As you are probably aware, I've extended a continuing open invitation to readers to submit articles for publication in this space. One reader has taken me up on this at last, and I'm thus posting, for your information and discussion, the following open letter, together with the author's short introductory cover letter, which I received this morning via email.
I'll also mention in passing, that by the posting of this letter, I'm not necessarily endorsing its contents. My object, in originally creating this electronic gathering-place, was to provide an open forum for the discussion of any and all issues of concern to the citizens of Weber County. The Rec Center is certainly one of those. This open letter is by far the most articulate statement that I've heard to date arguing against the rec center project. The article belongs here, especially in a context where the information contained herein has been effectively censored and blacked-out by the local outlet for the corporo-fascist neocon media moguls in Sanduskey. This place is all about free speech, folks! What little of it is left in modern AmeriKa, still exists here.
Read the letter. Then post your comments.
-----------------------------------
To: Weber County Forum:
I have been trying to get Don Porter [Standard-Examiner editorial page editor -ed.] to tell the truth re the proposed bonding for Ogden's sports complex.
These are the facts I tried to point out to the Mayor and Council from their own literature..And to Don Porter. They don't want to know the facts.
You have my permission to post this on your blog site.
Dorothy Littrell
-----------------------------------
Dorothy E. Littrell
Certified Public Accountant
228 West 3275 North
Ogden, Utah 84414
801-782-5906
d.littrell@comcast.net
May 31, 2005
Mayor and City Council Members:
I have been asked to look at the High Adventure Recreation Center Taxable Variable Rate Demand Bonds proposal for $8.9MM from Northland Securities, the $7.5MM Letter of Credit proposal from Wells Fargo and other documents pertaining to the Center as they affect Ogden residents and also Weber County residents such as myself.
I have spent many hours this past week reading everything available you have furnished the public and also going online to obtain financial information on the principals of Golds Gym and Fat Cats since your information did not provide that.
I have several concerns pertaining to financing and issuance of the proposed bonds. The following costs to Ogden City need to be itemized and taken into consideration in taking on this project:
1.) Variable rate of interest is to be reset weekly at current market rates for 20 years and to be paid monthly. Bonds are to be secured by a first mortgage lien against the property and leasehold improvements on the $8.9MM issue as well as the leasing revenues plus a direct pay letter of credit. Variable rates over a 20-year period can be very risky.
2.) Interest rate of Prime plus 7% in the event of default or a liquidity draw on the Wells Fargo Letter of Credit on the $7.5MM Tax Increment Revenue Bonds for 13 years can be very risky.
3.) Underwriter's fee is 1% of bond amount at closing plus .02 % annually of principal amount outstanding for a period of 20 years on $8.9MM offering.
4.) To get a bond rating of A or better in order to sell the $8.9MM bonds there will have to be another Letter of Credit from a financial institution.
5.) A Letter of Credit fee is 1% of the principal amount outstanding of the guarantee as of April 1 and is collected on that anniversary date.
6.) 1% of $7.5MM is $75,000. plus 1% of $8.9MM is $89,000. for letters of credit fees the first year of $164,000. In addition to the annual Letter of Credit fee there is a charge for figuring interest which is estimated to be $275.00 per month.
7.) There are the charges for a MIA appraisal compliant with FIRREA and USPAP; charges for a Phase I Environmental Report on the property; surveys, title review and lender's title insurance, UCC lien and other searches, customary insurance, legal fees incurred by lender regarding searches, etc. which can be very expensive.
8.) Attached is a December 13, 2004 MEMORANDUM from Deputy Director McConkie listing all Ogden City RDA projects and debt on each project. I am having difficulty identifying that list to the 10 identified redevelopment areas pledged to Wells Fargo for collateral on the $7.5MM Letter of Credit. Please explain why the two do not agree.
9.) Who is going to repay the $10,462,085 due Ogden City for Mall Redevelopment due 12/26/11?
10.) The December 13, 2004 MEMORANDUM list of RDA debt totals $49,276,790 with $20,265,839 due Ogden City, so I am assuming the difference of $29,010,951 is outstanding RDA debt on Ogden City's 10 RDA redevelopment areas which will be pledged as collateral for the $7.5MM Letter of Credit. So am I to understand that tax increment collected must first go to pay this RDA debt of $29,010,951 before any goes to pay Wells Fargo?
I have additional questions regarding the prospective tenant, Health & Fitness Holding, LC whose principals are Gary Nielsen, Sean Collins and Dave Rutter.
Landlord, Ogden City, is providing $11,928,740 for tenant's use to construct improvements plus $4,375,000. to purchase specialized equipment plus $2,450,000 for a SkyVenture vertical wind tunnel for total funds provided of $16,303,740 or more.
Documents provided do not name the person or persons designated as (landlord) Ogden City's representative for construction oversight nor are maximum fees set forth for Design Phase Compensation nor Design Phase Fee.
Guarantors are named as:
Total Fitness Center, Inc. LLC and DSI Enterprises, Inc. with no information as to their ability to guarantee. Public internet access provides information on Dun and Bradstreet and Smart Business Reports that indicates their financial capability is suspect.
Fat Cats-Provo had Tax Lien Filings in 2004 with Utah County Recorder for Federal Tax of $6,868. and with Utah County District for State Tax in the amount of $5,565. In 2003 the State Tax Lien amount was $6,387 and $1,141.
Fat Cats-Salt Lake City shows sales of $1,352,000. for 2004 with high credit risk of delinquent payments.
Why is there no security deposit on a project of this magnitude? Why is there to be no recording of this lease?
Why is Ogden City charging tenant 8% on past due rent when they are paying Wells Fargo Prime plus 7% on delinquent amounts?
The information furnished for SkyVenture, LLC shows a purchase by Ogden City of the equipment for $2,450,000. It also calls for minimum royalty payments of 5% of gross revenue or an annual minimum license of $25,000. to SkyVenture by Health & Fitness Holding, LC. Does this accrue to Ogden City as the owner of the equipment in the event Health & Fitness does not perform?
Ogden City's publication of the Mall Recreation Center Work Session dated May 17, 2005 of the Master ProForma Recreation Center Estimated Annual Income and Expenses begs the question of how this venture is expected to survive and justify Ogden City's investment of $16,303,740. I have attached that one-page calculation for your inspection.
Ogden City is going to have additional security expenses to patrol the parking lots and the improved properties which they have ignored in their projections of costs for the City.
Based on the financial information available about the High Adventure Recreation Center, my professional opinion has to be that this is a no-win adventure for all parties concerned including Health & Fitness Holding, LC with the Underwriters and Wells Fargo Bank being the only winners.
Signed:_________________________________
Dorothy E. Littrell, CPA
---------------------------------------
(I attended last night's City Council session, by the way, during which Council Vice-chair Jorgenson announced to the few citizens in attendance that Council voting on the Recreation Center bonding has now been re-calendered from June 21 to June 28.)
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
18 comments:
I see several things in Dorothy's open letter than need response. Not being much of a hip shooter, I will have to give it some study, which I cannot do this week, because of very pressing commitments.
Additionally, an open letter, addressed to the Mayor and City Council should probably not be responded to, point for point, by someone who is in neither the administration or the city council. Which begs the question, "Why does someone who doesn't choose to live in this city, and only owns property here in order to obsturuct its progress, feel justified in challenging the city's elected leaders for some itemized explainations, not only for their actions, but for the actions of other people who have the audacity to try to do business here without the expressed permission of an unelected non-resident, namely Dorothy?"
I was less than pleased to see Hasting's, previously a source of Ogden City Sales Tax Revenue, moving its business to Harrisville. Will that horrible WalMart ever stop laying golden eggs on everybody's doorstep, but ours? But wait, Dorothy, that was your baby too, wasn't it.
According to the Standard Examiner, which I still read and enjoy, 27% of this years budget will come from Sales Tax Revenue, and it is up in Ogden, by 6%, due to business growth, while real growth in property tax revenue is two tenths of one percent. Maybe, developing business is the best solution to infrastructure and capital improvements Bill.
I have a wonderful idea, Dorothy. Why don't you move into Ogden, in that lovely place you bought below wall at 21st street, so you could file claims and write letters to the state legislature. If it isn't too blighted an area for you, you could move in there, and then direct your open letters to the North Ogden City or Pleasant View City Councils, and work to improve their cities, as you have ours.
The bottom line is that the city and its august leaders don't give a fiddlers damn if the proposed "Rec" center lives or dies. The Rec center is only the bait they are trying to use to lure the big players - ie Larry Miller, Boyer, etc into coming to the rescue and building out the Mall Site. It isn't their money they are playing with it is ours, and if and when it all comes crashing down it won't make any difference to them personally.
This is the gang that got the city into this horrible mess to begin with, and four years later they are desperately trying to find a saviour to come in and bail them out and make them look like hero's!
It is going to happen - This goofy off the wall Rec center - so we all better get ready for it, and most of all we should all keep our fingers crossed and our prayer mats cleaned and in use so that somehow the little big guy on 9 and his cronies on 3 do in fact have a pipe line into God and that She decides to go against all human convention and make this whole mess at the mall work and be profitable.
These poor guys at Gold's and Fat Jacks are about to be sacraficed on the alter of this city's arrogant leaders and their bizzarr notion that they are great business leaders.
I saw it written some where recently that there isn't one of these people - The Mayor and Council members - that could carry the jock of the lowest manager in the smallest private company. None of them have any business sense or past accomplishments, yet they routinely make decisions to spend tens of millions of dollars of public money on totally ridiculous schemes.
Just my humble opinion of course...
Opinion endorsed, Ozboy. Quite a unique position I'm in today, as I agree with much (Glasmann and Ozboy) & some (Socrates) of what EVERYBODY has written.
I find it quite telling that nobody seems willing to take on Ms. Littrell's excellent analysis point by point.
I'll start out. We already know that the credit report information that she mentions is stale, dated and inaccurate. Ace Reporter Scott Scwebke already reported on that here. The liens have been since released, as Mr. Schwebke reported earlier. So we can at least discard that issue, I suspect.
What about the rest of it though? Let's have some discussion on this. There are many other probative points made by Ms. Littrell. Can anybody refute any of the rest?
C'mon, folks! We live in an information vacuum here in Ogden, with the "asleep at the wheel" Substandard-Exaggerter controlling and stifling the information flow.
I say it's time for the people of Ogden to take it into their own hands to get into the debate, shine some light on the issues, and use this forum for the purpose intended -- finding the truth through reasoned debate and discourse.
Is Ms. Litrel a member of CBCOF? She seems to be associated with them, but I'm not sure.
Rudizink, what have you been reading? Today, 4 or 5 comments, filled with dialogue and debate that began over Littrell's "Open Letter," have been posted.
To witt: Socrates labeled Dorothy Littrell a carpetbagger, whose only relationship to Ogden is a miniscule piece of property she purchased to play the "Stop WalMart" game. I feel that he's absolutely correct in his analysis of what she's all about: she's an Obstructionist, living in another city, crying "foul" over any and all things that Ogden's officials attempt, from WalMart to the Airport to the Recreation Center, without offering any alternatives in return. She couldn't stay on theme, even with an attorney as a consultant, on Constitutionality vs. Abuse when she attempted to argue Eminent Domain during the WalMart days. If she seems so intent on decrying Ogden's plight, she should move here and then she might be taken more seriously. And now her battle with the newspaper, and I have to admit that since the Glasmann family sold it, it has gone downhill, is a windmill joust, as anyone who knows anything about the print media understands that the Editorial page is for OPINION, not NEWS, and the two are apples and oranges. To demean Don Porter and others, because of Editorial Page content, shows that she doesn't always know what she's talking about. Her constant negative engagement and opposition to just about everything, much of which is just plain frivolous, makes me question her motives, intent, and qualifications. Being a good CPA apparently doesn't qualify one to be an expert in all issues, and it's becoming boring and a waste of valuable time returning fire.
Socrates also put up a good, well thought out argument about business growth, tax revenue, and the advantages of having a WalMart in town brings (Hastings moving out of Ogden to locate near the Harrisville WalMart is his example). It would be nice if one of Ogden's bigger problems was finding space for other businesses that seem to locate near and around a WalMart. Harrisville & Riverdale seem to be making out like a Kings, while Ogden is mired in economic obsolesence. Littrell still has her vacant lot, though, and the property taxes she pays is one hell of a lousy trade-off.
He even got a response from Glasmann, regarding business development. Glasmann's reasoning of hard-ball R & D, for propossed businesses, makes a lot of sense to me. He expanded his thoughts on financial responsibility and viability as a replacement for what he calls a "house of cards" that the Mayor & City Council have opted to choose for the foundation of downtown Ogden's progress.
Then, there was the well crafted and informative piece from Ozboy about Fat Cats and Gold's Gym being a pair of "sacrificial lambs" that the City is leading to slaughter with, what I assume, the only winners being the financial backers of the ill-conceived Recreation Center. He mentions that those in charge of its inception, namely the Mayor and other City leaders, have no past business accomplishments of this magnitude, yet they freely gamble millions of dollars on their grandiose schemes and ideas, paying no attention to those who reasonably disagree.
Today's WCForum was full of reasoned debate and discourse and I don't know how you missed it. Just because Littrell's Open Letter was not disected piece by piece doesn't mean the aspirations and intent of your blogsite wasn't met. No, the fact that Littrell's letter was not addressed and debated in detail is that it is just more of the same whiney minutia that we've come to expect from her. Our time is better served in discussion of more substantive issues than to debate her constant carpet-bagging bickering that she force feeds us on anything that the City Fathers attempt.
What I'd hoped for, Enthused Citizen, was something tangible from the pro-Recreation Center camp.
While we've indeed had some excellent commentary from you, Bill Glasmann, Socrates and Ozboy, the people who favor moving ahead with the project have been noticeably silent on the subject to date. What I'd hoped, frankly, was to see something from Mayor Godfrey, or someone in his inner circle, posted here, or published on the editorial page of the Standard-Examiner, perhaps in a classic point-counterpoint format. Yes, a a bond-vote eve Dorothy Littrell v. Mayor Godfrey showdown, on the Std-Ex editorial page would be the ideal approach.
Perhaps Rec Center advocates believe that a focused response to Ms. Littrell's letter is unnecessary at this "late" point in the process. The current plan is the product of years of public input and study, after all, and Rec Center advocates (including, presumably the Std-Ex editorial staff) might take the position that Ms. Littrell's objections are untimely, and that they've arrived too late in the process to be taken seriously, or even to be addressed at all. While such a process-oriented argument has some appeal, it creates problems of its own. My fear, in this connection, is that Ms. Littrell's objections, if left un addressed, will continue to linger and fester, and we'll be ultimately left in a situation down the road where the harping and complaining will persist unabated, long after the Recreation Center has become part of the downtown landscape.
Once again, I'll extend the invitation to those who differ with Ms. Littrell's conclusions. There's a significant public perception in this community that our current city government is inattentive and unresponsive to its own citizens' concerns. This is an opportunity to correct that. The best way would be by means of a direct point-by-point response. The best time to do that would be prior to the June 28 City Council bonding vote. Sweeping the debate under the rug is unwise, I think, however untimely Ms. Littrell's objections may be. In fairness to Ms. Littrell, by the way, many of her points have quite recently come to the forefront, so the "timeliness" argument lacks much luster, I believe.
While I agree with Ozboy that the project is a fait accompli for all intents and purposes, I also believe there still remain a few "loose ends," in need of tying up. The project may indeed be a done deal, but there still remains a significant amount of "selling" yet to to be done, as far as I'm concerned.
It would be nice to see robust debate and dialogue between the two Recreation camps, but as you say, the Administration, namely the Mayor and Coucnil Chair Safsten, are basically unresponsive to those who may question their position. They have an attitude of "our position is cast in bronze and there's no need for debate." This is, of course, foolhearty, and while the upcoming elections might bring evidence of that, there are those camp followers who just plain go blindly along with them. We'll see no response coming from the Mayor or the Council.
And then there are those who wish to differ; which brings us to the problem: people like Littrell go against them no matter what the issue. They challenge EVERYTHING, and to what purpose? That, and we can throw in clowns like this Moyes character, puts all who dissent into the same category, that of obstructionists, and makes those who have valid positions of disagreement just another spoke in the Littrell/Moyes wheel of stopping attempts at progress.
Dissenters should be selective in identification of the issues, not taking on any and everything that comes to the table, as this bunch seems to do. They should present their arguments in a calm and rational manner, and not "editorialize," if you will, the personalities of the other side. Their protests seem to be coming from a position of dislike of the individual, rather than from an objective take of the issues, therefore rendering each protestation as a mirrored image of the others.
As long as you have an Administration of "we can do no wrong," and a group of protestors who come from a position of "everything they do is wrong," we will most likely read no worthwhile debate of those issues that are really in need of such.
I think it's a little bit unrealistic, Rudy, to expect average folks to dig into Mrs. Littrell's letter. It's fairly technical, and well beyond the capcity of the average Ogden citizen.
It would be nice, though, if somebody within Ogden City government would take the time to at least talk about it.
On the bright side, I think it's good that Mrs. Littrell offered this letter. It's really a professional opinion letter which has been researched and donated to the people of Ogden for free. That's a lot of bang for the buck, and it would be nice if somebody here could at least interpret it for us in detail.
I've read her conclusion, and it doesn't look very good.
Here's my point of view. I understand, as Mr. Glasmann has said, that there is definitely some risk involved here. However, there is some risk in anything. We've been hearing for a while how important it is to "prime the pump." I believe that the rec. center is an essential part of the pump priming process. Look at what has been announced and started since the petition drive failed: A six story office/residential complex, A state-of-the-art Larry H. Miller theater, the construction has begun on one of the best children's museums around, a developer has signed on to get more tenants as they have done in other successful places like the Gateway. It should also be noted that the LDS church previously bought two parcels of property adjacent to the future Treehouse Museum and will certainly build something first class.
Folks, the bottom line is that people haven't exactly been knocking down the doors of the municipal building begging for a place to build in Ogden for many, many years. One of the statements by a member of CBCOF to me once was something like, "Why don't we be more patient. Maybe something better will come along." We've been waiting for the something better to come along for at least ten years now. Time has run out for the waiting game. If the private sector does not take their chance to do the job themselves, the government has the duty to step in and help. Many of us in Ogden witnessed our beloved city just bleed to death in front of us.
On the other hand, I truly believe that Ogden is in no way "settling" for something at our mall site. This rec. center will be unlike any other and the development that will come along with it will make our city what we all want it to be: a success.
One thing that it is extremely important to remember is the other options. Honestly, what else could be put there? If the city didn't hold it and we were just left with a big dirt lot what else would be built there? A dollar store? The only Wal-Mart in the world with a four-story parking garage (hey, it would get us noticed for being unique)? Random building and independent developing of the property simply would not have worked.
Let's take this argument a step farther. Since CBCOF or anybody else doesn't seem to have viable alternatives to the city's plan, lets discuss them here. Why don't we weigh the pro’s and con's of different ideas? I didn't hear a whole lot about what should be done four years ago when the mall project was in its planning stages. With this in mind, why don't we re-open the debate along with our little discussion about Ms. Litrel's article?
I think there are several of you correspondents who just simply don't get it when it comes to Dorothy Littrell. You make fun of her and put her down for a number of reasons including her "many" issues, she's a busy body carpetbagger, she's an obstructionist, etc.
Dorothy is merely tripping through the land of Oz and taking on the arrogant king and his court. When you have the enormous amount of hubris as exists at city hall these days you have an equal number of issues that you can go after. In all she does there is that element of pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. I personally think Dorothy is a genuine Utah treasure. Rather she is right or wrong on any givin issue is not the point. Opposing abuse of power is what it really is about.
Dorothy has more guts than all you pretenders put together. She puts herself out there and confronts this run away administration head on. She does her home work, she knows what she is talking about, she has had at least fifty years in the political wars, and she has big cajones! Instead of taking a bunch of easy cheap shots at her for her Quixotic tendancies, I think you ought to be thankfull we have some one with her knowledge and courage who is opposing the gang of six.
Dorothy - Yes
The little big man on 9 and his cronies - No.
Nobody is "making fun" of Littrell. We're just pointing out that instead of shotgunning the board, a little more selectability might be diserable if her dissents are to mean anything. When one does battle over everything, those issues that in fact do need an opposing voice, will be looked upon as just one of a myriad of meandering protests not to be taken seriously.
Much of what she does and says makes sense, but I'm afraid that since she takes on every and anything that comes from the dowtown "Gang of 6," the more meaningful issues will therefore become and thereby we loose the power of her voice that you so support.
CONTINUATION & CLARIFICATION
of the last sentence of my last
POSTING:
the more meaningful issues will therefore become LUMPED together
and thereby we loose the power of her voice that you so support.
Ms. Littrel's "letter" was fact-based, and completely devoid of ad hominems. That's one of the reasons I posted it.
Somebody upthread called it a "freebie" accountant's "Opinion Letter."
That's exactly what it is, really. Whatever you may think about Dorothy Littrell's ventures into other adventures... she's at home with this.
She's an experienced CPA with decades of experience.
She's given us a "heads-up" without charge; and I'd think smart people would at least take a look at what she wrote...on a subject where she has very substantial professional expertise.
She may be an experienced accountant, but her potential involvement with people or persons in CBCOF would give her a lack of credibility. An example
(of course this could be another falacy as rudi pointed out previously) would be a judge removing himself/herself from a case because they have personal involvement in some way, shape, or form.
Today, good old Dorothy is taking on the United States government regarding American businesses turning Chinese. Will she ever cease and give things a rest? Ah, Dorothy, Dorothy, Kansas is but a broom ride away.
Why should Dorothy give it a rest? Why does her activism make you so nervous? Every thing she goes after is corrupt or mismanaged. I thing it's great that she has so much energy to focus the light on all of these official misdeads.
Nervous, Mr. J.? Who the hell said anything about being nervous? I "asked" a question: "Will she ever cease and give things a rest?" You should read the posts instead of attempting to interpret them. Just let the words speak for themselves.
One other thing: Apparently, you haven't been keeping up with the posts regarding Dorothy, for if you had, you would understand that all any of us is saying about Dorothy is that she should be more selective in her "activism." She tangles with everything, which is akin to "crying wolf." Were she to be more selective, those she challenges might begin to listen. She is quit knowledgable about things, but by berating "everything," many feel that she's just making noise and being a blanket obstructionist.
Naw, we're not nervous, just disappointed that she keeps banging her drum over and over again, taking on any and everything and, therefore, her message, as valid as many of them are, gets lost in all the minutia, Mr. J.
New comments are not allowed.