15 Reasons to Detest T-SPLOST and Punish its Promoters

T-SPLOST creates 12 new "regional" governments 

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Augusta, GA

By Al Gray


*Please see a video presentation by Al Gray warning county leaders about the perils of T-SPLOST--->Here

The Transportation Investment Act of 2010 (also referred to even in the legislation as the 'Transportation Investment Act') is being called T-Splost all over Georgia. The legislation establishes a new 1% sales tax supposedly dedicated to regional transportation. 


Our region is the Central Savannah River Region, consisting of populous Richmond and Columbia counties, along with 11 rural counties. The tax covers a 10 year period. The funds are totaled for the region, then allocated based upon 75% a “constrained investment list of projects and 25% discretionary funds based upon an 80% non-state road miles per county and 20% based upon population. Funds are collected by the Georgia Department of Revenue, then transferred to the Georgia Finance and Investment Commission for distribution.

Confusing? You bet. That is intentional.

Here is the evaluation, from a cost recovery and fiscal conservative policy point of view of why TSPLOST is an abomination:

1. The Bill says only the 5 member executive board has a vote on the final project list. Rural voters have no representation in that vote.(see Executive Committe paragraph ½ down the page) This is Taxation without Representation #1.

2. Rural voters in 11 counties can vote it down, but still are subjected (See Special Districts, paragragh 2) to this regional government, if it massively passed in urban counties. This is Taxation without Representation #2.

3. It is an Act of Extortion. The bill says regions that do not pass it see their state funds matching TRIPLED from 10 percent to 30 percent. (See Line 687-692, page 20, House Bill 277) (Good news is that it will fail in a region or two prompting a HUGE lawsuit.) Bill Jackson, Ben Harbin, and Lee Anderson voted to allow Nathan Deal to extort money out of us in this manner.

4. Richmond County and Columbia Counties are Donor Counties, giving up an estimated $5 million and $2 million respectively, to fund the 25% discretionary funds for the other 11 counties. McDuffie County is said to be also a minor donor county, although the author's analysis suggests it has a very slight benefit of less than $100,000 over 10 years.

5. It is a 14.2% tax increase. Frugal folks get WIPED OUT by anything that increases living costs by double digits as your living costs double in less than 5 years (see Rule of 72). Worse, it compounds the 14% Georgia Power rate increases that Jackson, Anderson and Harbin gave us.

6. The $840 million figure the Chamber is Presenting is A LIE AND THEY KNOW IT. It is built on a wild income growth figure of 8% next year. WHO is getting 8% pay increases???? Their own figure is $689 million, apples to apples. Even that is too high by $50 million because the “low case” numbers are known to be off for this year by more than 50%. (More on this later.)

7. It introduces a whole NEW LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT!!!! Ron Cross contests that with your author, but it has its own governing body, revenue stream, financial apparatus, and it calls for NEW STATE/REGIONAL positions (House Bill 277 New Code section, lines 236-329) written into the bill.

8. It turns over nearly all funding in the rural counties (HB 277, line 786-789) to DOT, an agency this whole deal is bailing out after it lost track of its contract obligations, a failure so bad that Governor Perdue accused DOT of "ENRON ACCOUNTING."

9. Politicians already see this as a NEW way to divert or tie highway funds to such things as deepening the port at Savannah. This shouts WARNING!!!!!,for the state cannot be trusted with its TRUST FUNDS. Look up the Tire Fund, 911 fund, and Tobacco funds. What really is absurd is that this whole imbroglio was set up to CLAIM that it protected us from these SCAMS.

10. This legislation creates a NIGHTMARE FOR RETAILERS as it requires separate sales and use tax reporting for each location! (See HB 277 lines 762-768).

11. 17% of the revenues collected on motor fuels in Georgia go into the General Fund, not transportation (see pages 3 & 4). If transportation is the priority claimed, WHY is this true? What about the $750,000  to take a black bear census and to build bear underpasses on a state highway? Is that a transportation 'priority?'

12. Columbia County has huge funds from SPLOST which it uses for road improvements even on state highways. DOT keeps the motor fuel taxes. THIS IS A THIRD HUGE POT OF MONEY. Neither of the other two go away!

13. Looking at the bill, it allows COUNTIES to charge Administrative costs (HB 277 Line 474). This is HIDDEN from cursory examination of this bill. No wonder the county administrators are drooling.

14. Looking at the bill, it forces counties (HB 277 lines 800-850) to use DOT and envisions DOT as 'consultant' on the discretionary projects. The DOT's Todd Long alluded to this during the Chamber of Commerce forum in Evans on Wednesday, June 6.
    
    
15. House Bill 277 also states that the collection of T-Splost funds is subordinated to collection of the state sales and use taxes (see HB 277, lines 750-752).

As a past member of the Greater Augusta Chamber of Commerce, this writer is concerned that championing this outrageous deception will ruin recruitment for Chambers of Commerce. It might be an easier sell for the Communist Party to sign up new members after this misguided foray into public policy!

Let's defeat T-Splost on July 31.

Along the way we need to make ALL of the county commissioners tell us their positions on this new tax so that we can be informed voters. They are calling it a “fair” tax, so isn't requiring disclosure of their stance on T-Splost likewise FAIR?

Then make the politicians PAY.***
A.G.
Join the Anti-T-SPLOST movement on facebook here-->  Vote NO to T-SPLOST


Related Stories:

• Why T-SPLOST Must Be Defeated (Video)
• Al Gray Warns Rural County Leaders Over 'Shameful' T-Splost
• Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and T-SPLOST

TEE Center Special Report: No Way to Treat a "Partner"

"Howdy, partner! Can you spare a few $million?"

Thursday, June 7, 2012
Augusta, GA
By Lori Davis

Our Augusta Today and CityStink.net group had limited representation at the January 30, 2012 meeting of the City of Augusta's Finance Committee when several commissioners roasted the City's outside lawyer, Jim Plunkett over the Tee Center parking deck agreements with manager Augusta Riverfront LLC. However, one comment reported by WJBF's George Eskola struck home. “We're supposed to be in a partnership but I've never seen partners treated as we've been treated in these issues accusing people of doing things wrong we don't operate like that,” said Paul Simon who’s company Augusta Riverfront LLC owns the Marriott.
(*See the video of the WJBF report below... article continues below)

The comment sent me looking for the partnership agreement for the Tee Center that Mr. Simon was talking about.

Here is what was found. Better said, here is what I didn't find.

The Augusta Commission has only approved one document that might be seen as a “partnership agreement” for the Tee Center in the form of the Management Agreement Term Sheet (*click to view). It is UNSIGNED AND UNDATED, but was included in the package of documents when the Tee Center was approved by the Commission on August 21, 2007.

After the August 2007 meeting, the only later action was at the called meeting of the Board of Commissioners in early December 2009 where the Commissioners authorized the Mayor to  execute the Tee Center Construction Operating and Reciprocal Easement (CORE) Agreement in anticipation of beginning construction.

Seeing that as being the partnership agreement I submitted a Georgia Open Records Request to the Augusta Law Department for the executed agreement. They didn't have it.

Deke Copenhaver NEVER signed a CORE agreement. It doesn't exist.

Yes, you read that correctly. The partnership for the $50 million Tee Center and Parking Deck complex does not exist! What does exist has some really shocking provisions that I think should have Augusta demanding big money from Mr. Simon's LLC!

What does exist is the CORE agreement on the existing Conference Center dated June 21, 1999 recorded in the records of the Clerk of the Augusta Richmond County Superior Court in Deed Book 648 on page 45. *(Click here to view the 1999 CORE Agreement for the existing conference Center)

The existing CORE agreement was not canceled or superseded by a more recent partnership deal as far as we can tell. What does this signed and executed agreement say? Page 13 has a whole bunch of wording that makes Augusta Riverfront LLC responsible for all manner of construction and maintenance cost throughout the term of the agreement (*Click here to view).

 Page 16 (*Click to view) says this: “Developer (Augusta Riverfront LLC) in operating the air conditioning and heating system for the Hotels and the Expanded Conference Center shall operate such systems in a manner which will not unduly drain heat, ventilation or air conditioning from the Improvements of any other party”

Nowhere in the unsigned, undated Term Sheet is there change in duties as they relate to HVAC or the existing conference Center. The Term Sheet even says “Augusta's capital funds shall specifically not be used for items related to any Convention Center and/or Hotel capital cost.”

The Augusta Chronicle reported (*click here to view article)  about a controversial change order for an expensive HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) upgrade requested by Augusta Riverfront LLC, owners of the Marriott, writing ”The changes being requested include $399,083 for upgrades to the smoke exhaust system, increasing the number of air changes at the convention center from the Georgia minimum standard of about 2.5 per hour to eight per hour, as requested by Marriott. ”

Questions

If the signed and executed CORE agreement for the Convention Center puts responsibility for HVAC operations within the hotel upon the hotel owners and the 2007 Term sheet does the same for Hotel capital costs, why hasn't the Commission, Mayor and Fred Russell demanded that Augusta's partners pay these costs? Where is our $399, 083?

Where is the partnership agreement? Does Fred Russell mean to tell us that they built a $50 million complex using public funds with no partnership agreement?

How can it be legal to build a publicly funded project like this on unsigned, undated documents?

Shouldn't all Augusta be channeling Mr. Simon's objection -“I've never seen partners treated as we've been treated ” -right back at him?***
-Lori Davis


(*Below are pdfs of some of the public documents cited in this article)
2009 CORE GORA Request - Lori Davis
1999 Core - Radisson Hotel Conference Center (1)
1999 CORE - Radisson P. 13
1999 CORE - Radisson P. 16

Downtown Advisory Panel Resurrected

Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Augusta, GA
From CityStink.net Reports

After a growing dissatisfaction with the direction the DDA (Downtown Development Authority) has been taking Augusta's central business district under the helm of director Margaret Woodard, a group of downtown business owners and other stakeholders have revived the Downtown Advisory Panel (DAP). 

Mostly dormant since 2005, DAP was created on June 2, 2003 by an Augusta Commission resolution that passed unanimously 10-0.  According to the establishing resolution, the expressed purpose of DAP was "to make recommendations to the Augusta-Richmond County Commission concerning the continued growth of the Central Business District of Augusta."  DAP was envisioned to be the guiding force for the development of Downtown Augusta representing the downtown stakeholders equally, with the DDA merely being a funding mechanism with the power to issue bonds for programs spearheaded by DAP. However, since 2005, the DDA with its director Margaret Woodard, began to usurp many of the functions of DAP, until the advisory panel eventually went dormant.

Many small downtown business owners say they have been frustrated with the performance of the DDA in advocating for their interests, as well with having a lack of representation on the DDA Board of Directors. DDA critics say the authority often looks out more for the interests of a small clique of cronies, often directing SPLOST funds to their pet projects, overlooking the needs of the majority of downtown business and property owners.

Also, many in the downtown business community believe that they were mislead by the DDA when they agreed to sign on to establishing a Business Improvement District (BID) five years ago. They say they agreed to subjecting themselves to an extra tax with the promise that it would include enhanced public safety, but instead all they got was a glorified maid service called the CADI program. We told you about complaints with the CADI program in our April 11, 2012 article: Is Downtown Augusta Throwing Money Away on CADI Program? Downtown property owners also complain that they are being charged for graffiti removal when it was promised to be a function of the BID.

Margaret Woodard and the DDA also ruffled the feathers of a large number of downtown business owners with the proposal to bring parking meters back to downtown, something that many people contend would discourage customers from coming to the central business district. The DDA spent tens of thousands of dollars on numerous parking studies and $37,000 of SPLOST money on a feasibility study for a downtown trolley line. Many downtown business owners contend that money could have been better spent on real needs in downtown and it illustrates the disconnect between the DDA and the downtown business community.

Compounding their frustration, downtown business owners were also upset when the Broad Street Clock, which was bought for downtown with $40,000 in SPLOST funds in 2003, was given to the airport by the DDA in 2011. Business owners say they were not consulted by Margaret Woodard on this decision. We also found no mention of the decision to move the clock in any of the DDA meeting minutes. You can see our report on the downtown clock incident here-->The Case of the Disappearing Downtown Clock. Business owners tell us that this is indicative of how the DDA operates, with its director, Margaret Woodard, often behaving like a dictator. Many of them have even begun referring to her as Queen Madge.

With the resurrection of DAP, downtown business and property owners hope to finally have a greater voice in the direction of downtown development and an organization that will lobby for their interests before the Augusta Commission. No one representing the DDA attended Moday's DAP vote even though they were made aware of the meeting. Sources tell us that Robin Schweitzer (owner of Schweitzer's Art Glass on Broad Street) was instrumental in organizing the DAP caucus and assembling the votes to revive the organization.

 Under the 2003 DAP resolution, the panel is made up of 7 members, each representing various interests within the downtown community.  The panel members serve for 1 year terms and can be reappointed. After Monday's vote, the new DAP  Board of Directors include the following:

• Mike Walraven (Chairman of DAP)
• Bonnie Ruben (owner of BR Investment Group and the Ramada Plaza Hotel)
• Tony Williamson (owner of 8th Street Tobacco)
• Jai West (owner of Casa Blanca cafe)
• Roy Davenport (co-owner of Artistic Perceptions Art gallery)
• Eric Kinlaw (co-owner of The Bees Knees restaurant)
• Ben Casella (Partner in Casella Eye center)

*An update on this story is forthcoming as information becomes available
* Below is the 2003 Augusta Commission resolution establishing the DAP
Establishing a Downtown Advisory Panel



Related Stories:

• Is Downtown Augusta Throwing Money Away on CADI Program
• The Case of the Disappearing Downtown Clock

***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

Commissioners Should Reject Resolution on Naming the New University

MCG nor GHSU have Augusta in the name

Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Augusta, GA
By The Outsider
Commentary

Since it was announced earlier this year that Augusta State and GHSU would merge, it seems like the biggest question on everyone's mind has been "what will the new name be?"  And if Commissioner Jerry Brigham has his way, it will have Augusta in the name. Brigham is introducing a resolution at today's Augusta Commission meeting to urge the Georgia Board of Regents to include Augusta prominently in the name of the new university. However, GHSU President  and soon to be President of the New U,  Ricardo Azziz, is none too happy with Brigham's political maneuvering. When Azziz got word of Brigham's plans to introduce the naming resolution, he said in the most polite way, to essentially butt out.

It's not that Dr Azziz doesn't appreciate name suggestions. We are pretty sure his email inbox has been flooded with them over the last few months. But it is pretty obvious that Azziz is not happy with the Augusta Commission circumventing the process by going directly to the Board of Regents insisting on a particular name. Azziz says there will be a time and a place for commissioners and the public to weigh in on the new name, but that time is not now.

And Azziz has a valid point. Why rush to give the new university a geographic-oriented name? Whereas having Augusta in the name may drum up a sense of civic pride in locals, it does have a rather provincial ring to it. And Azziz seems to be thinking bigger than local. He wants this to be a nationally recognized university.. not one that sounds like a regional community college. There's nothing wrong with Augusta State University... it's a great school , but for all intents and purposes, it is a regional commuter university. Shouldn't the new merged university be even bigger and better? And whereas the name Augusta may strike a chord of familiarity with golf aficionados around the world, let's be honest... our fair burg is not necessarily known as an academic and cultural center the world over. However, Azziz wants to change that, and  having a world-class university here will bring even more prestige to the Garden City than we could ever imagine.

And that's the whole problem with this resolution.. sometimes us locals are too myopic to see past the CSRA. Yes, Azziz isn't from around here.. and maybe that's a good thing, because he can see beyond the local boundaries and see a much greater potential for this new university and Augusta. And let's take a look at some of the most prestigious universities in the nation; few have their home city in their name. Duke University, arguably the best university in the South, is not called Durham University. And that doesn't seem to have hurt the prestige of the Research Triangle region one bit. Emory University, with its top ranked law, business, and medical schools, is not known as The University of Decatur, GA. It just somehow doesn't have the same ring to it. Prestigious Stanford University is not called Palo Alto U. Yale is not known as University of New Haven. See the pattern?

But you may be saying, "but those are all private schools!" True, but wouldn't it be nice to have this new university located right here in Augusta, GA on par with some of the best private universities in America? Now that would instill some civic pride!  And besides, the flagship state university for New Jersey is not known as University of New Jersey at New Brunswick...it's known as Rutgers. Sure, it would be nice if we could have it called the University of Georgia, but unfortunately that name is already taken. And sticking Augusta at the end would make it sound like a satellite school. And isn't that what we were so afraid would happen to GHSU when a medical school was opened in Athens? That GHSU would be relegated as a 2nd tier school instead of the state's flagship public medical university? Well, by approving this resolution today, Augusta commissioners could be playing right into the hands of UGA President Michael Adams and Athens civic boosters  who would like to see just that happen.

You see, Azziz is thinking big.. he's thinking outside the box... he believes Augusta can be bigger and better than any of us ever imagined. Let's trust his judgement on this one. If some local politicians had their way, the Golf and Gardens site would be home to a Class A minor league ballpark instead of  a world class research park, performing arts venues and student residences. Now which of those two options do you think will have a longer lasting impact on downtown?

So, as well intentioned as this resolution may be, the politicians really do need to butt out at this moment. Let's let the experts who know how to brand  world-class research universities come up with a few suggestions first. You may actually like what they come up with, instead of pigeon-holing ourselves with a provincial sounding  geographic-oriented name for the New U. If there was ever a time for commissioners to abstain from taking action... this is it. Think about it commissioners. Shouldn't you be working with Dr. Azziz to make this the best university possible, instead of obsessing over the name?***

OS

ETCOD Center, The Land of Tomorrow Doomed by Its Own Flaws & The Rule of Law

Monday, June 4, 2012
Evans, GA
By Al Gray

In last weekend’s article, Overlay Somebody Else: My Battle With Columbia County Over Property Rights, the birth pangs of the ill-fated Evans Town Center Ordinance and the Evans Town Center Overlay District (aka ETCOD) in 2000 were revisited. This week, let’s look at what happened two years later, after the ‘rules’ had been in place long enough to judge how well they were applied.

During the heated debate of 2000, the spirit of economist and philosopher Frederic Bastiat had to have been there. Among his relevant quotes were these:

It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder….Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame and danger that their acts would otherwise involve... But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them and gives it to the other persons to whom it doesn't belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime….Legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways.....

We can add to his list of legal plunder “town center ordinances” and “overlay zoning.”
Augusta attorney Gail Duffie Stebbins might not know Frederic Bastiat but she knew that the Evans Town Center was legal plunder. In 2002 Ms. Stebbins sued to have the Evans Town Center Overlay Zoning Ordinance set aside for failure to give her and other property owners sufficient, defensible notice. A Superior Court Judge agreed with her. Columbia County responded by curing the technical defects, then reintroducing the same ordinance.

The As the Columbia County News-Times reported about the November, 2002 meeting: “It wasn't any more quiet the second time around, ” an obvious reference to the near-riot that broke out in 2000 in a Planning Commission meeting at which the original ordinance was advanced to the Columbia County Commission.

Ms. Stebbins temporarily-successful law suit was easily sidestepped. The findings of the another speaker turned out to be fatal. The News Times report continued in its report: "The Evans Town Center is as dead as some misguided possum crossing I-20, run down by high-speed development," said Al Gray, who's family owns land in the town center district. ”

Brash statements? Not really. You see, there are concepts as old as society itself that found themselves into the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights. Citizens cannot be deprived of EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW under the 5th Amendment and cannot be deprived of property without DUE PROCESS OF LAW under the 14th Amendment. By these standards the ETCOD ordinance was doomed, because there had been scores of noncomplying structures and developments built with county approval. The proof was demonstrated in this presentation, made to the county commission that night.

**(See the ETCOD Nonconformity presentation below. Article continues after)ETCOD Nonconformity (1)

The approach was this. First, the ETCOD ordinance was broken down into the component standards. Second, digital photos were taken of all structures, buildings, parking lots, and landscaping represented by approved and constructed projects since the Town Center was launched in 2000. Third, the noncomplying features were categorized under the pertinent design standard that was violated. Fourth, the fact that there were scores of noncomplying projects and only 5 variances requested and granted was documented. Fifth, it was pointed out that the near-universal approval of nonconforming structures would simply doom the ordinance in court. 

This is how one defeats an overly aggressive government. One can turn the planners own ordinances, actions, and lack of enforcement against them. A property owner cannot be singled out for not conforming when equal protection says he must be accorded the same leniency of those who came before. Yes, that night Columbia County fixed Ms. Stebbins' objections, only to run into decisive defeat before the meeting concluded. 

The county never was able to subdue a patient determined landowner after that night, because they were armed with knowledge of their rights and how to successfully demand the same standards as those who came before them. Those standards had been gutted by the county's own hand. "Columbia County does not have the resources to manage 5-square-miles with the ordinance as it is written," said Richard Sorensen, a Northwoods subdivision resident. "What you are biting off is more than you can chew."
Indeed.
After all, equal protection has its roots in the Bible admonition “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Even politicians find themselves nodding in agreement with that.

The Town Center plan ended up being a collection of upgraded architectural finishes and landscaping, but the unenforceable parts died that night.

Today, Columbia County's Richard Harmon is putting the finishing touches on a comprehensive rewrite of the Evans Town Center ordinances, based upon these realities. Wise heads prevailed in the end. ***

AG

Related Stories:

Overlay Somebody Else; My Battle with Columbia County Over Property Rights

***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

Can Augusta Media Mimic Copperfield and Make Parking Deck Vanish?

Friday, June 1, 2012

Augusta, GA

By Al Gray

Augusta's $715,000 “Incidental” Gift¹

David Copperfield's illusion of making the Statue of Liberty disappear is“listed by the Guinness Book of World Records as the largest disappearance ever performed by a magician. ” In the closed-loop, incestuous world of Augusta media, similar miracles have been performed over the years, mostly by using the tactic of blowing up small incidents of monetary losses, -be they by graft, fraud, or plain stupidity – to divert attention from the elephants in the room. Grandma used to call this “straining gnats while swallowing camels.” The Reynolds Street Parking Deck doesn't have tusks or a hump, but some folks who know better have camel hair on their bibs.

The bit players in the Augusta illusion are officials like Tax Commissioner Stephen Kendrick, who was still being hounded by the Augusta Chronicle a year later over a missing $25,000, and former city commissioner Betty  Beard's  $20,000 supposed misappropriation of funds.

What Fred Russell made go away looked like this:

What Fred reappeared wasn't an elephant, it was much larger:

If you are Augusta Riverfront, LLC, Fred relieved you of an ugly, unattended surface lot. What he came back with appears to be an enclosed, lighted, secure, landscaped, and operated lot at no capital or operating cost. 

Sweet. It must be nice to be a principal partner of Augusta Riverfront, LLC and the publisher of the only daily newspaper in the city, The Augusta Chronicle, where you can use your  influence in the media to create illusions through the art of distraction, just like David Copperfield.

Everyone should be so lucky as to negotiate a deal with Fred Russell like this.***

A.G.

¹ Based upon the RSPD agreement submitted to the Board of Commissioners 1/30/2012


Related Stories:

• Augusta's $714,357 Incidental Cost?
• Fred Wrestles, Augusta Gets Decked?

***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

TEE Parking Deck Exclusive: Augusta's $714,357 "Incidental" Cost?

May 31, 2012
Augusta, GA
By Al Gray

  

The story Fred Wrestles, Augusta Gets Decked?, published on Tuesday, May 29, 2012, offered a detailed and documented exploration of a story of rejected parking management bids, a questionable management firm selection, and a detailed comparison of Augusta's bid contract with the administrations proposed contract. The questions and issues documented required a lengthy recitation to convey the magnitude of the subject. It was an epistle for those liking details.

Today's key word is “incidental”. What is “incidental” within the Reynolds Street Parking Deck (RSPD) agreement? Can “incidental” be measured? Is “incidental” subject to debate?

What brought this subject to the fore was how the RSPD deck agreement deals with costs relating to the ground floor of the parking deck structure owned by designated manager Augusta Riverfront LLC specifically Article 3, Section 3.1 which includes this:

“The parties acknowledge that certain property and services paid for by Owner (Augusta) editor's unitalicized text and required for the operation of the RSPD will also benefit Manager's (LLC's) editor's unitalicized text ground level parking facilities located underneath and adjacent to the RSPD. Such property and services include, but are not limited to (editor's emphasis), traffic control gates and related equipment, lighting, and services of a toll booth operator (the “Incidental Services”). The Incidental Services would be required for the operation of the RSPD whether or not the Manager owned the ground level parking facilities, and allowing Manager to benefit from these Incidental Services does not materially increase the costs to Owner. Accordingly, in further consideration of granting air rights and easements to Owner for the construction and operation of the RSPD, Manager shall have the right to utilize the Incidental Services for Manager's ground level parking facilities located underneath and adjacent to the RSPD, so long as such use does not materially increase the cost to Owner.”

Whoa!

This caused a scurry to do some math on the RSPD 2012 Budget dated 8/29/2011  (see last page of linked documents). The budget totals $206,370. The Deck structure (ground floor and floors above) has 650 spaces, of which 150 are property of the LLC, for 23% of the total spaces in the deck structure. The LLC percentage of the total deck structure, 23% times the total budget, is $714,358!!!! This is “incidental?” Is it not material?

To be clear, the legalese also essentially defines the “RSPD” as the ground floor parcels that Augusta bought, plus the structure above the ground floor. We laymen think the entire building structure from the foundations up as the “parking deck.” However, the annual budget didn't restrict the numbers to the Augusta-owned portion, did it? Doesn't the language of the agreement allow the LLC to bill Augusta for its Fee and costs of the entire structure, including the ground floor it owns? The language allows the LLC to bill Augusta for the toll booth operator, while labor costs are the bulk of the budget. Shouldn't there be language clearly prorating the costs instead of provisions that costs  “are not limited to” those cited, which seems to open Augusta up to a cornucopia of costs?

With labor costs that are the vast majority of the agreement, the probable allocation of shared employee costs from the LLC's hotel operations, further allocations between the RSPD and Conference center deck, and, finally, the need to further allocate labor costs between levels of the RSPD, and only an annual audit allowed to verify the costs, aren't the phrases “incidental,” “not limited to” and “ materially increase” plain dangerous to the taxpayer? Did the length of the agreement get reduced to five years, as indicated to the Augusta Commission in February?

It is a $714,358 question and then some. “Incidental” can be costly.***

-- Al Gray

Related Stories:

Fred Wrestles, Augusta Gets Decked?

***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