On August 10, NewsLanc published “ARCHITECT FIRM SAYS OWNERS DECIDED ON CC PROJECT METERING,” an article recounting our discussions with representatives of Cooper Carry, the architectural firm responsible for the Convention Center/Hotel design. The article disclosed that, as recalled by the Pope Bullock, the firm’s lead principal,

“Tom Smithgall and Mark Fitzgerald of the High Group [instructed] them how to meter the project. Cooper Carry would have provided advice if asked, but [Bullock] asserted they were not. He indicated that he felt that both Penn Square Partners and the Convention Center Authority were represented at the meeting but could not recall the names of others who might have been present. (Smithgall and Fitzgerald of High may have been authorized to speak for both entities….)”

To follow up on this story, a NewsLanc reporter sent Smithgall an e-mail with the following inquiry:

“Cooper Carry, architects for the Convention Center Project, have identified you as one of the representatives of the owners who instructed them not to provide separate utility metering. Furthermore, they indicated that you did not request their input on the matter and therefore they offered none.

1) Are you denying their assertion that you instructed Cooper Carry on behalf of the “owners” on how to meter the electric and gas for the project?

2) If you did so convey the instruction of the “owners”, what were your reasons for not arranging for either separate master meters for the hotel, convention center and possibly the common condominium areas, or sub-metering to separate the utilities costs of the hotel, the convention center, and possibly the common areas?”

Smithgall did not reply to the message. Last Thursday, NewsLanc sent Smithgall yet another message to again pose the same questions. He still has not responded with his answers.

NewsLanc asked to interview Smithgall concerning the reasons for combining the metering of the facilities. The below is his reply:

“I have returned from vacation and will ask the owners about their arrangements. When I get that, someone will likely respond. Thanks for your interest in our facility.”

Meanwhile, an anonymous but knowledgeable source has confirmed to NewsLanc that the LCCCA has engaged a consultant to try to figure out some way for allocating costs due to the manner that electrical service for the buildings were intertwined.

Given the design and construction expertise of the High Group, both the lead developer for the project and general partner of Penn Square Partners that is the equitable owner of the Marriott, it seems incumbent on the High organization to justify its reasoning and motivations for not providing for separate metering or separate submetering.

“Robert, The comments that you attribute to me are not correct and so far off mark it seems pointless to explain. You appear to print what you want to hear rather than listen to what people say. Pope”

“Pope: I took notes during our conversation and was careful to include all of your points. Nothing I said placed blame on you or your firm. In fact, my description of you was positive. Tell me what I misrepresented. You guys act as though you are covering up something. Time will tell. Robert”

The representative of the architectural firm of Cooper Carry insists that no one from their firm was involved in the decision to not meter the Marriott Hotel separately from the Convention Center. (The hotel and convention center are billed together for electricity and gas.)

Bob Neal, head architect for the Lancaster Convention Center Project, represented to a NewsLanc reporter that the decision for joint metering would have been made by others than his firm and referred the reporter to the Convention Center Authority.

Publisher Robert Field later spoke with Neal, mentioned Field’s background as a veteran builder, and posed the same question. Neal again insisted that the decision was up to the owners and his firm was not involved.

Field reminded Neal that, as architect for the project, his firm was responsible for all decisions. Not to have reflected upon and advised concerning such a decision would likely raise the question of malpractice.

Neal at that point discontinued the conversation and hung up the phone.

NewsLanc was tempted to run with a story that suggested concealment by the architects, but the goal was to find out who made the metering decision, and Field was not satisfied that Neal properly understood the implications of what he was saying. So he placed a call to the architect listed as the lead principal of the firm, Pope Bullock, who was not available. Field described the situation to Bullock’s aide and, within the hour, Bullock called from his vacation.

According to Bullock, he recalled Tom Smithgall and Mark Fitzgerald of the High Group instructing them how to meter the project. Cooper Carry would have provided advice if asked, but he asserted they were not. He indicated that he felt that both Penn Square Partners and the Convention Center Authority were represented at the meeting but could not recall the names of others who might have been present. (Smithgall and Fitzgerald of High may have been authorized to speak for both entities. Smithgall has been on vacation and has not yet been reached.)

It yet remained a great story until Bullock said that there could be valid life safety reasons among others for the design. He said he knew of several joint projects designed in the same manner. He also claimed that energy use could still be properly allocated.

NewsLanc is skeptical about the latter assertion. Sure, if the electrical system branched behind the main meter in a manner that facilitated sub-metering, this would be the case. But in that circumstance, the LCCCA would not be struggling with how to access costs.

Smoking gun? No. End of story? Hardly. NewsLanc doesn’t just report. We investigate.

Newslanc may be at a loss but this reader is not.

While the lack of proper and separate metering may fly in the face of common sense and the most basic responsibilities for the LCCCA to provide accountability and transparency to the taxpayer, this omission is well in-line with every aspect of this project and the LCCCA’s poor stewardship since day one.

Lots of people think that the LCCCA has changed in recent years and while the Morris led board may have been better than those that preceded him, the bar was set wo low by Pickard and Darcus,  that simple improvement does not begin to get us where we should be.

Case in point.  Whether you wish to go back to the first set of one-sided agreements signed between PSP and the LCCCA, including the $100/year rent on the taxpayer funded public space that Marriott would have forced them to build, or the LCCCA’s decision to ignore all of their own advisers and select PSP’s common management model, the LCCCA has never been anything but a taxpayer funded rubber stamp for Dale High.

Anyone who cites this latest revelation with surprise knows nothing about the LCCCA or its history, and those who do not know and understand it, are destined to repeat it.

It wasn’t done! And why it wasn’t done make no sense whatsoever to veteran builder and property manager Robert Field from the view points of construction expense, maintenance, cost accounting, and operations.

Upon hearing about the problem, NewsLanc posed the following question to Kevin Molloy, Executive Director of the Authority.

Question: “Concerning the three electric meters: Is one for the convention center proper, one for the hotel, and one for the common areas? If not, what areas do each electric meter serve?”

Response: “The three meters are not for each ownership proper, hence we are analyzing usage so that we can establish a allocation formula for the ownerships.”

Molloy also states: “The topic of utility metering has been discussed at length on several occasions by the Authority Board. We are in the process of analyzing usage so that we can establish a allocation formula that is acceptable to all parties. Once our analysis is completed, we will be in a better position to determine how to fairly and accurately allocate utility expenses among the parties.”

NewsLanc is at a loss to comprehend the reason behind such a radical departure from normal design and good sense which creates such obfuscation concerning cost allocation. It is reasonable to believe that the primary developer, S. Dale High, and Penn Square Partners (the High companies and Lancaster Newspapers, Inc.) were the major voices in such a decision. Our readers can draw their own conclusions concerning what motivated this decision.