0.07 acre parcel) and was not donated as initially promised. Why? Was it really necessary to build this deck? Not according to the 2009 TEE Center parking study that the city paid for to help guide them in the right direction. So why was it built? Is this just yet another case of another study being ignored by  city leaders? Or ,was the parking study  conducted just to give the appearance that city leaders were entertaining all options, when indeed the decision had already been made to build the more expensive parking deck? Commission meeting minutes from July 7, 2009 show that City Administrator Fred Russell was already pitching the parking deck option and showing commissioners maps of land parcels the city would acquire to build it. This was  two months before the parking study was conducted that  suggested cheaper surface lots would be sufficient.

As the city is now on the verge of embarking on yet another study that they hope will save the taxpayers' money, we have to  ask will it be ignored as well like the 2009 TEE Center Parking Study? Because it appears to us that the city could have saved over $10,000,000 of tax money if they had paid more attention to that study. But it seems like studies are simply ignored in Augusta when they don't present the findings that certain city leaders want to hear. It appears to us that Augusta has had no shortage of studies, but there is certainly a dearth of common sense from the officials who keep spending money on them and then ignore their conclusions.  That shelf where all these studies seem to end up is not only getting dusty, but more top-heavy. So why add another one to the heap? ***
CS

Below is the 2009 TEE Center Parking Study referenced in this story:
Parking Study Parking Deck -Tee Center (Amendment No 1 to Agreement Tvs

Related Stories:

• The Hotel That Never Was

***Do you have a story idea, a tip, or would you like to write for City Stink? Then please contact us at: citystink@gmail.com***

Share this on Facebook by clicking the icon below