The message was brief, so I'll incorporate it in full:
For your information you will find attached a Notice of Claim served to Ogden City and Ogden City RDA today.Along with this matter of fact missive came this attachment. It seems gentle reader Dorothy has once again thrown down the gauntlet.
This is not about wanting or not wanting a high-rec center...this is about complying with the Utah Statutes re RDA. Ogden City must comply with Utah law just like the rest of us.
Dorothy Littrell
I've been immersed in several projects, so I haven't had the time to research the law on this claim yet. Perhaps I'll find the time this weekend. For now, however, our readers should be aware that a "notice of claim" is a formal legal prerequisite to the filing of a lawsuit against a government entity.
In the meantime, I'm tossing this new news development out for our gentle readers' perusal. I wanted our WCForum readership to be among the first to know about it. Besides... I always take great delight in scooping the Standard-Examiner on important stories. There's really NEVER a dull day in Ogden City politics, as I always say.
I've faithfully reproduced the text and layout of Ms. Littrell's claim, within the limitations of html coding. I have, however, added links to the statutes that are cited in this document, for the convenience of any of our gentle readers who might be inclined to do their own research.
I'll add parenthetically that I had been curious myself as to whether our "boy wonders" at city hall had properly dotted the i's and crossed the t's to comply with the legal requirements for re-capturing the tax increment funds which were to be pledged for the rec center project. As our long-time readers will recall, I ran a reader poll during the last two months of 2005, but finally removed it from the sidebar, without "closing it out," because of lingering uncertainty about whether all necessary legal conditions had actually been fulfilled. I guess we'll be finding out soon, if Ms. Littrell's legal claim ultimately winds up in court.
And what say our gentle readers about this latest development in the always-gripping, ever-fascinating Ogden downtown mall saga?
Update 2/24/06 9:37 a.m. MT: Intrepid Standard-Examiner reporter Scott Schwebke fills in more detail with this morning's Std-Ex article. In yet another breathtaking demonstration of tenacious investigation and bold reporting, he apparently called Norm "Norm" Ashton on the phone and obtained this reassuring tidbit:
"City Attorney Norm Ashton said Littrell’s complaints are without merit and vowed to fight any lawsuit that she may file against the municipality. 'If she proceeds, the city will vigorously defend its position,' he said."
I'm sure many of our concerned townsfolk will breathe a sigh of relief over Mr. Ashton's confidence in this matter. Mr. Ashton, our gentle readers will recall, was similarly confident on the eve of litigation in both the Woobury and BDO/Army lawsuits.
Comments, anyone?
44 comments:
Perfect! Just when the Junction gets up and moving, with the hope of restoring some growth in downtown Ogden, Littrell decides it's time to throw a wrench in the gears. Does she realize that her actions, some of which I salute, actually can do much monetary harm to a city and its progress? I don't think so. There are obviously way too many windmills for her to joust with, but by damn, she's going to get them all, and to hell with the cost to the people.
The time period for response to the Notice of Claim is 60 days instead of 90 days.
I found the rec center funding meeting agenda and compared it with the Notice of Claim. Here are a few things.
The Notice of Claim says: Senate Bill 184, passed in 2005, removed the provision that allowed larger cities to use tax increment from one project area in another project area.
The agenda says: Loan repayment is expected to be made from tax increment generated in the 10 RDA project areas dedicated to support the recreation center.
I don't know if one could quibble about this by saying that the transfer of increments was not to a project, but to a loan. I doubt it. Also, I do not know when the decision was made to dedicate the increments to the rec center---before Senate Bill 184 was passed, or after?
The Notice of Claim says: ...the Ogden RDA also failed to pledge the additional tax increment to the RDA Project on or before July 1, 2005 per UCA 17B-4-10033)(b)(iii).
The agenda says: Unused tax increment funds from the 2004 tax year of $295,000 will be used to fund part of the Recreation Center Costs.
Where these unused increments came from is not mentioned. This agenda I am quoting from is dated November 22nd, 2005, and it was at that meeting that the rec center financing package was formally approved.
The Notice of Claim says: The Ogden City RDA did not commence construction of the high-adventure recreational facility, nor any infrastructure, on or before December 31, 2005 per UCA 17B-4-1003(3)(b)(ii).
...Mr. John Patterson, CAO, informed the RDA board that "the construction start date is currently unknown".
This last is a matter of record. It would be interesting here to know if we've paid R&O anything yet. Perhaps that would constitute proof that an agreement of construction had been finalized, but it is obvious that nothing has started.
I would imagine this ruling would depend on the definition of "start of construction." Can it be government officials at a groundbreaking, or must it be something more substantial. Sort of like the famous quote: "Depends on what the meaning of "is" is."
I think the Notice of Claim makes some interesting points. It would be good if Mssrs. Harmer and Brown were asked to deal with this and present a refutation of them, if possible, to the Council, along with an attorney who could give an interpretation of the statutes. And if not possible---well, that would mean that the Notice has merit.
I think the 60 day period is also meant to allow the governmental entity to fix whatever it is that the Claim refers to.
Well, when you build your house on sand....you can and should expect the natural consequence.
Didn't so MANY of us TRY to be heard on this issue? Where are the signs of construction on the rec center? Where is Gary Neilson now....not at council meetings giving us progress notes.
Where is Larry Miller? If he builds that movie complex...I will be very surprised.
This mayor and admin, never, in my opinion had the t's crossed in the first place. Godfrey lied and manipulated facts throughout the whole 'mall' process. Promises, promises, promises and no substance. I, too, wonder what Littrell's latest action will do and at what cost to the taxpayer. But, it must have been great sport to be the proverbial fly on the wall when they rec'd the claim in hizzoner's office!
No matter what happens, you can bet the SE will report Godfrey's charge that all blame for any resulting fiasco be laid far from his feet.
"Wrench in the gears", anonymous?
What's apparent is that Mrs. Littrell has much more respect for the law, than some people around O-town. If the law was broken, the culprits should be exposed. The rules apply to everybody, Mayor Pee Wee included.
"...and to hell with the cost to the people."
That's the motto of the Mayor's office, as far as many of us are concerned.
Maybe the Council can have that attorney that never delivered them the opinion letter on Bishop Reid's severance package deal with this! They certainly must have a free bee coming seeing that they paid for an opinion they never recieved. I'm still curious what this non-opinion letter might have said had it ever been delivered.
Maybe Pee Wee has a verbal agreement with R&O, you know, sorta like the one he had with the Bishop!
Nobody in their right mind can think, given the behavior of our Lord Mayor Godfrey, that bags of developer cash aren't delivered to his door in the middle of the night.
The really sick part is that the little "son of perdition" uses his lay ecclesiastical office to promote his machiavellian schemes.
Godfrey is a scammer. The sooner we all recognize that, the better for Ogden city.
In a [probably] pointless effort to return the discussion to the points so ably made by Rudiand Dian above, a couple of observations:
1. Let's all settle down folks. Ms. Littrell has filed her notice. I have no idea whether it constitutes nitpicking over technicalities or serious allegations of law-ignoring. Nor do I know what, presuming one or more of her allegations have merit, the remedy might be. Let us all now settle down and await the response.
2. I confess, at this point, it seems to me the Rec Center/Junction battle has been lost and/or won [depending on one's POV], and I am not sure what, if anything, the City of Ogden gains from an action like this, or what [on the downside] it stands to lose. The second wisest advice I got when I got my first professional job was "pick your fights." Ms. Littrell picked well and fought effectively on the eminent domain matter vis-a-vis the downtown Wal-Mart store. I am not sure she has chosen well this time.
OK, OK, since somebody is sure to ask, I'll save you the time: The wisest advice I got was "Never, but NEVER piss off the boss's secretary."
Further deponent sayeth not.
Does any one here know if Dorothy wears tennis shoes? You know, the proverbial old lady in tennis shoes.
I, for one, am proud of Dorothy. She's got bigger cajones than all of the little prick's minions combined.
What ever she does, she sure as hell aint going to cost the tax payers of Ogden even a fraction of what the incompitent Godfrey and Reid has cost us.
And who knows, she just might save us a shit load of cash if she can stop this ill concieved Wreck Center and the multi million dollar give away to that disgusting molester Nielson.
Go Dorothy, you are a true inspiration, rather you win on this one or not.
Littrel for Mayor
Beech for C.A.O
C.A.O.????
Chief. Administrative. Officer.
alias(John Good ole boy..Patterson)
Oh, Anonymous, could I be CAO when I'm falling in love again????
While I can respect Ms. Littrell's tenacity for legal detail, which has merit, I still wonder why thy ax to grind against Ogden? Would she be happiest with no development in the downtown area? Will we be happiest with a center city "toxic dump" until the savior mayor Glassman comes by with a new "vision"? I am curious what this would be. Hmmmmm, as long as it is not a health center, rec center, hospital facility, residential, movie theater, grocery store, restaurant I am sure we will have the full support of the Beeches, Moyes and Litrells. Unfortunately, with the continued line of thinking, the people of inner-city Ogden will continue to be without the benefit of a grocery store close to them and the corresponding jobs it may provide (take the bus to West Haven). We can continue to look at the open lot and bemoan the good ol' days when it was a large empty mall.
But wait . . . we can always get more hotels and an outlet mall - something that would prove to be economically feasable . . . yeah right.
windmills . . . windmills . . .
Apparently our new city council who has just gotten their legs under them is again proven to be behind the power curve! They blow with the wind. If they really had their legs under them, they'd have identified Dorothy's claims right away and stopped all forward motion on the mall site rather than voting it along with 7-0 votes!
They were rubber stamping just like the last group was! Why is Dorothy so far ahead of Bill? Why did Rudi decide to promote our city council's recent Pro-Mayor position on the mall site as evidence of their wisdom and intelligence when the fact is, they missed a bunch of important legal objections identified by our hero Dorothy?
Bill and Jeske, start doing what we elected you to do: STOP THE MAYOR'S ILLEGAL, UNETHICAL, IRRESPONSIBLE VISION!!!
We need to not buy into the propoganda and the fold like a deck of cards. Stand our ground and uncover the real fact that all of this stuff:
Gondolas
Rec Centers
Ski Villa
West Side Resort
are all extremely corrupt enterprises!
We don't need this stuff in Ogden! Let Provo, Salt Lake, Denver, Park City, etc. pursue these corrupt enterprises and bond their cities to projects doomed to miserable failure!
Dear Anonymous,
Please read my Notice of Claim in which I state very clearly that the previous Council committed the acts which violate the RDA Statutes.
The new City Council and RDA members who took office January 2, 2006 ARE NOT the persons responsible for the Notice of Claim.
The new City Council inherited the mess the previous Council had voted created.
The Notice of Claim cannot name the previous council members because they are no longer in office.
Do not make the mistake of blaming the present City Council and RDA Commisioners for the violations of law by the previous Council.
It is unfortunate that the new members of the Council are being caught up in the publicity.
Dorothy -
Thank you for bringing all of this to a head, keep up the good work!
The disclaimer about our new city council doesn't fly with me though! Why? Because we didn't elect them to advance a plan that was illegal from the start! They knew better right away, and instead of finding kinks in the armor to stop it, they simply chose to wash their hands of any responsiblity and play the political game by saying: "I inherited this mess! Its not my fault."
We expected our new city council to dig deeper, not simply push everything along with a 7-0 vote.
Who knows though, you may be doing this at the behest of Bill Glassmann so that he doesn't have to get his hands dirty. With the mayor's dirty antics, it would be hard for Bill to oppose the rec center without looking completely hostile to all business in our community.
Whatever the deal is, I'm glad you are on the case. Make no mistake about it though, either the new city council is very smart in using you as a front to help them stop the rec center fiasco, or they are political flunkies who simply moved forward with the plan saying: "I'll do my best, but if bad stuff happens, it was someone elses fault and if good stuff happens it was because I made lemonade out of lemons."
I'm not so sure which situation I am dealing with. Again, its like being "Fredo". I just don't know everything that is going on in the family.
I know that you and Bill/Jeske are probably good buds though, so I may be able to move forward with the assumption that the candidates that I championed are really just very savy politicians who know that they need a face other than theirs on a law suit against the Rec Center.
Thanks no matter what the sitaution is. Stop this crazyness.
Anonymous:
I reiterate again - I am my own person.
I have brought the Notice of Claim strictly on my own.
In fact, I think the new Council members are furious with me.
I reiterate again - I believe in following all the rules and any one or group that doesn't do so is going to get my attention.
Thanks for your support.
The "start of construction" could mean many things: there's a road running thru it; there's been some December digging at the Rec site; Notices and Mylar Plans were submitted; Contracts signed. This is no different thatn many "ceremonial" happenings that are used to "Serve Notice" that work has begun, responsibilities have been met, no matter how minor. I for one do this every year: 11:59 on April 15th, THE POSTMARK.
If one thinks about this, the Mayors Economic Development team is comprised of some pretty smark folk, and I'm sure they have the "i's" dotted and "t's" crossed, as for the Construction Start. As for the TIF flowing from one project to another, it stand s to reason that they covered that base also, but I could be wrong. Haste makes waste, they say, and one never knows what might have been overlooked.
The thing that's most bothersome to me is: if Dorothy Littrell is successful here, what happens next? The BDO funds are thereby jeopardized to make the bond payments; nothing is built on the mall site until a solution is found for her Notice of Claim; we can drive by the dirt lot and see no progress, nothing being worked on, and count imaginary dollars that might have been; we can gloat over Gary Nielsen not getting his handout, but is that worth $40 million plus the loss of revenue and all that is suppossed to follow the Junction?
I don't know, but I agree: choose your battles wisely. Everything isn't a windmill and the consequences could be absolutley devestating to each and every one of us.
Agree with the Mayor's henchmen being very smart people. They are also very arrogant people. The Mayor seems to have the attitude that the law, and common respect for the people he governs, doesn't apply to him and his mission to rebuild Ogden as a Chi Chi Ski Resort.
If Dorothy is correct, and these geniuses did screw up, it is most likely from their massive quotient of hubris, not lack of brain power.
Was Norm Ashton's response the Formal Response? And would that eliminate the 60 day waiting period?
You know, I would really like something clarified. I've been thinking a lot about this, and watching Ogden politics for some time, and there have been quite a few things that have seemed questionable.
The severance package, for instance. $47,000. The Ogden City ordinance governing severance packages states that no one who resigns is to be given a severance. This ordinance was presumably in force at the time of the "verbal agreement." It was in the newspapers, and citizens wrote letters to the State Attorney General asking that it be looked into. Was it? What was the determination? We never heard another thing about it. And we should have.
And this latest about the rec center. If Dorothy's Notice of Claim is correct, there seem to be several violations of the law here.
Neither of these things, while in process and afterwards, were huge secrets. Newspaper reports detailed the financing of the rec center and the terms of the severance package. Many people questioned both.
In fact, I heard citizens say time and time again, both at meetings and on this blog: "I'm not particularly against the rec center, but I don't like the way it's being done."
So what I wish to have clarified is----Why does Dorothy Littrell have to file a lawsuit in order to get something looked at that appears to be a possible violation of the law? To me, a violation of the law is a criminal, not a civil matter. Where are the people and who are the people being paid by our tax dollars to oversee these things and enforce the law if it's being broken?
It is my contention that Mr. Ashton's comments are not what we deserve. What we do deserve is an explanation of why he feels the Notice of Claim is without merit, point by point. If he would do this, and his explanation were valid, Ms. Littrell would probably withdraw the Notice of Claim. Maybe there's a good explanation for this. Maybe there's one for the severance.
But we haven't heard them.
We deserve to. Contrary to the opinions of some in officialdom, we are not uneducated masses. If there is a law that states that construction of the rec center must begin by December 31st, 2005, and we are all seeing with our own eyes that as of today, February 24th, 2006, no construction is in sight, we deserve an explanation as to why this is not a violation of that law if indeed it is not.
The same goes for the severance package. If our law states that no one who resigns is to get a severance package, and it's all over the news that someone resigned and received one, we need an explanation as to why this is legal. If it is legal for a mayor to make private agreements which violate ordinances, we need to be told that. And if these things are violations of those laws, those we pay to enforce those laws should enforce them.
Where are they? Isn't this process supposed to work on its own without the necessity of citizens having to file lawsuits in order to give it a nudge?
If there's anyone who digs into things, puts them in perspective with rational thought and research, it's our beloved Dian.
In this case, she's again the voice of reason and logic.
My position, however, is based on this seeming "crusade" that Dorothy Littrell is on, regarding just about ANYTHING that the government does. Granted, there are abuses, just like there are in the private sector. But so damned much so damned often. Take a breath, DL.
If filing the Notice of Claim is the only way to get answers on this, then I am in favor of it. Here's why.
During the last few years, we have all been subjected to the desire of the current administration to "Clean up Ogden." We have seen the demise of the Street Festival. We have seen the law passed to limit stays at motels. We have seen grocery stores on 25th Street have their liquor licenses yanked.
These things have been done supposedly to clean up our city and make it a better, safer, More Law Abiding, place to live. Some people have, of course, suffered economically because of these laws, but this is the price citizens have to pay to Clean Up Ogden.
Look at these things closely. We all know that not everyone at the Street Festival was a public nuisance, and not everyone at extended stays is a meth dealer, and not everyone who shops on 25th is drunk and disorderly. Yet laws were passed that basically treat people as if they were, sort of like pre-emptive strikes against possible crime.
Therefore, if that very administration is itself indulging in practices that are illegal, these too should be stopped and stopped now. After all, it goes right along with making Ogden a cleaner, safer, More Law Abiding place to live.
Like I said earlier, perhaps Norm Ashton is correct when he says that the city has complied with all ordinances. But the problem here is that it doesn't look like the city has done that, as in construction should begin by this date, and it's passed, and we see nothing. This is why I say we deserve an explanation on this and other things. Because it looks like it Might be wrong. If the administration can Pass A Law stating that people can't have extended motel stays because they Might be indulging in illegal practices, surely we as citizens can look at the non-construction downtown and Question that there Might be something wrong there.
If we allow those in government to proceed in activities that look wrong without demanding accountability from them, while at the same time submitting to fines and penalties when we break whatever ordinances we break, and also submitting to surveillance and laws limiting our basic freedoms, Do We Have A Fair System?
No, we don't. Here in the US, we are supposed to have equal treatment under the law. For the past decade or so, many people have spoken out stating that this is no longer the case, that celebrities, for instance, are treated more leniently than the rest of us. Yes, it's happening. But that doesn't mean we have to accept it.
Had I been born and raised in another country, I might feel perfectly comfortable with discrepancies in the way business is done and the way penalties vary under the law. But I wasn't. I was born in America and I was told that our system is fair and impartial and just, that this is the "land of opportunity," that our officials are trustworthy and that our country is something to be proud of. I prefer that, and if it takes demanding accountability or filing a Notice of Claim, to keep it that way or to get it back on track, that's what it takes.
Outstanding, Dian....like I said: "The voice of reason."
I only wish this Notice of Claim was filed by someone other than Littrell. Nothing is done right, according to her and the faucet is always open full force, often when it needent be. She finds fault with EVERYTHING. If things went her way, we'd still be arguing over whether or not push-carts or oxen pulled carts were the best mode of transportation for the Mormon pioneers and then regardless of which one they chose, they's be sued or chastised.
Women Scorned:
Do you read and comprehend the written word? Have you attended council meetings and Listened?
If so, you have read my assertion that we need a grocery store in the downtown area to serve the residents there? You have Heard me speak at meetings advocating the same thing.
Surely you Heard me say that the Mayor can build 6 rec centers for all I care...just don't bond the taxpayers and please put the question on the ballot so the voters can determine if they want to be bonded or not! Do you think that is radical thinking? Do you also lump me in with any others you deem to be 'negative' and 'against everything in this town?"
What are you contributing by way of suggestions, Ms Scorned? I'm making an assumption that you read and believe the SE, and the letters to the editor THEY choose to print. Are you the 'scorned' Ms Mosher? Are you drifting over from the 'Good in Ogden" site?
Dian...very thotful discourse.
To your earlier question about what to do over Mayor's gondola plan being on local TV...please see my earlier letter in which I gave the email addresses of the news channels....and do fill those competitive reporters with facts, and invite them up to Ogden to dig up even more facts about the chicanery in this administration! I hope that many of Rudi's gentle readers will do just that!
I am positive that the City's staff of "Low-Bid" Attornies will be able to defend the questionable actions of the City Administration.
I took a look back in some of the articles I'd saved about the rec center process, and it seems that II in the Notice of Claim is correct.
Here's II:
ILLEGAL FAILURE TO FOLLOW PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
Even if that failure were not illegal, the Ogden RDA also failed to pledge the additional tax increment to the RDA Project on or before July 1, 2005 per UCA 17B-4-10033)(b)(iii).
The first mention I can find of taking the increment from 10 other RDA projects is in a Schwebke article, SE, May 20th, 2005--"Ogden Mall Redevelopment Moves Ahead." This was after the failed petition drive, and there might have been references to this plan earlier, but this one is the first I have. It says:
The MBA had a marathon work session Tuesday to discuss financial and demographic projections for the recreation center.
The MBA is mulling whether to issue up to $19.5 million in bonds to Health & Fitness Holding LC, comprised of Fat Cats All Out Fun Center and Gold's Gym, for the construction of the 126,000-square-foot facility.
The center would include an 80-foot climbing wall, wind tunnel, Flowrider pool, 34 lanes of bowling, an arcade, indoor track, fitness machines and two restaurants.
The city would own the recreation center building. If $19.5 million in bonds were issued, about $11 million worth would be repaid through leases with Fat Cats and Gold's Gym.
The remaining $8.5 million would be repaid through tax increment funding from 10 redevelopment projects in Ogden.
However, this article states that at this point, the process was in the "mulling" stage, and the law does not mention "mulling." It says "pledge."
As the summer went on, a public hearing on this topic was scheduled for June 21, 2005.
This, however, was cancelled because of the contamination discovered at the site and GE Commercial, one of the lenders at that time, requesting that tests be done. On August 3rd, 2005, the SE reported that the public hearings would be on August 16th, and that:
A majority of council members expressed support for the recreation center proposal Tuesday night. However, some insisted they won't make final decisions until they have more information.
The city is working on a tight time frame to get the financing approved, as any delay beyond Aug. 31 could result in increased construction costs...
...The main source of funding for the recreation center would be about $16 million in bonds issued to Health & Fitness Holding LC, to include Fat Cats All Out Fun Center and Gold's Gym. Other funding sources are a $2 million loan from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, as well as $285,000 in 2005 tax-increment funding from 10 other RDA projects.
("Hearing Scheduled for Ogden Rec Center," SE, August 3rd, 2005, John Wright)
So we have the Municipal Building Authority discussing it in May, but as of August, the Redevelopment Agency vote still had not been run on it. It therefore appears that they did indeed miss the July 25th deadline, and in fact were at that time still uncertain as to whether the project would be approved.
Hmm.
I have a typo in that last paragraph--sorry. It should read:
So we have the Municipal Building Authority discussing it in May, but as of August, the Redevelopment Agency vote still had not been run on it. It therefore appears that they did indeed miss the July 1st deadline, and in fact were at that time still uncertain as to whether the project would be approved.
All this hair splitting about missing dates, or not, is - well just that.
It doesn't matter if construction started on a certain date. It doesn't matter if any nit picking deadlines were met.
We have a Mayor who's handshake is OUR bond. I have no doubt that the little one has handshaked his way through all this just like he did with his biker in drag buddy Stu and the $47,000 give away of OUR cash.
It is, and was, all perfectly legal via the secret handshake trick.
Thanks for your excellent analyisis, Dian.
We're fortunate to have a gentle reader like you amongst us, who's so willing to diligently "crunch" the facts.
I'll add in passing, that I think Ms. Littrell's legal challenge was inevitable. If she hadn't stepped up to the plate, somebody else would have done so. So hamhanded and amateurish was the Rec Center deal, that it cried out for court intervention.
We live in a system of checks and balances. When the executive and legislative branches don't work, or act negligently or abusively, we're fortunate to have the other branch of government -- the courts -- to put the other branches' feet to the fire.
I'll add that I find it shocking that some elements of our community find breaking the law to be "no big deal."
They want their rec centers, gondolas, and everything else -- and legal requirements are merely obstacles to be ignored.
The ends always justify the means in MattGodfreyWorld. "Certain people" have "the vision," afterall, and certain other "unfaithful cretins," i.e., C.A.V.E. (Godfrey terminology - Citizens Against Virtually Everything) people, don't.
This is a delicate situation. Ms. Littrell's notice of claim is obviously something that she thinks is the right thing to do. Maybe it is. Anyone who thinks the Gang o' Six complied with all legal requirements has a questionable grip on reality. On the other hand, what an unconscionable, unforgiveable disgrace it has been for the Godfrey administration to have permitted that hole-in-the-ground to languish for four years now, mocking Ogden with its intransigence -- especially when the Citiventure plan could have gone forward. Can anyone cite an example of a big downtown project anywhere -- a stadium, for example -- that DOES comply with all legal requirements, that does not grease the palms of of greedy and unscrupulous people along the way, that doesn't go way over budget; in short, that gets built in a way that an ethicist would smile on? Is this simply the way that things get done? Have we another choice?
To pick up on Mr/Ms McConkie's post: I wonder, presuming for the sake of argument that one or more of Ms. Littrell's points have legal merit, what the remedy might be? Does anyone know?
Thank you, Almanack.
One further query: what's a [or the] "bond council"?
Found an editorial in the SE questioning the Reid severance dated October 1st, 2005. This too I have thought should be looked at by an outside entity.
Garcia, a frequent Godfrey-Reid antagonist, said he didn't think someone who resigns without being forced to do so is due such generous severance under the city code.
If you read the ordinance, you might agree that Garcia has a point. Severance only goes to employees who are terminated. If both Reid and Godfrey say he wasn't terminated, the severance payment he received is in conflict with the ordinance -- except the ordinance was amended after Reid was hired...
...The city's own attorneys have advised Godfrey he should have simply e-mailed Reid, thanked him for his service and asked for a letter of resignation. That would have met the ordinance's rules for an involuntary termination. But according to the Utah Attorney General's Office, the verbal agreement between Godfrey and Reid is binding, and Godfrey was right to pay it since he agreed he would...
This editorial infers that the mayor can make agreements that violate city ordinances and then be held to those agreements, per the Utah State Attorney General. However, I don't think this was an official opinion. I cannot see how such a thing would be an official opinion.
Still think there should be one, too.
A farewell too fond, Saturday, October 1, 2005, SE
Dian
As I recall it, the State Attorney General's office's statement that the so called agreement between Godfrfey and Reid was OK - turned out to be not true. It seems like it was one attorney, talking off the top of his head, not the opinion of the office. I don't think the office even investigated it. The one attorney was responding to a general theoretical question, and later refuted the answer as it applied to the Ogden situation.
"One further query: what's a [or the] 'bond council?"
I believe Almanack is referring to the lawyers involved in the process of authorization of the the issuance of bonds. Bond "counsel" review documents prior to bond sale and execution, and issue opinion letters assuring parties to bond transactions that all legal requirements have been fulfilled.
Bond Counsel
I'm linking an article which I posted in October on the Stuart Reid severence proble. I spoke by phone with Stephen Schwendiman, Utah assistant attorney general. Mr. Scwendiman was misquoted by the Std-Ex.
The Standard-Examiner Defends Reid "Good Ole Boy" Windfall
I'm also linking another WCF article I published on the Reid severance subject, in which I offered my own analysis.
The Reid Severance Bonus Legal Problem
I am at a loss to understand why the new city council hasn't begun looking into this can of worms.
Thanks for the bond counsel link, Rudi. After reading it, I wonder whether its job would stop with the putting together of the bond deal or if it would extend to the payback method, in this case possibly increments that should not have been earmarked for that. Do you know?
On the topic of the severance, there was supposed to be an independent counsel retained by the Ogden City Council to give an opinion on the severance. Whatever happened to that? I had heard that it was pending months ago, and would be enclosed with a request that the AG investigate. Did that ever happen?
I think that pledging the recreation haircut tax increment from the 10 Ogden RDA's was not the same as the approval of the bond that happened in Nov. The pledging could have been done, and probably was done a long time ago. I say that because that was probably needed to tell the county to pay the money to Ogden that Ogden would not originally been entitled to.
As for the start of contruction, that is probably a little more dicy. Does the ground breaking count as start of construction? Does the prep work on infrastructure that was going on toward the end of the year count? Maybe.
So I suspect that Ms. Littrell's claims will be answered sufficently that a judge will not allow a lawsuit to progress very far.
As to Dian's question about the independent counsel that the City Council engaged, I thought I read something either here or in the SE that said that the counsel had prepared the opinion but that the Council decided not to accept the opinion and closed the case on their investigation. Anyone else remember that? I would have though Rudi would have commented. I didn't read Rudi's links so I don't know if it was in them.
As for following the law and having lawyers or someone call them on it, you have to remember that they have lawyers to tell them what is legal and what isn't and thos lawyers will usually find a way to make just about anything legal. So even if a council member were to question how things have been done so far, their counsel (city attorney) is going to tell them everything is OK because that is the counsel has advised the previous members.
And I would assume that the present Council are resigned to the fact that they are bound by the previous Council's votes that obligated the RDA to the Rec center so they would rather see something build that looks feesible and that others seem willing to put their own money on the line for (Boyer and Miller and the Church and the guy with the other building) than to start over with the process and look at a mud hole for another 2-5 years. Plus the fact that if Ms. Littrell is successful then those millions of $ from the Recreation haircut RDA money would be given back to the original taxing entities and Ogden would have significantly less money to assist any future development that might look at doing something there.
And I don't think Godfrey came up with that catchy little acronym. CAVE people and NIMBY people have been referred to for may years in government circles. And just to remind C.A.V.E is Citizens Against Virtually Everything, while N.I.M.B.Y. is Not In My Back Yard.
While I don't think that Ms. Littrell's claim/lawsuit will go anywhere, and I do believe that it will probably have the effect of delaying the project some, I do support her having the right to file the claim because I think that there are ligitimate questions that deserve reasoned, rational answers that I believe have not been forth coming.
By the way, there was legislation introduced this year that would have made these kinds of lawsuits loser pays, which would mean that if you thought the government was doing something wrong and you sued and lost you would have to pay the governments legal bills and all court costs. This would have a chilling effect on people's ability to seek redress from the government and might be unconstitutional. It was in response to the Legacy Highway lawsuit, which the government actually lost so it would not have mattered in that case anyway except that it might have stopped those who it turned out were right, from seeking redress to begin with. Hopefully, that will die a good death in the legislature.
To ARCRITIC
Bravo, I am sure glad you are participating on this blog.
I agree--very good post, arcritic! One of the things I have been trying to find is When those increments were pledged to that project and whether it was before or after the passage of the ordinance prohibiting this. I haven't been able to find anything on it, and was thinking that perhaps the idea to use them was simply bundled into the refinancing/financing proposal to be voted on all at once. If I do find an instance of all those increments being pledged separately from that final deal, I will of course post it.
SHaron!
You have a hard time being heard because people simply "want" to stop listenting to you! You talk too much! There are other valid opinions, priorities, ideas, thoughts, beliefs other than yours! If the city zigs, you think they should have zaged. If progress is being made over hear, you think it should have been made over there.
BLA, BLA, BLA, BLA, BLA, BLA, BLA, BLA, BLA, BLA, BLA, BLA, BLA, BLA....THAT'S ALL I HEAR SHARON!!! THAT'S IT!! TRY NOT TO BE SO OVERBEARING AND I MIGHT TAKE A MINUTE TO LISTEN TO YOU.
Anonymous
I don't think that Sharon, or any one else for that matter, gives a rat's ass if you are listening.
You come accross as a bit of a moronic ass, and no doubt a Godfryite.
Sharon is talking to a wide group of people, on this blog and off it. She makes very valid and important points - most of the time. Even if she may ramble here and there, that's just fine with me, and most of the people in Ogden who showed that punk Godfey a thing or two at the polls in November.
And yes, Godfey wasn't a misspell! He is a little fey you know.
New comments are not allowed.