Questions for the State Building Commission (SBC)
Regarding the proposed Addition to the Governor’s Mansion
Submitted by Tennesseans for Accountability in Government (TAG)
1. Section 5.08(B)(1) of the State Building Commission procedures requires that you present documentation that the gift of Conservation Hall from the Tennessee Residence Foundation will be a needed asset to the State.
- Have you presented any such documentation?
- Do you have any such documentation?
- Have there been any studies of how often this governor or prior governors have entertained groups too large for the mansion to accommodate?
- Have there been any estimates of how often Conservation Hall will be needed or used?
- Has there been any analysis of the feasibility or suitability of using other existing state-owned facilities for the governor’s entertainment of larger gatherings, such as the War Memorial Auditorium or the facility at the top of the Tennessee Tower?
- Has there been any analysis of the availability and cost (and a comparison with the cost of constructing and maintaining Conservation Hall) of other facilities like the Country Music Hall of Fame or the Schermerhorn Symphony Center?
2. Section 5.08(B)(1) of the State Building Commission procedures requires that you present the funding strategy for the gift of Conservation Hall from the Tennessee Residence Foundation, including the source of funds for operations and maintenance of the completed project.
- What is the funding strategy for Conservation Hall once it is constructed?
- What estimates do you have of costs for utilities expenses?
- What estimates do you have for the cost of operations?
- What estimates do you have for the cost of maintenance?
- What will be the source of the funding for operations and maintenance?
3. Do you agree that to this point you have not presented the State Building Commission with either documentation that Conservation Hall will be a needed asset to the State or the funding strategy including source of funds for operations and maintenance of the completed project?
4. In paragraph 3 of your January 7 memorandum, you distinguish between what you call the “Residence Renovation project” and the “Conservation Hall Addition project.”
5. Do you agree, then, that the Conservation Hall addition is really a separate project, and the State Building Commission could stop that project without affecting the renovation of the residence?
6. In paragraph 3 of your January 7 memorandum, you acknowledge that the Tennessee Residence Foundation committed to the State Building Commission to raise 60-80% of the estimated cost of the $5.1 Million “Residence Renovation project.”
- Wasn’t that commitment of private funding critical to obtaining the State Building Commission’s approval to expand the scope of that project by millions of dollars?
- If we do not approve the building of Conservation Hall, then won’t the Tennessee Residence Foundation be able to satisfy that original commitment?
7. In paragraph 3 of your January 7 memorandum, you say that the Tennessee Residence Foundation has committed a minimum of $4.8 Million to the Conservation Hall Addition project.
- If we do not go forward with Conservation Hall, then won’t that $4.8 Million be available to defray costs of the original Residence Renovation project?
- If that occurs, then won’t that equate to $4.8 Million of taxpayer dollars we won’t have to spend on the original Residence Renovation?
- Since the original Residence Renovation project has grown to be much larger than originally anticipated, doesn’t it make sense to look for ways to save taxpayer dollars on that project?
8. In paragraph 4 of your January 7 memorandum, you say that the “current” estimate for “the construction” of Conservation Hall is $4,860,000.
- Is it true that there are no final plans yet for Conservation Hall?
- Doesn’t that mean that the project is fluid, and the “current” estimate could change?
- Isn’t there another project of “improvements” related to Conservation Hall, such as the driveway changes, that is not included in this figure?
- Isn’t that “improvements” project being funded by the taxpayers with a $3,860,000 grant to the Tennessee Residence Foundation?
- If we do not go forward with Conservation Hall, then won’t that mean there is another $3,860,000 of taxpayer dollars we won’t have to spend?
9. If you add the $4,860,000 current estimate for the cost of construction and the $3,860,000 for the “improvements” grant, then don’t the costs related to building the Conservation Hall project total $8,720,000?
10. If we don’t build Conservation Hall and we apply that Tennessee Residence Foundation to the original Residence Renovation project where it was originally promised and committed, won’t that mean there will be $8,720,000 of taxpayer dollars we won’t spend on work at the mansion?
11. In paragraph 4 of your January 7 memorandum, you say that the estimates for the construction of Conservation Hall “have been value engineered down from a much higher figure.”
- What was that higher figure?
- How have the estimates been “value engineered” to a lower figure?
12. In March 2007 the State Building Commission was asked to approve a grant of $860,000 to the Tennessee Residence Foundation for “improvements” related to the construction of Conservation Hall.
- Why was the State Building Commission asked to increase the size of that grant to $3,860,000 just four months later?
- Did the huge increase in the grant for “improvements” have anything to do with the “value engineering” you mention?
13. Yesterday, the First Lady acknowledged that she was surprised at how the cost of the original Phase I Residence Renovation project had grown from original estimates. The cost of the Phase IV maintenance building grew from an original estimate of under $400,000 to an ultimate cost of over $1.2 Million. The estimated cost of the “improvements” related to the Conservation Hall project increased by $3,000,000 between March 2007 and July 2007.
- What reason is there to believe that the cost of construction for Conservation Hall will not increase dramatically from the “current” estimate, just as all the other costs for work at the mansion have increased dramatically from initial estimates?
- Does the “current” estimate include the cost of excavation for an underground facility?
- Isn’t the cost of excavation for an underground facility a significant variable that can affect construction costs for a large commercial building?
14. In paragraph 4 of your January 7 memorandum, you say that the Tennessee Residence Foundation has agreed to fund 100% of the cost of the Conservation Hall construction, no matter what it may be.
- If the costs of that project increase in the same sort of proportions as the costs of the other projects have increased, and if the Foundation’s donations aren’t sufficient to cover those increases, will the taxpayers then have to pay to complete the construction?
15. Why do you say in paragraph 5 of your January 7 memorandum that fundraising could be more easily obtained for a new addition than for maintenance and repair items?
16. How much of the funding from the Tennessee Residence Foundation was obtained before September 2006 when the Foundation’s contribution was still promised for the original Residence Renovation project?
17. What do you mean in paragraph 5 of your January 7 memorandum when you say that “the Foundation can more economically construct the facility”?
18. In paragraph 6 of your January 7 memorandum, you state that the Foundation has committed to pay for the “Conservation Hall proper.”
- What do you mean when you say “proper”?
- Does this mean that there may yet be other projects or costs related to Conservation Hall, in addition to the $3,860,000 of “improvements” we’ve already discussed, that the taxpayers may be asked to pay for?
19. The Tennessee Residence Foundation is identified as the “owner” of Conservation Hall in the project manual and the preliminary drawings. Consistent with that, you state in paragraph 6 of your January 7 memorandum that the Foundation will give the structure to the State as a gift-in-place.
- Since Section 5.08 of the State Building Commission procedures describes an in-place gift as a gift from a private donor, then does this mean that the Tennessee Residence Foundation is the private donor of Conservation Hall?
- Is the Foundation’s status as owner of Conservation Hall and a private donor the basis for your statement in paragraph 5 of your January 7 memorandum that “the Foundation can more economically construct the facility taking into account in-kind gifts”?
- Is this because the Foundation, as a private donor, is not bound by the procedures the State must follow if the State is constructing a facility?
20. Has the Tennessee Residence Foundation, as the owner and a private donor of Conservation Hall, applied for a building permit from the City of Oak Hill to build Conservation Hall?
21. Does Conservation Hall comply with the Oak Hill zoning ordinances?
22. If the Tennessee Residence Foundation is a private donor, is the owner of Conservation Hall, and is constructing Conservation Hall, what justification is there for the Foundation not to obtain a building permit and comply with Oak Hill’s zoning ordinance?
23. Can the State have this both ways – treat the Conservation Hall project as a privately owned in-place gift for purposes of avoiding restrictions that apply to state-owned construction projects, but treat it as a state project for purposes of avoiding the Oak Hill zoning ordinances?
24. Aren’t the following facts true relative to Conservation Hall:
- The requirements of the State Building Commission procedures for a state-owned building project are not being followed because this is being treated as an in-place gift from a private donor.
- The requirements of the State Building Commission procedures for approval of an in-place gift have not been satisfied.
- The building of Conservation Hall means that the Tennessee Residence Foundation’s funding commitment for the original renovation project will not be met, and the resulting funding shortfall on the original project will be paid for with taxpayer dollars.
- There is no documentation of the need for this project.
- There is no estimate of the cost of operation and maintenance.
- There are no final plans.
- The project has been unanimously disapproved by the Oak Hill Planning Commission, for the reasons that city has detailed to the State Building Commission.
- If we don’t build Conservation Hall, and if the Foundation contributes what it promised to the original renovation, we will save the taxpayers at least $8,720,000, plus whatever we save in cost increases that haven’t been projected but are sure to occur as well as the ongoing cost of operation and maintenance of the facility.
# # #
Tennesseans for Accountability in Government, (T.A.G.) has been established as a non-partisan 501 (c) (4) not-for-profit corporation to educate and to inform the public on issues relating to the expenditure of state tax revenue by government officials and agents for the purpose of holding those officials accountable to the citizens of Tennessee for the use of State funds for the public welfare.
For further information, please contact:
Rick Colbert
(615) 790-6610
(615)
504-5211
Kay McDowell
(615) 496-2003
(615)
244-7104
www.taxwastestopshere.org