Subcontractor Shuts Down After Obama Presidential Center Losses
The financial problems surrounding the Obama Presidential Center continue to grow as another contractor says the high-profile project has forced his company to shut down operations and lay off dozens of employees.
The latest dispute adds to a series of payment and construction-related complaints from subcontractors who worked on the development, several of whom say they suffered significant financial losses.
Mike Owen, owner of Chicago-based Adamson Plumbing Contractors, said his company has suspended operations after losing millions of dollars while working on the Obama Presidential Center.
According to Owen, the financial strain forced him to lay off 25 union workers, abandon multiple construction projects and begin operating the business from his home while pursuing legal action.
“Laying off close to 30 people is something that no owner in our industry wants to do,” Owen told Fox News.
“It’s a hard thing to do, especially when you know you can finish them and the company can still make money. But we were put in a pretty bad corner.”
Adamson performed plumbing work on the project under the name Marsh-Adamson.
The company has now filed a $1.72 million mechanic’s lien against the Obama Presidential Center, alleging it has not been fully paid for completed work.
A mechanic’s lien is a legal claim contractors can file against a property when they believe they have not received payment for work they performed.
Owen said the lien represents only the portion of his losses that he believes is supported by the strongest documentation, including unpaid invoices, approved change orders and labor costs.
He estimates his company’s total losses from the project are approximately $3.9 million.
“It doesn’t mean that I’m not going to pursue the $3.9 million in change that we lost overall,” Owen said.
“I’m still working with my legal team on that $3.9 million figure because I feel that it’s only right that we still hold ownership at the presidential center accountable.”
According to Owen, months of negotiations with Lakeside Alliance, the construction manager for the project, failed to resolve the dispute.
He said the situation reached a breaking point shortly before the Obama Presidential Center officially opened on June 19.
Owen said his company agreed to provide two journeyman plumbers for last-minute overnight work after Lakeside Alliance agreed to release part of the money it allegedly owed Adamson.
An email reviewed by Fox News Digital reportedly indicated that a $100,000 payment would be released through the company’s May payment application.
Owen said his workers completed the requested work, but the payment did not arrive before the center’s opening ceremony.
“We negotiated it in good faith,” Owen said.
“Against my better judgment, I agreed to do the work.”
He said the delayed payment deprived the company of the cash it needed to continue operating.
“Not getting that large sum of money just kind of pulled the brakes on the train. It was just the final death blow to the company,” Owen said.
Rather than continue operating while facing mounting debts, Owen said he decided to suspend business operations on June 25.
The promised payment, along with approximately $35,000 for approved change orders, eventually arrived more than two weeks later.
Owen said the money allowed him to pay one supplier but did little to improve the company’s overall financial condition.
“It’s almost like too little, too late,” he said.
Lakeside Alliance, a joint venture led by Turner Construction along with UJAMAA Construction, Powers & Sons Construction, Brown & Momen and Safeway Construction, served as construction manager for the Obama Presidential Center.
In a statement, the alliance said contractual closeout work often continues well after large construction projects officially open.
“Lakeside Alliance remains committed to working through all outstanding matters to successfully close out the project,” a spokesperson said, Fox News reported.
The company did not directly respond to Owen’s specific allegations regarding the layoffs or the mechanic’s lien.
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
