Do you realize how much money we have wasted, not to mention how much time we have wasted with Bob Dunn and Exact Sciences? They should have to reimburse the city for the money we have wasted – including opportunity costs!
Tonight the council votes to increase the costs another $38,000. George Austin has been paid a nearly a quarter of a million dollars! This is absurd. Let them know what you think!
This is what the city has spent on Judge Doyle Square . . .so far.
Two years ago on 11/15/13 we had spent over $1M.
Marcus-ULI (Consultant) – $199,365
AVA Civic Enterprises (George Austin/Consultant – Project Management) -$120,470
Kimley-Horn (Consultant) – $647,500*
C.H. Johnson (Consultant – Hotel Feasibility) – $20,000
Staff Charges – $14,579
Survey Work – $4,121
Title Service – $225
TOTAL EXP: $1,006,260 Project Inception to Date
* Some of these funds may have been spent on other failed projects (i.e. high speed rail planning)Funding Sources:
Budget:
$400,000 General Obligation Debt
$400,000 TID 25 proceeds
$950,000 TIGER 2 Federal Grant funds
$1,750,000 TOTALActual:
$518,000 of Federal TIGER 2 Grant funds expended, all for Kimley-Horn
$400,000 of TID 25 proceeds for remainder of Kimley and others
$88,260 from borrowing
In the last two years, we spent the additional money
AVA Civic Enterprises (George Austin – project manager) — $102,000
North Star Research (Thomas Hazinski – hotel market analysis) — $24,500
Staff costs charged to the project in 2014 and 2015 total $23,961.
= $150,461
GRAND TOTAL = $1,156,721?????
Oddly enough, on 12/5/14 I was given numbers that said $1,203,013 to date, so something is screwy with the numbers, but any which way, I want our $1M back! (I also want our old detail oriented staff back – I got much better information on this in the past)
If it was the City of Madison that contracted Austin, and the staff charges were for work directed by city supervisors, I don’t know what legal grounds there would be to demand that ES reimburse them for those costs. The only way the city will get compensation for all the time and money wasted on this is if there is a “breakup” clause in the contract signed with the developer (which likely would have been a fixed amount, and not tied to specific expense line items). And frankly that would have been a foolish clause to have insisted on, so I presume it doesn’t exist. So, if that presumption is correct, let’s not waste any more time on this ill thought out dead end, and move on to focusing our energy of things that might go somewhere.
$1.2M – meh. No biggy, right?
I never said or even implied it was “no biggy.” In fact I feel it was the opposite, as my reference to the time and money spent on this as a “waste.” I was just commenting on the apparent lack of any legal basis for the success of something that you were proposing, that if pursued would only increase the wastage. I’m actually critical of this whole fiasco myself, so don’t just assume because I don’t jump on your bandwagon for some quixotic lawsuit, I must automatically also be of different mind on the original question. I’m just saying don’t follow up one dumb planning escapade with an even dumber one.
Who said lawsuit. When ES comes back for TIF in Research Park, I say we reduce their TIF amount . . . and when JDS comes back for whatever they want next . . . same thing.
Brenda, you’ve done a lot of good things in the city. But advocating that we keep score/hold grudges, which may possibly lead to rejection of future projects even though they are the best choice, because they need to include extra money to soothe our feelings about past failed projects — that is not one of them.
Soothe feelings? are you insane! We need the money to pay for CRITICAL services to our residents most in need! It’s absurd we throw around a half a million dollars or more and then have no funds for shleltering homless people for more than 90 days and no affordable housing for them to move into. This isn’t hurt feelings, this is real needs in our community going unmet.
OK — I am insane. I think that signifies (by whatever interpretation I make of it) this conversation is done.