Grafton offers Business Tested Ideas for Improvement
During the course of running a business, managers, and entrepreneurs are frequently challenged to enter into win-win contracts to both buy and sell their products and services. Over the course of my business life I have found that “a good deal with the wrong person is not a good deal at allâ€. I have also found that a purchase order with a person or company that does not have the means to pay for the goods is not an order that should be accepted.
The difficulty that the Evansville Redevelopment Commission has encountered in securing a hotel developer that meets the same criteria that my businesses required in our contracts is rooted in the failure to do the up-front work that it takes to establish the basis for a business relationship. The word “vetting” has become the buzzword of the summer in Evansville simply because it has not been done.
Sufficient time is required to make a significant acquisition of capital equipment. This particular RFP was selectively published with a 2 week timeframe to respond. That is not sufficient to arouse the interest of enough potential developers. The other mistake was made by defining the incentive package that the City of Evansville was offering instead of letting the developers craft responses that will work financially for them. As a result there were no positive surprises and the two expected proposals showed up as expected. In a way the short time frame and the limited exposure vetted every potential developer in the entire country right out of the process. Now we only have two choices for a very significant project.
To complicate things we now have elected officials literally begging appointed officials to let them assist with the vetting process. Simple vetting like checking of credit, asking for and confirming trade references are common actions taken in running a business. We do this at my business and the ERC should have at least done the easy part.
There should be elected officials involved in the decision and the process. As a member of the Evansville City Council, I pledge to promote processes that are isolated from politics and to demand transparency when public money is committed. The people of Evansville have earned and deserve the courtesy of good public policy and transparent governance.
Thank You Roberts Stadium IS IT TRUE? July 19, 2011 Special Evening Edition
IS IT TRUE that there was indeed a $50,000 bid bond posted by Woodruff Hospitality LLC with its proposal at the time their contract with the ERC was signed to build and operate a Hyatt Place Hotel in downtown Evansville?…that City Councilman John Friend identified retained bond money as a potential source of funding for a 3rd party vetting process to be run on the two bids submitted to the 3rd round RFP yesterday?…that the Evansville Redevelopment Commission should take this opportunity to see if they can get two rounds of vetting for the price of one?…that the McCurdy and the downtown Convention Hotel will both need rounds of vetting during this year?…that both of these projects are an embarrassment to the City of Evansville and that right now is the time to end the embarrassment?
IS IT TRUE that the City of Evansville has initiated actions to finally shut down Roberts Stadium as an entertainment and sports venue for the near future?…that SMG has been notified by the City of Evansville that there are some things from Roberts Stadium that are going to be used in the new Arena?…that these items will be removed from Roberts Stadium right after the upcoming Kenny Chesney concert for reinstallation in the new Arena?…that when these yet to be defined things are removed that Roberts is allegedly finished until someone replaces them?…that we guess these items are the equivalent of taking the spark plugs out of a car to keep someone from driving it?…that we are really wondering what from Roberts is so valuable that the shiny new Arena is dependent on it to open on time?…that we bet it is not the water fountains or bathroom fixtures that have been the subject of ridicule from the City of Evansville?…that we really wonder what it could be?
IS IT TRUE that SMG proposed a term sheet that did all pre-opening services at no cost to the City of Evansville?…that VenuWorks is currently doing the pre-opening services under a consulting agreement that pays them $8,500 per month plus expenses through contract signing or October 31, 2011?…that there is still no contract between VenuWorks and the City of Evansville or any of its surrogates?…that it is highly probable that the City of Evansville will be paying out close to $100,000 under this temporary consulting agreement?…that SMG in their offer specified that these costs typically run from $100,000 to $150,000 but offered to absorb all of the costs as a gesture of goodwill based on their long history of working with the City of Evansville?
IS IT TRUE that SMG committed and additional $800,000 to the Building Authority including $100,000 for the Grand Opening of the new Arena and $700,000 for the startup costs of the Arena?…that the details are in the following link and are dependent on a continued long term relationship?…that when and if a contract with VenuWorks is signed that it needs to be examined and verified that it is as favorable or better for the City of Evansville than what SMG offered?
IS IT TRUE that many supporters of Democratic Mayoral candidate, Rick Davis are quietly saying that it’s time for him to come out of his “political coma”?
IS IT TRUE we are wondering what the Mayor and his Evansville Redevelopment Commission are paying Downtown arena project manager, John Kish per hour to spearhead the Downtown Hotel project?…that we also are wondering how many extra hours were added to his contract because he had this mismanaged effort thrown into his lap?…that we wonder which pot of budget money that Mayor Weinzapfel has had to tap into to pay Mr. Kish to do this job that was supposedly “under control†and needing no public dollars?
IS IT TRUE that back in 1995 County Commissioner, Steve Melcher made a logical suggestion that City of Evansville and Vanderburgh County make Robert’s Stadium a voting Center? …that this suggestion should be considered and adopted by the Vanderburgh County Election Board for this coming November city election?…that Commissioner Melcher spoke out today to advise the Evansville Redevelopment Commission to be sure and have a walk bridge between the Centre, the Arena, and the new Hotel?…that when it comes to the history of things being built and particularly with the hard lessons learned by other developers that Commissioner Stephen Melcher is the Oracle of Evansville?
IS IT TRUE we are pleased to see that Mayoral hopeful, Lloyd Winnecke has publically announced his 5 point plan to improve transportation in Evansville if he is elected Mayor of Evansville?…that this transportation infrastructure plan comes on the heels of his release of a “Jobs Planâ€?…that we wonder how Rick Davis feels about these important subjects and along with our readers are eager to see Davis’ plans?
IS IT TRUE that the suggestions made in a respectful manner before the Evansville Redevelopment Commission this morning were made for the purpose of making the project more successful and user friendly?…that both suggestions were met with similar comments from ERC President Mr. Bob Goldman?…that his canned responses seem to be “duly noted†or “we will take that under advisementâ€?…that we would like to know if such words are genuine or if they are dismissive?…that we would also like to know if the translation really is “I will go ask Mayor Weinzapfel exactly what he wants me to make my commissioners doâ€?
Friend and Melcher Say “Do it Right This Timeâ€
The fanfare of opening and reading into the records the fact that two companies (Kunkel and Prime Lodging) responded to the RFP to build and operate a downtown hotel adjacent to the new Arena and the Centre were followed by admonishments for the Evansville Redevelopment to do a complete job this time with respect to both the construction and the financial vetting process.
Vanderburgh County Commissioner Stephen Melcher spoke first regarding the need for a system of walk-bridges that connects the Centre, the new Arena, and hopefully a new hotel. Citing his 17 years of experience as an Evansville City Councilman and 3 years as a County Commissioner, Melcher invoked his knowledge learned by the late Bob Green in his efforts to support conventions and the Executive Inn. Of particular note was Commissioner Melcher’s advice to the ERC that they have an opportunity to do this right the first time. Melcher expressed the belief that underground tunnels were not the right solution but that a T-Shaped sky-bridge connection the three facilities would be perfect.
It was also noted that some damage has been sustained to the existing $3 Million sky-bridge that connected the Centre to the former Executive Inn. It is not believed that either proposal submitted today is inclusive of sky-bridges.
Following Commissioner Melcher to the lectern was Evansville City Councilman, Finance Committee Chairman, and CPA John Friend. Mr. Friend reminded the ERC of the failures of the previous choices to find financing and suggested that a third party vetting firm be hired to conduct a thorough financial, liability, and technical vetting process on both proposals. Councilman Friend further recommended that a committee of local elected officials consisting of himself, Councilman Curt John, Councilman Dan McGinn, Vanderburgh County Councilman Russ Lloyd Jr., and appointed ERC Commissioner Greg Elpers be formed to hire and vet the vetting vendor.
Councilman Friend furthermore suggested than the performance bond that was retained by the ERC from previous defaulting developers could be tapped to pay for the vetting process. It has not been established that such a bond was ever posted or retained.
The recommendations of both elected officials were “so noted†by Bob Goldman, the President of the Evansville Redevelopment Commission.
Warren Buffett Scratching his Head This is the kind of checklist that Investment Professionals Use, City of Evansville should Adapt to Public Projects where Taxpayers Pick Up the Tab
Sample Due Diligence (VETTING) Checklist
I. Financial Information
A. Annual and quarterly financial information for the past three years
1. Income statements, balance sheets, cash flows, and footnotes
2. Planned versus actual results
3. Management financial reports
4. Breakdown of sales and gross profits by:
a. Product Type
b. Channel
c. Geography
5. Current backlog by customer (if any)
6. Accounts receivable aging schedule
B. Financial Projections
1.Quarterly financial projections for the next three fiscal years
a. Revenue by product type, customers, and channel
b. Full income statements, balance sheets, cash
2. Major growth drivers and prospects
3. Predictability of business
4. Risks attendant to foreign operations (e.g., exchange rate fluctuation, government instability)
5. Industry and company pricing policies
6. Economic assumptions underlying projections (different scenarios based on price and market
fluctuations)
7. Explanation of projected capital expenditures, depreciation, and working capital arrangements
8. External financing arrangement assumption
C. Capital Structure
1. Current shares outstanding
2. List of all stockholders with shareholdings, options, warrants, or notes
3. Schedule of all options, warrants, rights, and any other potentially dilutive securities with exercise
prices and vesting provisions.
4. Summary of all debt instruments/bank lines with key terms and conditions
5. Off balance sheet liabilities
D. Other financial information
1. Summary of current federal, state and foreign tax positions, including net operating loss carryforwards
2. Discuss general accounting policies (revenue recognition, etc.)
3. Schedule of financing history for equity, warrants, and debt (date, investors, dollar investment,
percentage ownership, implied valuation and current basis for each round)
II. Products
A. Description of each product
1. Major customers and applications
2. Historical and projected growth rates
3. Market share
4. Speed and nature of technological change
5. Timing of new products, product enhancements
6. Cost structure and profitability
III. Customer Information A. List of top 15 customers for the past two fiscal years and current year-to-date by application
(name, contact name, address, phone number, product(s) owned, and timing of purchase(s))
B. List of strategic relationships
(name, contact name, phone number, revenue contribution, marketing agreements)
C. Revenue by customer
(name, contact name, phone number for any accounting for 5 percent or more of revenue)
D. Brief description of any significant relationships severed within the last two years.
(name, contact name, phone number)
E. List of top 10 suppliers for the past two fiscal years and current year-to-date with contact
information
(name, contact name, phone number, purchase amounts, supplier agreements)
IV. Competition
A. Description of the competitive landscape within each market segment including:
1. Market position and related strengths and weaknesses as perceived in the market place
2. Basis of competition (e.g., price, service, technology, distribution)
V. Marketing, Sales, and Distribution
A. Strategy and implementation
1. Discussion of domestic and international distribution channels
2. Positioning of the Company and its products
3. Marketing opportunities/marketing risks
4. Description of marketing programs and examples of recent marketing/product/public
relations/media information on the Company
B. Major Customers
1. Status and trends of relationships
2. Prospects for future growth and development
3. Pipeline analysis
C. Principal avenues for generating new business
D. Sales force productivity model
1. Compensation
2. Quota Average
3. Sales Cycle
4. Plan for New Hires
E. Ability to implement marketing plan with current and projected budgets
VI. Management and Personnel
A. Organization Chart
B. Historical and projected headcount by function and location
C. Summary biographies of senior management, including employment history, age, service with
the Company, years in current position
D. Compensation arrangements
1. Copies (or summaries) of key employment agreements
2. Benefit plans
E. Discussion of incentive stock plans
F. Significant employee relations problems, past or present
G. Personnel Turnover
1. Data for the last two years
2. Benefit plans
VII. Legal and Related Matters
A. Pending lawsuits against the Company
(detail on claimant, claimed damages, brief history, status, anticipated outcome, and name of the
Company’s counsel)
B. Pending lawsuits initiated by Company
(detail on defendant, claimed damages, brief history, status, anticipated outcome, and name of
Company’s counsel)
C. Description of environmental and employee safety issues and liabilities
1. Safety precautions
2. New regulations and their consequences
D. List of material patents, copyrights, licenses, and trademarks
(issued and pending)
E. Summary of insurance coverage/any material exposures
F. Summary of material contacts
G. History of SEC or other regulatory agency problem, if any
University Professional and Continuing Education Association (UPCEA) has awarded the 2011 Recognition of Excellence Award for Innovations in Outreach and Engagement to Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane (NSWC Crane) and the University of Southern Indiana for the development of an Innovation Discovery Process.
Designed by Dr. Susan Ellspermann, director of CAR, and Gene Recker, manager of education and entrepreneurship for USI at Innovation Pointe, the Innovation Discovery Process identifies creative solutions to complex problems and brings together a diverse group of people to analyze projects that NSWC Crane engages as part of its core competencies. The process helps inventors understand the value of their contributions to NSWC Crane’s missions. Often these contributions are in the design and discovery of solutions to complex military applications that are protectable under patent protection. Over the past two years, NSWC Crane has used the process to increase patent production.
“This process allows us to fully realize the potential of the technology developed for the warfighter,” said John Dement, NSWC Crane technology officer. “We are strengthening our capabilities for the Navy as well as discovering and documenting technology that can be transferred to commercial use or transitioned to other Department of Defense applications.”
Joshua Mischler, USI-Crane partnership manager, made the award nomination.
“The success of the Innovation Discovery Process recognizes NSWC Crane as a leading innovator for ‘best practices’ among Federal Lab Consortium members for innovative practices,” he said. “The process brings together a diverse group of people to analyze NSWC Crane projects and helps inventors understand the value of their contributions to NSWC Crane’s mission.”
The Innovation Discovery Process also received the 2009 Federal Laboratories Consortium Midwest Regional Partnership Award and was the designation of “Best Practices”, at the 2010 Department of Defense Technology Transfer Integrated Planning Team Conference.
NSWC Crane and USI formed an educational partnership in 2007 to enhance USI faculty research and student learning opportunities while enhancing research and commercialization of technology residing at NSWC Crane. Located in Martin County, NSWC Crane is the third largest Navy installation in the world employing more than 2,000 scientists, engineers, and technicians. NSWC Crane provides comprehensive support for complex military systems spanning development, deployment, and sustainment in three mission areas: electronic warfare/information operations, special missions, and strategic missions.
Time 8:30 AM – 9:30 AM Subject ERC Location 307 Recurrence Occurs the third Tuesday of every 1 month effective 7/19/2011 until 7/19/2011 from 8:30 AM to 9:30 AM Reminder 15 minutes
SARAH @ 7825 Categories ROOM 307
Time 9:00 AM – 10:30 AM Subject SECURITY SUB-COMMITTEE Location 318 Recurrence Occurs the third Tuesday of every 1 month effective 7/19/2011 until 7/19/2011 from 9:00 AM to 10:30 AM Reminder 15 minutes
Angie @ 5233
Sgt. Vernon Lutz @ 7971 Categories ROOM 318
IS IT TRUE that the two responses to BUILD AND OPERATE the downtown Convention Hotel are now in the plastic tubs of Tom Barnett and John Kish?…that the two responses were the tow that were expected, specifically the Kunkel Group and Prime Lodging LLC?…that the real process of decided which if either of these proposals has the resilience to really deliver a hotel and an experienced operator starts today?…that the Evansville Redevelopment Commission will meet this morning to officially accept and read the two proposals into the official record at 8:30 am today on the 3rd floor of the Civic Center?
IS IT TRUE that the Weinzapfel Administration has recently been accused of running in a READY—FIRE—AIM manner?…that the 3+ years spent since that day in 2008 when Browning and the Mayor stood side by side to announce plans for a 4-Star Hotel may have just concluded the READY phase of that process?…that we hope that the City of Evansville is truly finished with the whole READY phase but realize that there is a possibility that we may have to visit READY again if neither of these proposals VET properly?…that Mole #3 tells us that the finger is on the trigger and that FIRE is the most preferred next step of some of the “powers that beâ€?…that many of the supporting cast for past actions of the “powers that be†have finally realized the errors of their ways?…that there is strong opposition within the ranks of the supporting cast to the URGE TO FIRE?…that cooler and saner heads must prevail this time?…that the following several months are not a time to FIRE?…that with all due disrespect given to the mistakes of the past IT IS TIME TO AIM?…that this may be Evansville’s last shot in the foreseeable future to actually secure a Downtown Convention Hotel?
IS IT TRUE that John Kish, project manager is now on record as saying that the approval process typically takes about three months?…that it is exactly 3 months and 3 weeks or 112 days until Election Day 2011?…that in a short 112 days we will all know whether it will be Lloyd Winnecke or Rick Davis who will become the Mayor that will assume responsibility for executing the decisions that are playing out right now?…that that there are 166 days remaining in the Weinzapfel Administration?…that the two candidates for Mayor of Evansville need to focus like a laser on what is being done in these 166 days that will have lasting effects into their administrations?…that the part of the process that we shall call AIM that includes a thorough VETTING of these two Downtown Convention Hotel proposals shall have a significant impact on the launch of either a Davis Administration or a Winnecke Administration?…that a binge of READY – FIRE – AIM decisions that commit the dwindling number of available dollars well into the future could severely handicap the initial conditions of the next administration?
IS IT TRUE that it may just be a good idea for the two candidates to start getting in front of some of the spending commitments that may be in the READY stage in the waning days of the Weinzapfel era?…that Evansville is just a couple of MISFIRES away from having problems that may not be solvable in any preferable way?…that such MISFIRES must be avoided?…that if a VETTING COMMITTEE is indeed formed that it would be in the interest of the candidates to attend these meetings for preparation purposes of launching the next administration?
