Senator awaits answers

August 17, 2007
By HANK ROWLAND | The Brunswick News

State Sen. Jeff Chapman, R-Brunswick, may still be waiting for a response from the Jekyll Island Authority to questions he has about the board's $10 million giveaway.

Bill Donohue, executive director of the Jekyll Island Authority, had said that the authority would respond Thursday to questions from Chapman.

"I'm still waiting," Chapman said just before 5 p.m. Thursday.

Chapman stated his interest in recent actions by the authority's board in a letter dated July 30.
He wants to know why, for example, the authority would consider giving Trammel Crow – which board chair Ben G. Porter is quoted as describing as a "well-capitalized hotel developer" – a $10 million rent abatement.

"Citizens need to know why any rent abatement was even necessary," Chapman wrote in the letter.

Trammell Crow is proposing to build a $90 million, 540-room hotel-condominium complex with meeting space, restaurants and spa at the site of the aging Buccaneer Hotel. Porter has said that the incentive was necessary to get a quality developer and a quality development.

"Further, Georgia's citizens need to be assured that the board's stewardship of Jekyll is on behalf of all taxpayers and not on the behalf of just a favored few," Chapman wrote.

Jekyll Island is in Chapman's Senate district and is a state-owned island.

"Revitalization of Jekyll Island's facilities does not mean that the state must decrease affordability and access to working Georgians, youth groups, and senior citizens in favor of those who can afford luxury beach accommodations," Chapman went on to say in the letter.

"Unfortunately, this contract with Trammel Crow has given the appearance of becoming just that, an exclusive resort taking the place of a facility that catered to ordinary Georgians."

Other questions to which Chapman is awaiting answers include:

• What the board's general policy is with regard to tax subsidies and other incentives to developers.
• What evidence exists that a significant subsidy or other financial incentive is warranted in the contract with Trammel Crow and partnering companies.
• Would knowledge of the possibility of such a subsidy have affected the bidding of other developers in ways that might have offered greater benefit to the authority.
• What criteria did the board use to determine that a subsidy was appropriate, and what is the mathematical or economic calculation for determining the appropriate level of such a subsidy.
  
• What recourse is available to mediate or alter any of the contract provisions if examination of the process proves such change is warranted.

Chapman also wants to know what the board is doing to make sure the island and its facilities remain affordable to average Georgians. He also wants to know its procedure for taking bids for a private revitalization partner.

"I understand that the request for proposals may have garnered 10-11 serious applicants," he wrote. "However, it appears that only four members of the board will be reviewing these proposals and then will present their preferred choices to the entire board."