Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR DRAG STRIP BY NHRA_ NATIONAL HOT ROD ASSOCIATION
GHpMPIONsyop (cUR )RACING NI-IRA Southeast Division 4424 NW 13th Street, Suite C6, Gainesville, Florida 32609 Telephone: (352) 374-9922 • Fax: (352) 372-0418 Bill Holt NHRA Southeast Division 4424 NW 13th Street Ste. C6 Gainesville, FL 32609 August 2, 2007 Leo Charette 1151 5th Street Augusta, GA 30901 Mr. Charette: Thank you for sending the information regarding the proposed track in Augusta Georgia. Providing the track is built according to the insurance underwriting guidelines previously sent to you from my office, I see no reason why the track could not be sanctioned by our Association and join the Southeast Division as a Member Track. I look forward to having the chance to work with you in the future. I can be reached at the above listed address and phone number should you have any further questions. Sincerely, 2.Al Bill Holt Director NHRA Southeast Division National Hot Rod Association • Member ACCUS-FIA WRDW I News 12 This Morning Local Update -November 10, 2006 Page 1 of 3 'NEyvs ,,, , , -;„*.,;, ,, ,.., . ._ , . .., , , ,,,,,,,„ if 2 . „,,, ,„„ ......._1, Sid g � S y04:-On Your Featured Sections: Ilmy12 Dumb&Dangerous Driving Medical MinutesMeet the Team Talk To 12 News Blog eather Blog Sports Blog Site Newsy Home Featured V .� ' T,V News �, MI r'f : €1. ADD TO pLAYLI'. Weather Weekday Nota. - 1 I"" ,i�+s�' Sports Search On Your Side r Ne, � SAVE EMAIL PRINT MOST ass As Seen On 12 ti;.8'THIS `z0 THIS THIS V POPULAR FEEQS Local l 8:55 a.i NEWS: News 12 This Morning Local Update - r Ne Education Local t. November 10, 2006 8:25 Health y A_ill Mt Play 8:25 Update Home&Family on sex Play 8:55 Update Politics 10:45 AM Nov 10,2006 (- *C° south I Business i Drag strip project gets green light [T , Du Traffic Driving CRlMETEAM12: , :,„� - o is : �+ On Some neighbors in south Augusta are CSRA's Mosta ` unhappy. Deliver Wanted ;1,+ Ne. � I. A ro ectto build a dragstripoff Mike Bradley Crimes by Zip Code r • p j � ' '•, x Padgett Highway is getting the green light - fit'An School Crimes illi , despite neighbors'fighting the plans. comes �� F In Plain SightLot NEWS12: Thursday the Augusta Commission voted to move forward with securing bonds and celebra working with the Development Authority to purchase the land. and Se Meet the Team r- ilk,Nen What's On A study shows the racetrack will bring$30 million in revenue to Augusta,but many Local l Awards neighbors say the Commission ignored their concerns about noise and traffic. 8:55 a.i ri Ne, Talk to 12 "They're going against all of our wishes,all our wishes,"said homeowner'Debbie Local l Clarifications Walker."People who've been out there 40 and 50 years in this area,theyre going 8:25 aa against our wishes.They don't care what the citizens want." r �+ Ba Who's Hiring r iiCo Commissioners Jimmy Smith, Jerry Brigham,and Don Grantham voted against the econon Gas Gauge plan. August Big Money Monday r" Bu COMMUNITY: Wrecking company may take city to court recogn employ Birthday ClubThompson Wrecking Company brought their crew to the Commission chambers Check i Calendar Thursday. tPiAY Ai CNECKEI Contests They were asking commissioners to rebid a contract to demolish the old candy Rachael Ray factory on Telfair Street. Eating Well With Kim Thompson Wrecking says they were the low bidder,but left out part of their Chef Walter proposal.They say the Commission gave the project to a higher bidder solely due to a technicality. More Recipes Time to Care 11/10/2006 http://www.wrdw.com/home/headlines/4611077.html AUGUSTA DRAGWAY AUGUSTA, GEORGIA OVERVIEW The owners-operators of Augusta Dragway have a unique opportunity to take the lead in developing a new sports facility that will have significant benefits to the South Georgia community. While it is not unusual for forward looking municipalities or private business to undertake such a community development, it is uncommon in that this sporting facility does not serve the traditional sports of baseball,football,basketball or other such activities. This is an auto racing facility. The difference between this and other traditional stadia lies in public perception,not in fact. Auto racing is now well proven to be a sport that is at the very heart of American culture. It is the most attended of all types of sports and also the leader in overall growth. It has wide public acceptance,reaches across every demographic barrier and has become a major source of entertainment for fans and participants alike. Last year,Motorsports overall grew at a rate of 47%and drag racing has maintained an annual growth rate of at prts eventshas least 30%over the last decade. In the past 15 years, attendance at motorsports increased 178%,more than double that of any other sport. In the Augusta, Georgia situation,this project offers benefits that extend beyond those normally associated with sporting facilities. While the facility will provide many diverse racing programs and special promotions,its main role will be to provide fun, affordable family entertainment that will attract many new visitors to the facility and community every year. These visitors will generate significant,measurable economic benefits in the communities that the facility serves. At the same time,the complex will be a catalyst for developing new businesses to service the facility and develop community involvement, for it will provide many avenues for volunteerism and special events. The racetrack can become a new source of pride for the Augusta area. As a host of new events that serve the ever-increasing national motorsports market, it will inevitably be responsible for generating television broadcasts that will be seen around the country, broadcasts, which can showcase the Augusta area in a positive and exciting manner. Racing is first and foremost a business. A new multi-use facility will inevitably draw immediate support from the local racers and fans. This will in turn provide for a solid base of regular participants for the track. At the same time,Augusta Dragway will provide local business and national corporations with an attractive advertisement platform to reach the broad market it will serve. Racing has become the nation's corporate sport,bringing with it participation by companies of all sizes,many of whom will see new opportunities for exposure in the Augusta market through sponsorships at the facility. BUSINESS DESCRIPTION Augusta Dragway is intended to be a multi-use motorsports facility to service the Augusta Metro market. In the past decade, auto racing has become established as one of the top three spectator sports in the United States, with its major events attracting the largest on-site crowds in all of sports. While professional events, such as the Indy 500, major NASCAR, NHRA and IHRA National events draw the largest crowds,the underlying strength of the sport lies in the many events that take place at smaller venues throughout the racing season. This regional and local activities account for the bulk of the nations racing events. Although lacking the grandeur, corporate support and media attention of larger promotions,these venues draw most of their competitors and large numbers of regular supporters to more than 1500 sanctioned facilities across the country. These race facilities and their promotions add up to the largest form of organized motorsports in the world. These facilities are not reliant on large crowds or ultra sophistication for their success and consequently do not require multi-million dollar facilities for their operations. Throughout the country,markets similar in size and character to Augusta are home to successful race facilities that cater to professional, semi-professional and amateur racing events. These facilities base their business operations on the promotion of multiple events featuring local competitors in regularly scheduled bracket racing programs, semi- professional heads-up shootouts, car shows and annual points categories at their facilities. These type of promotions allow the tracks to have proven, affordable events that provide the tracks with consistent numbers of both racers and spectators by offering them and their families an affordable entertainment venue. These facilities have proven that events and facilities designed to cater to the needs of the amateur and semi-professional racers, as well as the professional racers,will better serve those markets throughout their yearly schedules. The IHRA holds 12 national events per year in selected major markets. These markets are designated to maximize the impact of each event. The current plan is to hold an IHRA national event, a Pro-Am divisional event, a Team Finals event,Night of Fire, and Street Wars event. Race facilities of this size attract their customers by offering a variety of different racing events that include semi-professional racers that compete in a heads-up elimination's class that have significant spectator draw to amateur bracket racing and recreational events. This facility will have appropriate amenities to host not only an IHRA national event, but will also be able to draw a significant level of additional activity due to the classification as a national event facility. These activities will include specialty races, professional team testing and automobile manufacturer and dealer track rentals. The track can be aggressively promoted to extend its use for outdoor exhibits, concerts and other public events not related to racing. i I �ff f 1 f r j i I r s '" ap ,p ? t fi,'4"''rq rri i4 -1•1'*--' }r+2..,1�+ '''' '-t.r' • i 7 Yy�_�� .�'i. ivr �.�u�-t� `�sh� ?�rry�"�imt�'����.���i� -c- '� � r 7` z r ; - - �`� {c_. -a ,�xy-i , 41''c a-11 ''..^,t,1;" 4 :•;'''''F:..7-1 *m'�3'F''',A-T'''''',4-S'.' •a ,-',:V.`'•',',--,:',- , ,(- 3.J Li 7.2"_../L,,,,-7—..---1—\ sa y RAS ectator p Demographics 4% Over 55 5% Under 17 Age / The strength of IHRA is the lucrative 18-34 year six old market o- t , 30% 35-54 61% 18-34 Brand Loyalty 0 10 20 30 40 50 _ 60 70 80 1 1 1 i Motorsports fans are the Asa most brand loyal. 73% _F� -; Motorsports ,e;r= � G 1 38% fiiaa '. T MLB xxh Sr= s. 38% NBA 36% NFL 28% Olympics Lifestyle 96% own a set of tools 79% own a car stereo 91% perform own vehicle maintenance 79% are beer consumers 79% purchase aftermarket items from parts 87% have cable or satellite TV stores/mail order 94% are soft drink consumers 32% plan to buy a car or truck in the next 76% ro 12 months storewill twopurchase times fperma week 92% own a camera 61% own a cellular phone 77% own a computer 61% are connected to the intemet JnfartnaLon Northam Res..-ate Inc&the WRA Speaat91urvey .. ,.. ... V,:::'.7-- �. .�{ �, .a, .»mss-s..k r, rs 7.-.v. _, • n -••F`i i ter tv.._cu., ff }r.` * ,,, ,31 5 {' .Y. '' t r" '�s 'si°''}L,'' '"�"4` a4 „41e4. '• w�' ,.,- �,.dl tl f— yF-fa t , •3 �tK �"4 �� � °.�"� )1�, ,a»�'z3 xF � k{ iY' rr.y�,r�� t�a�h�� 3 w.=F r'� � rtiw' � r^ � � ,i',.,,,,,4„', ,,,._,;„..,_,. ;-',.'1,-.:�..� /-(�tY_—:,,,045,..v..-;!,i-,;40,:;;:i,,4.,:,, F�i� s {� s i �`v t >f� k +;41...4, -"'c' T � 1 Event Markets ,... ,.. National Event Markets The 12 National events held in the Eastern and Southern U.S.as well as the Provinces , of Ontario and Alberta include media buys in the following major metropolitan areas: East South International Manchester,NH Austin,TX Edmonton,Alberta Boston,MA San Antonio,TX Calgary,Alberta Worcester,MA Corpus Christi.TX Detroit,MI Providence,RI Buffalo,NY Buffalo,NY Midwest London,Ont Baltimore,MD Cleveland,OH Sarnia,Ont. Washington DC Sandusky,OH Toronto,Ont Hampton,VA Toledo,OH Hamilton,Ont Norfolk,VA Youngstown,OH Portsmouth,VA Detroit,MI Richmond,VA Flint MI Virginia Beach,VA Grand Rapids,MI Charlotte,NC Kalamazoo,MI Fayetteville,NC Lansing,MI Greensboro,NC Saginaw,MI High Point,NC South Bend,IN Raleigh,NC Winston-Salem,NC Columbia,SC Regional Markets - Pre-Am Tour Comprised of six divisions stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to just beyond the Mississippi River. North Eastern Northern North Central South Central Maine Ohio Illinois Texas New Hampshire Michigan Iowa Louisiana Vermont West Virginia Wisconsin New Mexico Massachusetts Kentucky Minnesota Arkansas ' New jersey Ontario North Dakota Oklahoma Delaware Indiana South Dakota Maryland Pennsylvania Indiana South Eastern QuebecFlorida Virginia tern Georgia Newyork North Carolina Tennessee Pennsylvania South Carolina Mississippi Alabama Local Markets - Sportsman Series While the majority of IHRA facilities are in the eastern U.S.,we are steadily moving west. Almost every state in the eastern third of our country is represented by IHRA through a local venue.The Superbowl of this sportsman series is called the SummitTeam Finals. There are five divisions competing for the crowns. Northern North Central South Central Ohio West Virginia Illinois Texas Pennsylvania Kentucky Iowa Louisiana New York Virginia Wisconsin Mississippi Maine Quebec Minnesota New Mexico New Hampshire Ontario North Dakota Arkansas Vermont Indiana South Dakota Oklahoma Massachusetts Indiana New jersey South Eastern Eastern Tennessee North Carolina Florida South Carolina Alabama Maryland Georgia Virginia • .. ( p ,' LOCATION ....i j ``,. �� �h" .... „„,„„,„,„,,,,,,,,k,„-„,,,-„,„;.„, .,- �--�-�`'��� = Y �v �.o � - , .._ ,..T,.,,‘.,, :_,,. ... . •-'�_t-. Lv..,...,.�F� ....„ , . . . . til I .,- .F 7 4 � ^�-rte, .r' v--✓� �- l"/ ,,•(fes p4ux' f R sf _� � -/ i ©`I ==a7P,,,, .'��T� v-.' +...r��,_ F '- Jai+ 77':'!''1:'' gip l ,_� l j' ' >ry`� " tri / ' I o-�; e*� ��.',�, : �' ^;. arm .�t_'." 7:17,-17,v,-,;:-„, '� r'7 Cd t '� ... _ _ 1-":';''''''''''' '' ,�•�`�„�-�r�� ��®r rfi a� 'a ;"', v#i� �r'dv' d "�,X65` -� „<•yr V v e -,—,-'-',=4'2',1, ,�,,,,+ v •;,f, J• _ '- .2', J.- r f i� it ry � �,® ji ,t , 0 f fi r .. a �L •�;;;''- `�;+ rrr� �rilf;‘,1*-42:1W2-;-;;111, ., 2�{ d - �c� w #� .R'y`a" -�?r't�' `Ts-t-p� ri "v rr � P r I Al 1 4* 3 i <^,�li a� 41All t- nM1 #4 yi E �.s, .Gn '-t.F �t;,:lae,,Atf' ;',:AfMk,\ j. ,k f J`t�`nry G;_N• ,7y�f_ ap r~ " r - 1� x �x€� atr -' hY xiG "� ,_. '''k"-' ` {h'wf ar._ C IC ti ;:s -z ,4cz; x ^--54 4 ''.t "s' ; ; ? , ,' uJ41 asp d ..,.-� , .'` fr F7^g'23j P rte' -tel 4� :r F f } i �'_� i� F' r J� x,.a,; vCtyw y G a KA E» ,c ' = r "� �-. k chi f E 4.-:=T-'::,.k'J'f''''tifi0 " r rleston E r n ` �c annah + � ';,� r+`rte'""t a ? ,1 . y ,E'' ;�1 2xf ,y.'^e.-z F,'ta ate+ BK.'tri. t _%-,- : k ,,f,-- onvnle EE{ i E Tam . <,. =h .. }, PAGE 7 . . .____ _ _ , ',, _t .._J ,i r....----ENB----- . , , I L... RE,GIONAL CONOMY I AUGUSTA-AIKEN MSA INCOME MEASURES TOTAL EARNINGS 9.7% Increase By 2005 ,I t 2005 1995 $7,142 $6,008 = . Augusta-Aiken `s MSA TOTAL EARNINGS Bill $ G $6,528 X2000 = Source:Woods 8,Pole 1999 MEAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME 2005 1995 $74,213 $52,862 Augusta-Aiken ,:,, 4 MSA MEAN HOUSEHOLD w Income .` 3a�� '.fi4. ll; Source:Woods&Poole 19999 C PAGE 13 FUNDS AND USAGE The construction of the facility to be known as Augusta Dragway$5,463,200 to complete. will require The City of Augusta has set aside $1,000,000 for infrastructure cost. The leasee, Leo Charette, has $1,000,000 in escrow to start the project. The city will finance the remainder to complete the project. Preliminary Development Legal Fees: $5,000 Advertising $4,000 Sanctioning Fees $2,000 Insurance $35.000 Subtotal $49,500 Estimated Construction Costs Public Infrastructure Improvements: Roadway Improvements: - turn lanes - roadway lighting Utility Extensions - water lines - hydrants - sewer lines - power - communication lines - geotechnical study Subtotal Infrastructure Improvements $1,000,000 i Li I Lighting(Includes installation) gh � g - Drag strip - Pit Area $150,000 Fencing $35,000 - Spectator 8000 ft $25,0003 Perimeter fence i Grandstands $1,875,000 - 15,000 seats $10,000 - Concrete foundation $2798,700 Facility Total 49,500 1, TOTAL PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT COST 0 ,000 0 TOTAL INFRASTRUCTURE 0 CONSTRUCTION COST 1,615,000,6 FACILITIES ,000 $5,463,200 GRAND TOTAL ASSUMPTIONS,DEFINITIONS AND NOTES The annual sales forecasts for Augusta Dragway were developed by compiling average attendance and sales data from existing NHRA and IHRA member tracks in similar markets. Since these tracks are privately owned,exact attendance figures are unavailable. However, after confirming them with the sanctioning bodies,the figures portrayed in these schedules are well within national averages for this type of facility and are conservative. Race Entries The event schedules are based on 52 weeks of operations and are broken into two categories: 1) Forty regular bracket series races per year as part of the Summit Racing E.T. Series with total average car count of 116 per event. 2) Four street races per month. These events are open to street legal vehicles only and will be conducted on Thursday night with total average car count of 75 per event. Total car counts for these events are based on national averages and do not reflect the expected attendance numbers. These figures show a conservative representation of the facility. Therefore,they do not show any of the specialty events that are available to us through the IHRA. These events would include Night of Fire, Street Wars,Pro-Am race and a National Event. The ability to host a National Event will not only showcase the facility during that event, but will also allow it to enhance the remaining events during the season due to the prestige associated with a National Event facility. Spectator and Concession Ratios The spectator attendance figures show a ration of 1.7 spectators per race entry. Again, these are based on national averages. Expected ratios of 5 to 7 per race entries based on attendance figures at other tracks. The projected average price of a ticket is $10.00 The average concession sales are based on$6.00 per person including racers. Ticketing and Concessions Cost Ticket printing expenses can be paid by the advertisers so that only ticketing costs are direct labor for ticket sales. Concession costs are shown at 30%. This is normal for food services throughout the industry. Direct Labor In addition to management personnel,twelve part time employees will be hired to staff the track during operation of actual races. Actual staff will include the announcer, computer operator, starter, helper on starting line,ET booth, 2 technical inspectors,2 at ticket gate, 1 maintenance, 1 in staging lanes,and 1 in the water box. SIGNAGE The sign locations and number of signs available at the facility reflect a wide variety of options and price ranges. Below is listed a sampling of expected locations, sizes and number of signs. These figures reflect sign rentals on a month basis,but a more common arrangement will be for pre-paid one-year contracts. The majority of these locations will be paid for during the construction phase of the facility in order for them to be in place when the facility opens. An example would be a scoreboard that rents for$15,000 per year. Sales of signage contracts will provide significant operating capital for the facility during construction and start-up. These revenues will provide funding for staff salaries, supplies and advertising costs for the facility. These contracts are to be sold when construction begins in order to provide immediate exposure for the advertisers. These signs will be sold on minimum one-year contracts and are priced so that we can achieve significant revenues through the number of available spaces. Available Signage 1 —Exclusive main track title sponsor $15,000/year 1 —Staging Lane Two 2/8 signs 5,000/year35,000/year 2—Lane Sponsor Two scoreboards at$15,000 each 5,000/year , 1 —Timing Tower/Time Slip /year 1 —Armband sponsor 5.000000/year 12—2x8 Retaining Wall Signs$500 each 12,000/year 12—4x8 Retaining Wall Signs$1,000 each 12,000/year 12—4x16 Grandstand Signs $1,000 each 4,000/year 12 -4x32 Grandstand Signs $2,000 each 2 24,000/year 2—4x8 Tower Signs $5,000 each TOTAL SIGNAGE $124,000 /YEAR These figures represent minimum available sign spaces at the facility. With the overall size and layout of the facility,it will have the ability to provide for more sign spaces as the need arises. 1 e • i I TITLE RIGHTS Title rights are sold to companies that wish to sponsor an entire event or series of events so that their company owns the name of that event or series(i.e. The Mobile Cotton Bowl of The NASCAR Winston Cup Series). There are numerous variations in the number of events each company can sponsor and different prices accordingly. Shown are the basic expectations based on the smallest number of companies buying 100%of available events. This shows the lowest amount due to the more events that a company buys the less it costs. Shown is a 30-week schedule of available events in order to provide for weather related re-scheduling of events during the 40-week season. This also allows the flexibility to schedule at least six special events throughout the year Title Rights contracts will be sold during the construction period in order to provide additional operating capitol and to ensure that the racing schedule is fully vested when it begins operations. These contracts are sold on an annual basis to companies wanting to be associated with particular events or series of events at the facility. Available Title Rights and Options Regular Weekly Events(30 Available) Price Per Event Annual Revenue Sponsor all 30 $ 750.00 $22,500.00 Sponsor 15 $1000.00 $30,000.00 Sponsor 10 $1250.00 $37,500.00 Monthly Events (10 Available) Sponsor all 10 $2000.00 $20,000.00 Sponsor 5 $2500.00 $25,000.00 Sponsor 1 $3000.00 $30,000.00 Street Races (60 Available) Sponsor all 60 $ 500.00 $30,000.00 Sponsor 30 $ 750.00 $45,000.00 Sponsor 10 $1000.00 $60,000.00 Total minimum $ 72,500.00 Total maximum $127,500.00 PROFIT&LOSS-FIRST YEAR PROJECTION Income 48 Test&Tune $282,000 40 Bracket Races $542,000 6 Feature Races $261,000 1 Pro-Am Division Race $ 10,000 1 National Event $150,000 1 Team Finals $ 10,000 Track Rentals $ 20,000 Total Income $1,275,000 Cost - 530,060 Gross Margin $744,940 C Ticket Sales $90,930 Concessions $251,460 Total Gross Income $342,390 Eg ui ____pment (50 H.P.Kubuta) $25,000 Tractor with broom $18,000 Sprayer VHT Tractor Supply $ 5,000 Buffalo Drier ,000 4 Wheeler—Chase vehicle $$4 4,000 12 Fire Extinguishers Supplies to Oven VHT— 55 gal. Brooms Hand Held Sprayer Alcohol—55 gal. Mops Rice Hull Scrapers Lacquer Thinner Gold Dust Total $44,000 � f '� �i' s'�. x 7 i yam,. a„ .!'.. 4e.-'s�,$ i4,*g 55} ,.';�'•.i r'? �+. °u :':'`'. 70,7 sly i 7 6 ) d, ',<. 'ry5t.v: REEL 4-'1' FrGE 1L9 >+ §d aszoi4 /'? , ....„ Cl5R- ‘./„.---- ` Pi VVV lh � 0-1 WARRANTY DEED OF GIFT ' f ORIGINAL REEL REI=ORDF'i rpiW GEORGIA REEL .43,:: PNGE 1.E:'..,! w ;A RICHMOND COUhpY'. lJIF IR. t_,+,z*pie `WN 1474 THIS al INDENTURE, '� ''��'` between KIMBERLY-CLARK` Made this odd n day of September, 1993, by and , 3 1IT� LAR$ CORPORATION 1400 Holcomb Bridge Road, Roswell, GA tt 30076, of the first g ' n�; 32 Richmond County Courthouse, Augusta,aDEVELOPMENT 309Q1�HofatheTY Osecondpart; COUNTY, w: I 1r WITNESSETH: That the said consideration of the benefits to accrue to of thehe pfirst payt for and in for other good and valuable considerations inthand apaid, by obefore the �! { f sealing and delivery of these �" which s herebypresents, the receipt and sufficiency of rihnis does acknowledged, has granted and conveyed and by these successors and grant andsconvey unto the said party of t., second part, itsassi . All of that tract of land situate, lying and being in the 86th District, G.M. of Richmond County, Georgia, and being q more particularly described on Exhibit "A" hereto attached and by specific reference made a part hereof. This conveyance is expressly subject to that non-exclusive 30-ft. easement for ingress and a ress ' in faof America, Georgia-Carolina Council, Inc. asvor is more of �fullyuts shown on plat prepared by showSurveyors, Eeaeon and Gore, Professional Land` dated September 10, 1993, a copys of 1 . record in Reel 431, pages 2322-2329, Richmond County records. This conveyance is expressly subject to existingeasents, restrictions, covenants, reservations and right -of- way. i To the best of grantor's knowledge and belief, disposed of no hazardous wast r grantor has Jn the property herein conveyed. { t, fp. t, TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said tract fffa singular the rights, or parcel ofv -, , members and appurtenances __ f land �am all r.;, belonging, or in PN thereof, to the y:.:.0 ,.1^.c; y, behoof ofg DEVELOPMENT appertaining to the onlyse, r ' EVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF RICHMOND COUNTY,proper said partybenefiof the 6x_ second part, its successors and assigns, forever: in fee simple. L, a And the said party of the first part, for itself, its successors and , assigns, will warrant and forever defend the right and title to the above,'' described property unto the said party of the second part, its successors. ; and assigns, against '' 9 , the claims of all persons whomsoever arising out of the ownership of the above--described property by Paid party of the }t: solel } first part. Y t �' ,, , f" RICi1Mo'r COUNTY,GEORGIA ' �6. r Cs tat,Trnn2e-Tex .- -+- . ? 1 Ff..' '1'1'1'. ''':,-;....--if:-."',',-,.°r-.i,..,:::-'—'- . ' ,'•.-.•:',-"tti'?' 4,=•••r"'z z'••4'....t."': -7'..V.•‘-`-?.;.''''..- " • •• ' •, 4 `'' .4 ' .`-'''" '-,:' .;` ''',.:::;".5474---'4i,:.:24`M''`°5•;ti'xi- ''''"-i`'q T••'''.*:',A.:4•1..t.r.•%:..2...,,,,,.• ,-'-',•-•.,.•,,,...:c.,,,.'s.•1 ..-1:4:.:Y•lt.:-..,-..,..? '''''P'.... ~ ',:,-•••113; -• ..r. '-‘.,.,,$-.NI -,..• ''-••.„'-: -•.•,- .e.„.•,..- .,,‘,.,...,,,,,c:.„..i,,,,...,,,z,,,,7,', ,,,`,-7 4.4-44+ 4:r4W4W,,I.Mr`,', '''''4,,t(1:--jk''4:14''q''''tir-.7'r....-c..4.40"-4'",4,,.,k,'''''':4-4'4Vrf$4,54`,;:rtb'''`',411,.'s7:4,4'':4"-Itir7;1744,:-4'...47?47'. '''"' . ''` '... ``'.' kfl'k4‘4.1**1441`V"ft '''' ''''':•4:',,'''`',`",\:-.g`4444P.7,.'4IP",/`s,Ve.":,':;t:''''`''''```,":::4`4.tr '1',',e,a,X-,,,,:-:. ., ,1,_,,,144,40,.m,..s c, p-• .w. . f•4„..•• 't ..., ,,•;•••.,,..‘;‘,...'.'...',.#••-,:::,..--....z.,.-sF,v-....3.4.,....t;./.,',,•-•.-••:,•••.'4.1.T.-t.a.,,..•,,,,N.,1.--•".-.4• IP FEEL 47,3 PAGE IL•sr: ......,•,_ .„4''. g-k W, .44 IN WITNESS '.'NEREO he oPid party of the first part has caused this t instrument to be duly executed and its corporate sea]. affixed hereto and , N has delivered this instrument tht- day and year first above written. 1,--- ___, KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION i - / •••• REALTY . / tEEL i U f 432 BY: AEA. 9'.•44 : 1 4.4.4i--2 C\\ • '4. r',7:"..- , —. Name: , . Greek aus, ----'-'"7. •--...t...'' .,"--'` - (/' ,4 Title: Executive Vice Pres3,cl'er. :, " 4"-c •.'%3••'„, C ', •c; ,..) -1 , ... .'.'"" .i...'"..,.• •cr. / ATTEST: 41/44r •,__, I ,, , -•-•,•*-., ; • - Name: A. _ • _ r".. . ..:--,-.5..4-4 ' 1 j i i'11. ',,,.•• ' ' ,' -.. Title. Its Assistant Secretary ...,,!!!- -, Signed, sealed and delivered E . E'•' . ., in the presence of: ;p. + ... a • /.,,-4-.-----_61,/______ 7:, ., W ness 4 ,y . 0 , Not Publ c FZ.,thLka____,N5to. , GA My ccimmi ssOnj:expires4,47,05,, try.4.71:,,.blot,F,,,zul,tro,,,n3,cLnttjya.ryGnsrT6 z., . (votary Secier,,,''-, .,.., -- -'. • PI;P 1 IS. .z; •••. kr".•,,. , 'r).. • , ,,..-**-4 . ...-" , . . ... ...—, , . i'., ' •''1.• -A--.- ... . , -- - - - ------------- --- - --- -------- ,. t,,... . 4 .. . . , r f ...'ilt X,,,... ,•„:"'re.47. '••:".,'....-i r ':-4.• 'cl / • •••"-• :•• , • ftg + A , DESCR/PTION OF THE PROPERTY All that certain tract or parcel of land situate, lying and being Richmond County, Georgia, containing 1,522.19 acres, more or less, and ' Ueing bounded generally, now or formerly, on the East by lands of Dana Greiner Tebow, lands of Maude G. Walker, lands of Charlotte G. Wiggins and lands of Ray Walker, et al. ; South by the Central of Georgia Railroad, lands of Kimberly-Clark Corporation Pnd lands of John P. Claeys; West by lands of Kimberly-Clark Corporation, lands of John P. Claeys, by Georgia 44 State Highway #56, and by lands of the Richmond County Board of Commis- sioners; and north by Horseshoe Road and by .rarious lots located southerly 1e . .. - of Horseshoe Road. Said lands are further described as to shape, courses, r* 1 • ° metes and distances as Parcel "A" on a plat prepared for Kimbf.s1y-Clark Corporation by Besson and Gore, Professtonal. :and Surveyors, dated ik September 10, 1993, a copy of which is recorded in Reel 431, pages 2322- • • 2329, Richmond County records, to which plat and the record thereof reference is specifically made as an aid to this description. 4.14 • • 1:.; ,LA 4 . • • •.^ .• .`4 a • 5 cn'Ji-, CLERK SUPERIOR caJi RF n "7'6 SEP 1993 AT 04 44RN FEC):-TIED :" SEP 1393 Augusta-Richmond County Map of for, ilif.... NII 411 49k0 JA.11,!..Clt..RD 44 -drilLig",- *1111 IA';144 i'44:000ii:71.11111:404frur Lysavit 111111P44.0,4*Ir 4,,,,p',A, 4 ...- , mouropir —rillorA .0., 41146 swill"Piii ati. , * fi1t %it l` lif 00 • e4 , e i 000 74*-4 t ink la tiv,704 y ,> � ' �lr �d 'i ° �I1tl. + 'el 1111111,11`"-A 1,p;, .., 114 L 4 `II' i 111 1 � LS 1,4i;!..-.,ir 411:4 -I 1111 11111 \i. fr T:::'; ; .., .100 04. 4111,1.' , ' 14°Rill'.....1L I :1010.7 iit„ if 4 it, . 4 ' unitio, iril" Pitiplit‘‘ � ...... , , sook ll.?� Aow IN"if oft um ri 0* "t i4#-- caemi"tiff 1111121;11111II'00, . -€/0 41,"Milti sic tint 1 + tyllit s For Private Use Only Scale Disclaimer:While every effort is made to keep information provided over the Internet Map accurate and up-to-date, Augusta does not certify the authenticity or accuracy of such 1 inch=0.6 mile information. No warranties, express or implied, are provided for the records and/or mapping data herein, or for their use or interpretation by the User. http://mapweb.augustaga.gov/augusta/printPreview.aspx?PrintOptData=Augusta-Richmo... 10/03/2006 Office Of The Administrator GE OR GIA Frederick L.Russell,Administrator Room 801 -Municipal Buildin Tameka Allen, Interim Deputy Administrator 530 Greene Street-AUGUSTA, GA.3091 Robert Leverett Interim Deputy Administrator (706)821-2400- FAX(706)821-2819 www.augustaga.go MEMORANDUM TO; The Honorable Deke Copenhaver,Mayor The Honorable Marion Williams,Mayor Pro Tem Members of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission FROM: Frederick L. Russell,Administrator DATE; November 9,2006 SUBJECT; Race Track Development Plan The following are the steps necessary to begin the development of the race track facility. Clhty. 1) Acidic;;;nation to proceed with a purchase/property exchange with the Au usta Richmond County industrial Development Authority. g 2) Authorization to proceed with Bond Counsel to develop a bond package to finance the project dependent upon project revenue. 3) Develop a RFP for engineering and project development to include construction. 4) Secure and develop a private partnership and establish a memorandum of understanding that will include but not be limited to,funding, operations and distribution of projects, Obviously securing the property is the first order of business but 1 would recommend parallel courses for each activity. Office Of The Administrator Room 801 -Municipal Building G E� O R GI A Frederick L.Russell,Administrator 530 Greene Street-AUGUSTA,GA.30911 Tameka Allen,Interim Deputy Administrator (706)821-2400- FAX(706)821-2819„�,�,y�,,augustaga.gov Robert Leverett,interim Deputy Administrator MEMORANDUM TO; The Honorable Deke Copenhaver,Mayor The Honorable Betty Beard,Mayor Pro Tem Members of the Augusta-Richmond County Co tssion FROM; Frederick L.Russell,Administrator DATE; March 6, 2007 SUBJECT; Drag Strip Update There are four sites that meet the established standards with no consideration of zoning, ownership or availability of utilities. • Minimum one mile in length in one direction • No serious natural topographic restrictions • Frontage on one of the following multi-lane major arterial highways ➢ Washington Road ➢ Gordon Highway ➢ Deans Bridge Road(Hwy.#1) ➢ Peach Orchard Road(Hwy. #25) ➢ Doug Barnard Highway ➢ Mike Padgett Highway(Hwy. #56) • Vacant Land • 10 minutes driving time to Bobby Jones • No substantial impact on floodplains or known wetlands These sites are privately owned and would require a significant outlay of public funds if the owners are inclined to sell. 11/08/2006 12:20 7067389746 AUGUSTA AVIATION INC PAGE 01 . ../ Augusta"A%1ctlon Inc, FAX COYER SHEET DATE I 13 ) . roJ ,rnfri 1501 ; F H• 706 _ S.)-1. - / gag COMPANY: • -PCL-1 IoM . . ir, I5C_Opti 0-b 61.-\C1 a I ins t 0/C • TOTAL # OF PAGES(INCL CO • 1 DanlelReid • Augusta,.Georgia'30904=6302` • 704733.8970 0 :Fox! 706/738-9746 11/08/2006 12:20 7067389746 ANALYSIS FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR BUILDING AND OPERATING A PROFESSIONAL LEVEL DRAG STRIP By_ Ray N.Walker November 6,2006 Prepared for: Walter Sprouse—Executive Director Richmond County Development Authority Augusta,Georgia 11/08/200E) 12:26 7067389746 AUGUSTA AVIATION INC PAGE 03 Independent Analysis Report of Augusts Georgia Feasibility Study for November 6,2006 Buil4nd & J Level Drag SUioPam 2 of 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY 3 INTRODUCTION 3 Background 3 Purpose 3 Scope 3 Method 4 CONCLUSIONS 4 RECOMMENDATION 4 DISCUSSION 4 REFERENCES 7 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 7 11/08/2006 12:20 7067389746 AUGUSTA AVIATIDN 1N1;• November 6.2006 independent Analysis Report of Augusta Georgia Feasibility Study for Page 3 of Building and Over:gine a Prof stional Level Drag stria SUMMARY This report provides an independent analysis of the Feasibility Study u mitredt fulfillment of a legal contract-with the C staommiss nroJohnson d by the city of Consulting,Inc..and Rost Motorsports,LW. The study wac Augusta's Administrator,Fredrick Rumen,in an effort to provide local oAltiat'with the necessary informetiou to make an informed decision regarding the commitment of public funds and property to the establishment of a professional drag strip affiliated with the International lieu Rod Association in the southern section of Richmond County,Georgia. Through verification of the study's references and en ss-c ec a ata eta n the tt *ionstad, Tse report documents the inaccuracies and omissions of critical generation of this report is provided at no oast to the staff of the Richmond County Development Authority(RCDA). It was generated by private Munn of Richmond County hi an effort to inform the RCDA of questionable economic information contained oddity the Feasibility Study. Due to failure of the Feasibility study to provide accurate and complete data to validate ib conclusions,it is the recommendation of this report that the study be disregarded by the Augusta Commiminn and the RCDA. The commitment of public bonds and property lbr a project based upon a flawed study is irresponsible under any circumstances,yet even more so when the city of Augusta is arperitaecing financial hardship. if anch a facility is truly financially viable.propotieats of the venture should attempt to secure private funding and backing for the facility instead of public INTRODUCTION Background Besides being the governing body of the city,the Augusta Comminriori promotes economic developtneat within the ciy's boundaries through various actions including op to the utilisation of pnblie fonds and property to entice companies or ve ntures esb i locar te of there. a p. in September ept drag strip two of the commission's ten commidsioners proposed thewithin the city's bonndarke as a methodology to attract entertainment dollars,even though a viable competing facility Is already in operation within a short distance of the Augusta metropolitan area. The main rationale behind this venture having viability was that a large tract of land in the southern section of Richmond County was available for such a seance and no aequisidon omO. by/hC commissioners at the The legalities of the tract's ownership were misunderstood was misrepresented time of the venture's proposal,and as sue%the venture's price tag Estimates of the tthe public and to consultants contracted to produce the feasibility study. andpassible ehe economic impact of the facility for the city varied wiMyis ron re the trath ck n meetings eepact�ain the torsiismedia,Golfth onecommissionere . In attempting the residents whose property borders or is in the Master's Golf tournament. addition,many regarding caressive noise levels,traffic of the tract opposed such a facility doe to concerns regn g congestion,and decreased property values. Purpose The purpose of this report is to provide an Independent analysis of the feasibility study in order to determine whether or not its data is complete and accurate. Scope of the Augusta,Georgia A large portion of the feasibility study references various aspects Thoughof some metropolitan urea's geotprnpbi ,educational,and economic chars stn i1tt available and not is mime facility,this data Is widely is that it world dispute.e Importance reasonto son viabilityrte commission's championing ing of a drag racing facility n The stated for therefore the focus of the independent analysis will be on section economic benefitProjections and section 11 Economic 0,,d Fiscal lntpad Analysis. rection VL Financia/ 11/08/211116 12:20 7067389746 AUGUSTA AVIATION INC rHut no Independent Analysis Report of Augusta Georgia Feasibility Study for November 6,2006 pudding and Operating A Piofcssional Level Drag Strip Page 4 of 7 Method After reviewing the=copy of the reweaving,ty stud y provided to Commissioner Jimmy Smith,It was determined that critical portions of the study's financial data seemed skewed so as to provide more favorable income and economic projections. The basis and/or references for each estimated income and expense figure were researched and any calculations verified in an effort to determine its accuracy. CONCLUSIONS In the study's transmittaTktter,the eansulbnts stated that the sources used in the preparation of the document were thought to be reliable,but their aecoracy could not be guaranteed. Independent analysis of the feasibility study identified a significant number of irregularities in it economic projections. It is the position of this analysis document that the consulting firms of C.R.Johnson Consulting,Inc.and Frost Motorsports,LLC utilized questionable dab moms and provided inaccurate sod incomplete data in preparation of its Feasibility Study for the city of Augusta, RECOMMENDATION Any action by the Commimlon to acquire all or part of the tract of land is south Richmond County controlled by the RCM for the construction of a professional drag strip should be tabled indefinitely. Any decision by city officials to commit public monies and property in pflrnoit M such a facility should be based solely upon a historical financial data of similar facilities within the southeastern United States. DISCUSSION Much of the financial data and income estimates In the study are based upon estimates oldie number of nut of-town patrons and their spending patterns for food and lodging,. No statistical data was provided from existing facilities regarding the estimates of event attendance nor did a comparison of the event calendars for comparable facilities in Texas and North Carolina validate the high number of events listed in Table 6-1 of the Feasibility Study in regards to the spending leveb of out-of-town patrons,the Feasibility Study in Section 7,Page 3 reference the Eapact 2004 CAnvenNon Expenditure and/squad Study as the source for its data and statistiei. The Expad Study,published under a grant from the Intensataral Asrndrulon of Cenverrdon and Viskorx Murinus,was generated by"surveys of delegates,exhibitory and event organizers for a variety of meetings,conventions and trade shows to determine bow much they spent in the city where the event was held."' A specific disclaimer against using the Expad Study's data for estimating direct event spending for consumer shows,imgeljegareels,fairs,festivals,or concerts was provided to the members of Destine**Marketing Association International oa their organisation's website. The web-site stated that"These figures should ONLY be used to determine the direct event ...d�eh'r�iNne rel Ttit she consultants to utilize a financial data reference which by its author's admission is not applicable to sporting events instead of historical financial data from existing drag racing facilities suggest either Incompetence or an attempt to hide the tree economic impact from the course. Besides the use of non-applicable reference sources,review of the data in Table 6-2, Augusta Drag Strip Summary Performa income Statement,and Table 6-3,Augusta Drag Strip Estimated Development Costs,by Certified Public Aeeoontunt(CPA)Michael Bunter,identified the following diserepandes and/or omissions: (1)Income for all years within the income statement include substantial revenues from Luxury Suites and Rentals even though their construction cost are not included in the development cost estimate. (2)Item Marketing and Adadnitlrnti►e under the Egoeneer section of Table 6-2 either does not include the cost of insurance or the estimated cost of insurance for sacb a facility it extremely underestimated. insurance costs alone to cover both workers and patrons fora 15,000 seat facility is estimated by CPA Hunter to be between$200,000-$300,000 annually. In addition,there is no tending identified in Table 6-3 for insurance dosing the facility's estimated IN month construction period. (3)Neither Table 6-2 ner the section Coal ofSalet and Expense Assumptions include the cost associated with locking in television coverage of the event on a sport,channel(i.e. 11/08/2006 12:20 7067389746 AUGUStH HV1HIluiv i,•, a Feasibility Study for November 6,2006 Independent Analysis Report of Augusta Georgip._ .:7 Buildin:and s LI t.,�I_a Pmfe+sionoi Level)i .,' forfacilities,and ESPN), .Media coverage is neither automatic nor free,especially new both local and asdonal sponsors/advertisers have tom idenad td eiag d persuadeded and ra through various means to agree to pay for coverage listed as (4)The cost of the lead on which the facility would the constructed icorrectly County 50. The pmpsted tract for the site is actually controlled ByeRic laver the Development Authority(KCDA),not the city Asollea tradeth of property development authority mast either sell the land to the city or accept owned by the city of equal dollar value. The minimum proposed acreege for the facility Is 250 acres. Since the tract owned by the R D is estimatth Sam he 5000 per acre,the city would have to either spend sr transfer property im development authority. Since the only viable location for the strip One to its length and the tracts topology is parallel to eorseaboe Road and near Highway 56 would prevent utilization of the remaining acreage for otherofthe ethe l lyra ct[peodirequir ire re the city to acquire all of the 1725 acs of the tract,raising (5)Tale 5�Fns and Coetiogcacy item under the bending 0f indirect r Costs sus for the ibera ., ta of the aategory,yet dem "financing"as one reflect the components tufa At orient interest levels M 6%, dot not accuratelyeats alone X000(Note-Assuming utilization of 15 year bonds) isteanst paymeatr on Stir900, n world exceed 5350,000 annnatly. Even if the costs of constructing the henry elides are omitted sod eking the low figure of 56,900,000(55.4 million of original estimate+$1.5 million for land acquisition)for construction,when the financing and insurance toots are added to the Expenses item in Table 6-2,the facility will never show a profit during its first ten years of operation. initial ccoeonaic impact Table 7-1 in the study displays in tabular form the proposed to the local economy,yet this table's data Is misleading, By separating the Weil, monthmonthexplanatory text from the table eil,that fact that the table actually covets period is loot on most readers(Construction's impact is over the first 18 months and the di is over the remaining 12 months). The reason why this Operationspand Visitor Spending pp ly positive economic impact ignores the negative Is imported is that the Table's sr impact of city expenditures of at least 573117 million dollars(55,4 minim construction casts,51.5 million land acquisition costs,and 5487 thousand dollars for daunting)by tie city during the 13 month consbrrctioa period and a minimum net loss of 5170,000 (projected profit before axes in Table 6-1 of 5380,000-5200400(low end estimate) imamate costs,4350,000 littered payment=4170,000)during the subsequent 12 moth` of operation. The bottom line is that in the drat two and one halethhecit spends re tot least 57.5 million dollars and isn't even close to being able to generate pay the interest on its debt. Some additional issues regarding the validity of data in of the Table 7-1: (1)When using the 1MPf� AN model to estimate total economic activity,the,securacY estimation is highly dependent upon rKlistion of multipliers which accurately reflect load economic hetors. The feasibility study did not state their multipliers nor did they provide references as of their source. (2)When using the ThIPLAN model to alleviate the number of jobs crested forgiven infusion of dollars Into the eooaotny,the number of jobs crested b dependentuponthe segment or menta of the economy(i.e.menrfactnring,restaurants/lodging, contraction,etc...)being directly impacted. This variation is reflected In the Table, but nowhere is there an explanation that all of the estimated fall dine jobs arc unequal. or els - �. re for this type job. The pay for the Ml tigre ro Operations e ati ns jo is as ore credible low Spire while the fall time Visitor Spending job annual job is gh more fs�ubelow the minimum wage the City ofroughlyof Augustaub Tse onlytax revenues being (3)Since of does not Mame an Income her' and hotel est on collected would be from sales at on goods(applicable to all wedges) only to Visitor ceding). No documentation of tax rates and lodging(applicable provided by the study and Ore the tax figures is Table 7-ll and 7-1 c mp sues are f Federal,Starr,Local,Sales,and Hotel ata.the figures are eoric estimates oT invalid as an etimste of local tax revenue. e jObS,while is (4)The structure of the Table Implies that the true economic impact of the strip's find 30 facthe oopcntion stand m are already amounted 540 million dollars and oar in te490 rll Ma�miasmic fact the total earn►oD► amity estimate. Table 7.4's estimate of visitors during the first year of operation is lessee in part on as narealistic estimate of the number of events from Table fel. Nohistorical data xon ver attendance figura al similarly sized facility was provided in the y,nor did the proviae internee of schedules of other large fealties in the sontheastesm number of 130 events(1 National+14 itegional+115 l.o al)in one year. 11/0872006 12:20 7067389746 AUGUSTA AVIA11UN JNL _. 1J Independent Analysis Report of Augusto Georgia Feasibility Study for November 6,2006 Building and Operating a Professions)Level Drag Stria Par 6 of 7 Table 7-S's estimated visitor speeding levels for Retail,Food and Beverages,and Lodging arc taken from the EXPACF2004 SmAy which is not applicable to aportiog events. Since the spending estimates created in Table 7.6 are invalid,then the Total Economic Activity calculations in Table 7-6 and 7-7 are invalid as well. This space deliberately left blank. 7067389746 AUGUS i H Hv 1" ' "' 11/0B/2006 12:2 0 November 6,2006 tndependcnt Analysis Report of Augucu►Georgia.Feasibility Study for 7y Mk& ins a sional Leve REFERENCES 1. Destination i►f,*ethtg Web Site. //www dcstiaotionmarketin3ra► /Oaf .4ep7pid=149(6 October 2006) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Michael D.Bunter,CPA Chief Financial Officer Accident Insurance Company Columbia,SC Bob Wright,Jr_-Owner RA.Wright Construction Ca. Augusta,GA FINANCE DEPARTMENT G E' o R G I A David Persaud,MPA, CGFM,CPE,Finance Director Memo To: Commissioner Marion Williams From: David Persaud,Finance Direc ,. Date: February 9, 2006 Re: Commission Approval for a Feasibility Study for the Proposed Racetrack and Bond Financing I have compiled at your request the necessary information relating to what circumstances will a feasibility study be required for capital investment and the initial financing requirements. BACKGROUND: Feasibility studies are normally required for all proposed rated and investment grade rated financing which are estimated to have an effect on revenues and expenses. In addition,the study creates the basis for the project (drag racetrack) listing alternative financing, understanding cost benefit analysis and selecting the preferred method of financing to deliver the project successfully. Generally,the feasibility study would address the following issues: 1. Debt issuance for revenue bonds (or Go Backed Debt). 2. Capitalized interest during the period of construction that is financed as part of the bond issue. 530 Greene Street,Room 207 Augusta, Georgia 30911 (706) 821-2429 (Office) (706) 821-2520(Fax) www.augustaga.gov 3. General Revenue Pledge- a pledge of all general operating revenues for debt retirement. 4. Incremental annual operating budget expenses- the increase in annual operating budget attributable to the project. 5. Non-recurring costs- one time project costs. 6. Reserve Fund- an amount set aside usually from project revenues or bond proceeds, to mitigate the impact of fluctuations or interruptions in the flow of revenues to pay debt service. The presence of a reserve fund may enhance the credit rating.For the purposes of feasibility study,reserve funds are generally for debt service coverage. 7. Description of the project in sufficient detail so an uninformed reader has a clear understanding of the project.Indicate whether the project involves new construction or is an addition or renovation to an existing facility. 8. Explain how the project and its impact have been conveyed to local officials and their response. 9. Describe any other positions or negative aspects of the project. 10. Describe the financing proposal. Indicate if this proposal is for bond financing or alternative financing. 11. Describe specific revenues planned to support debt service payments. 12. Describe the method of estimating customer counts for the revenue stream. 13. Describe the projected financial impact of the project on the community. SUMMARY: The above thirteen issues are some of the subject matter that would be addressed in the feasibility study. Funding for the Feasibility Study- this is a non recurring expenditure and therefore would require a one time draw down from the General Fund contingency. I am not certain what would be the cost of the study,therefore you may want general concurrence from the commission to fund the study.Alternatively,the Procurement Director may be able to offer some assistance through a Request for Quotes. I trust this information would be helpful for you to present to the Commission for their full concurrence. Please let me know if you need additional information. Thank you cc: Fred Russell,Administrator Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission • G r E' �' I A Peue a9rr6 iralo,� 08-01-06 09 : 72 RCVD MEMORANDUM DATE: July 31, 2006 TO: Attorney Jim Wall, Burnside Wall Attorney Vanessa Flo moy,Augusta Law Department FROM: Geri A. Sams ,• SUBJECT: Contract for Professional Services RFP 06-140 Feasibility Study for Building and Operating a Professional Level Drag Strip in Augusta, Georgia Attached please find an original copy of the signed contract for professional services dated July 18, 2006 between the City of Augusta and C. H. Johnson Consulting, Inc. to conduct the above feasibility study. Please do not hesitate to contact me at(706) 821-2422 if there are any questions on this item. GAS/bc Attachment(as indicated) cc: Fred Russell,Administrator Doreen Holmes, Purchasing Agent • Room 605—530 Greene Street,Augusta,Georgia 30911 (706)821-2422—Fax(706)821-2811 Z w.a Iguailgi o/ Register at monacmandatuanniisudiejfor automatic bid notification , 7,47t1/- G I A CITY AUGUSTA, GEORGIA OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THIS CONTRACT is made and entered into on the day of, July 18, 2006, by and between the City of Augusta, hereinafter called CITY, and C.H. Johnson Consulting, Inc., hereinafter called the CONSULTANT. The CITY engages the CONSULTANT to perform professional services for a project known and described as a Feasibility Study for Building and Operating a Professional Level Drag Strip, Request for Proposals (RFP) number 06-140, hereinafter called the "Request for Proposal (RFP)". SECTION I-SERVICES OF THE CONSULTANT The CONSULTANT shall perform the following professional services to CITY standards and in accordance with the degree of care and skill that a registered professional in Georgia would exercise under similar conditions: A. The CONSULTANT shall perform the scope of work as described in its submittal received in the City's Procurement Office. The Tasks listed below and in accordance to RFP 06-140. (See Exhibit"A"for a detailed scope of work). Task 1. Orientation and Data Review Task 2.Market Support For a Drag Strip Task 3. Trend and Industry Review Task 4.Site Analysis. Task 5. Facilities Review Task 6.Demand Projections Task 7. Financial Projections Task 8.Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis Task 9. Reports and Meetings B. The CONSULTANT has assigned Charles H. Johnson, as the CONSULTANT Manager for this Contract. Prior written approval is required in the event the CONSULTANT needs to change any listed Consultant. The CITY has accepted the CONSULTANT team as described in the "Best and Final Offer" any changes to the approved team shall require the approval of the City. C.The CONSULTANT shall prepare and submit a detailed opinion of probable cost of the Project as outlined in RFP 06-140. D. The CONSULTANT shall follow and comply with the Request for Proposal (06-140) Guide as directed by the CITY. E. The CONSULTANT shall submit all final documents in both hard copy and electronic format. Plans shall be PDF, TIF or AutoCAD compatible and all other documents shall be Microsoft Word compatible. The software version used shall be compatible to current City standards. Other support documents,for example, structural calculations, drainage reports and geotechnical reports,shall be submitted in hard copy only. . SECTION II -PERIOD OF SERVICE The CONSULTANT will complete its analysis in no more than ten weeks of the "Notice to Proceed" date. In the event delays are experienced beyond the control of the CONSULTANT, the schedule may be revised as mutually agreed upon by the CITY and the CONSULTANT. SECTION Ill -CONSULTANT'S COMPENSATION A. The method of payment for this "Best and Final Offer" CONTRACT is a installments as listed below). Total compensation for the services performed shall (be the sum of $25,000) or (not exceed $28,750) plus approved includes an allowance of$3,750 for reimbursable exes hich ins no adjustments. llseveer be more than actual cost up to$3,750.) B. The CITY shall pay the CONSULTANT in installments based upon monthly progress reports and detailed invoices submitted by the CONSULTANT subject to the following limitations: 1. Preliminary design (20% plans), payments to the CONSULTANT shall not exceed 80% of the total CONTRACT amount. The final payment of 20% will be paid upon delivery of the final approval report. �r 1 Payment Upon Receipt of Draft Report of Tasks 1, 2 and 3 in the amount of$5,000 2°d Payment Upon Receipt of Draft Updated Report to include update or changes to Tasks 1, 2 and 3. Workshop and Receipt of Task 4, 5 and 6 $5,000 3rd Payment Upon Receipt of Draft of Task 7, 8 and 9 $5,000 4th Payment Meeting/Presentation/Progress Report $5,000 Final Payment of$5,000 upon receipt of Final Approved Report 2. Prior to approval of the final design documents, payments to the CONSULTANTS shall not exceed 80% of the total CONTRACT amount. The final approval and payment will be made within a reasonable period of time regardless of the Request for Proposal construction schedule. 3. If the scope of work of this CONTRACT includes the preparation of studies, design concepts, or other investigations, progress payments shall not exceed 80% of the total CONTRACT amount prior to submittal of the final report deliverables. Final Payment of 20% will be paid upon delivery and acceptance of the FINAL REPORT approved by the City. 4. Payment for reimbursable expenses shall be made during all phases based on actual expenses. Receipts required for all expenses. 2 • C. The CITY at its discretion may, by written notification, waive the above limitations. One of more waivers of any covenant, term or condition of this agreement by either party shall not be construed by the other party as a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same covenant, term or condition. D. The CITY shall make payments to the CONSULTANT within thirty (30) days after receipt of the progress report and detailed invoice. E. Payment requests must be mailed to the following address for approval.: Fred Russell, City Administrator-530 Greene Street-Room 801 —Augusta, GA -30911 SECTION IV-THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES A. The CITY has designated its Administrator to manage this project during the term of this CONTRACT. The Administrator has the authority to administer this CONTRACT and shall monitor compliance with all terms and conditions stated herein. All requests for information from or a decision by the CITY on any aspect of the work shall be directed to the Administrator or his designee. B. The CITY shall review submittals by the CONSULTANT and provide prompt response to questions and rendering of decisions pertaining thereto, to minimize delay in the progress of the CONSULTANT'S work. The CITY will keep the CONSULTANT advised concerning the progress of the CITY'S review of the work. The CONSULTANT agrees that the CITY'S inspection, review, acceptance or approval of CONSULTANT'S work shall not relieve CONSULTANT'S responsibility for errors or omissions of the CONSULTANT or its sub-consultant(s). SECTION V—TERMINATION The CITY, at its sole discretion, may terminate this CONTRACT for convenience or abandon any portion of the Project for which services have not been performed by the CONSULTANT, upon fourteen (14) days written notice delivered to CONSULTANT personally or by certified mail at: C.H. Johnson Consulting, Inc—6 East Monroe —Suite 500—Chicago, IL 60603. Pursuant to Augusta-Richmond County Chapter 10—Adopted September 2, 1992. Immediately after receiving such notice, the CONSULTANT shall discontinue advancing the services under this CONTRACT and proceed to close said operations under this CONTRACT. The CONSULTANT shall appraise the services it has completed and submit an appraisal to the CITY for evaluation. The CITY shall have the right to inspect the Consultant's work to appraise the services completed. CONSULTANT shall deliver to the CITY all drawings, special provisions, field survey notes, reports, estimates and any and all other documents or work product generated by the CONSULTANT under the CONTRACT, entirely or partially completed, together with all unused materials supplied by the CITY. In the event of such termination or abandonment, the CONSULTANT shall be paid for services performed prior to receipt of said notice of termination including reimbursable expenses then incurred. 3 • If the remuneration scheduled hereunder is based upon a fixed fee or definitely ascertainable sum, the portion of such sum payable shall be proportionate to the Ipercentage of services completed by the CONSULTANT based upon the scope of work set forth in Exhibit A, and shall be agreed upon mutually by the CONSULTANT and the CITY. However, in no event shall the fee exceed that set forth in Section III_of this CONTRACT. The CITY shall make final payment within sixty (60) days after the CONSULTANT has delivered the last of the partially completed items. In the event this CONTRACT is terminated, the CITY shall have the option of completing the work, or entering into a CONTRACT with another party for the completion of the work according to the provisions and agreements herein. SECTION VI-SUPPLEMENTAL CONTRACT PROVISIONS The supplemental contract provisions should include the Request for Proposal (06-140) and all related documents to this CONTRACT hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. The CONSULTANT warrants that the person who is signing this CONTRACT on behalf of the CONSULTANT is authorized to do so and to execute all other documents necessary to carry out the terms of this CONTRACT IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this CONTRACT this day of July 14, 2006. CITY OF AUGUSTA, GEORGIA CITY ADMINISTRATOR CONSULTANT Certified to be a true and ex ct copy Certified to be true an. exact copy • ed Russell, City Administrator Charles H.Johnson IV,President Ref: Request for Proposal#06-140 Feasibility Study for Building and Operating a Professional Level Drag Strip 4 4yRGIA NOTICE TO PROCEED The CITY (Augusta, Georgia) engages the CONSULTANT (C.H. Johnson Consulting, Inc) to perform professional services for a project known and described as a Feasibility Study for Building and Operating a Professional Level Drag Strip, Request for Proposals (RFP) number 06-140. Pursuant to the terms of the RFP and contract, you are here by notified to commence work at the start of business on July 21, 2006. The CONSULTANT will complete its analysis in no more than ten weeks of the "Notice to Proceed" date. In the event delays are experienced beyond the control of the CONSULTANT, the schedule may be revised as mutually agreed upon by the CITY and the CONSULTANT. Unit Price: Total compensation for the services performed shall (be the sum of $25,000) or (not exceed $28,750) plus approved adjustments. (This fee includes an allowance of $3,750 for reimbursable expenses,which in no event will ever be more than actual cost up to$3,750.) Description of Work Directive: The CONSULTANT shall perform the scope of work as described in its submittal received in the City's Procurement Office. The Tasks listed below and in accordance to RFP 06-140. Task 1. Orientation and Data Review Task 2.Market Support For a Drag Strip Task 3. Trend and Industry Review Task 4.Site Analysis Task 5. Facilities Review Task 6.Demand Projections Task 7. Financial Projections Task 8.Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis Task 9. Reports and Meetings Authorization: CITY ADMINISTRATOR CONSULTANT Certified to be - true a exac opy. Certified to b true d e ac opy y�' Fred Russell,City Administrator Charles H.Johnson IV, resident Date: 7/7�/G G Date: l (�t/BSO 11u4:,:c1I c.4A pr' lrlf