by Al M. Gray
Originally posted September 8, 2013
Trane Chiller – 500 Ton Air Conditioning Unit Image included under FAIR USE for purposes of reporting and education to the public.
The Controversial Urban Redevelopment program is on the Augusta Commission Public Services Committee agenda for Monday September 9, 2013, but something else is attention-getting. It was the request to approve the addition of a chiller to the Convention/TEE Center Chiller Plant. This item might not normally draw a commissioner’s attention, since the Marriott is said to be paying for it.
Let’s not beat around the bush. There are some pretty serious questions, old and new, that this request summons forth. We will begin with the new questions and end with the old questions.
Issue One: Cost Responsibility for Additional Chiller Space and Piping
The Commission Committee Coversheet – Chiller contains this statement:
During the design of the TEE Center project, the chiller plant
was designed for future expansion. All piping stub outs and
additional space has been provided to add two additional chillers
and cooling towers.
Some of this space and capacity is now proposed for use in service of the Conference Center. However, the Conference Center CORE agreement, which I understand remained in place when the TEE/Convention Center was authorized, seems to place responsibility for Conference Center HVAC Equipment on Marriott owner Augusta Riverfront, LLC. Did Augusta pay for the “additional space” and the piping stub outs under the Convention/TEE Center Contract? If so, where did the contractual responsibility shift to Augusta?
Issue Two: Effects of Chiller Deletions on Convention/Tee Center Construction/ Mechanical Contracts
In the Attachments_for_Central_Chiller_Plant is a letter from Morris Communications Corporate Architect Robert Kuhar dated August 19, 2013 discussing the expansion of the chiller plant. It contains this statement:
… the central plant was a part of the design very early on in the project… however due to budget constraints, it was not fully implemented. Addition space was provided for expansion of the system.
“Not fully implemented,” suggests partial implementation. How much of the design providing additional capacity and expansion to include the Marriott and Conference Center was implemented? Also, since the Convention/TEE Center project was built on a fast track basis on a partially complete design, did all of the non-Augusta Convention/TEE costs get deleted from the contractor’s and mechanical contractor’s scope of work when the earlier design was deleted? This writer has seen large overpayments occur in similar circumstances.
Issue Three: Chiller Redundancy and Cost Responsibility
Within the attachment to the Chiller Agenda Item, appears this:
A central chiller plant cools the new Convention Center with cooling towers located on the roof. Two chillers provide 400 tons of cooling each. There is a total of 800 tons of cooling available. When fully occupied during the warmest time of the year the current Conference Center requires approximately 400 tons of cooling. There is 100% redundancy provided by the second chiller.
If this redundancy is to cover the Conference Center, shouldn’t that portion of the capital expenditure have been born by the Manager, Augusta Riverfront, LLC, if the existing Conference Center Agreement still governed?
Issue Four: Convention versus Marriott and Conference Center Separate Metering Status
In the supporting memo from Robert Kuhar, Corporate Architect of Morris Communications, dated August 19, 2013 and with the subject line, “Centralized Cooling Concept” there is this:
…the Marriott and Conference Center could be metered by either flow meters or BTU meters to determine cost of operation between the different facilities.
This brings an old matter back up. You might recall that when Augusta citizen activist Lori Davis requested to see the electrical single line diagrams that will show how power is being distributed between the Conference Center, the Convention Center and the Marriott, she was rebuffed under the guise of “security.” Wasn’t there supposed to be separate metering of utilities to segregate Convention/Tee Center costs , from Marriott and Conference Center Costs? Where does this stand? Can you, the public, or this writer now see the documents and audit trail for these costs?
Issue Five: Conference Center and old Radisson Hotel versus the 8 Air Turn Marriott Standard
On August 17, 2012, activist Lori Davis submitted a Georgia Open Records Act Request inquiring into the design of the Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning systems for the existing Marriott/Conference Center before integration with the Convention/ TEE Center HVAC system. The response she received was a CD with empty file directories. The purpose for the inquiry was to evaluate the $399,000 change order to the smoke handling system, which was supposedly based upon a Marriott requirement for 8 air turns, instead of the 2.5 designed. Since the Conference Center and Marriott hotel date back to 1999 (at that time the first building was a Radisson), we wondered whether those older buildings themselves met the 8 air turn requirement. Our next question, had that one met a negative response, would have been to ask why the new Marriott standard would apply to the TEE/Convention Center HVAC, which doesn’t appear to feed directly into either Marriott hotel, but into the Conference Center. Also, any upgrade of the Conference Center to 8 air turns would have had to receive Augusta’s approval.
A final reason that might have brought responsibility for that $399,000 change order cost into question was that the governing Conference Center CORE agreement says this:
Section 7.2 HVAC O1perations. Insofar as certain of the Improvements of the Parties shall be internally connected through common conidors (sic) and passageways, Developer, 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.
Doesn’t this imply that the TEE/Convention HVAC would stand alone, with no requirement to meet the higher Marriott standard of 8 air turns? Was the $399,000 change order a necessary Augusta cost, given the authoritative documents? The Augusta Commission settled the construction contract issue by approving the change order, but did that settle the issue between the partners?
Issue 6: Morris Communications Employee Involvement
Is the involvement of a Morris Communications Executive indicative that Morris employees are the members of Convention/ TEE management firm Augusta Convention Center Management, LLC? What role does the corporate architect play in the management of these facilities?
Update: The Public Service Committee of the Augusta Commission voted to approve the installation of the additional chillers and related piping in its September 9, 2013 meeting. In the meeting, Paul Simon of the Augusta Marriott asserted that there is separate metering of utilities between that which Augusta pays and that which the Augusta Marriott and manager Augusta Riverfront, LLC absorbs.
Augusta’s administration continues to hold the as-built drawings that would confirm the existence and contractual correctness of the separate metering. A review of the HVAC design must be the subject of a follow-up Georgia Open Records Act request to answer the questions as to whether the HVAC system design for the Convention/TEE Center followed contractual divisions of responsibility between the Manager and the Owner, the City of Augusta.
-AG
