To those of you interested in the ongoing mystery as to the circumstances of the Shupe Williams Building fire:
Click on the attached link to the Minutes of the Board of Commissioners of Weber County dated August 2, 2005 page 2 - ACTION ITEM F.
You will read that Ogden City Attorney Norm Ashton requested that the County waive the 2001 property taxes of $4,096.47 plus penalties of $81.93 and interest in the amount of $1,081.59 on the Shupe Williams Building because the city came into possession of the property on October 2, 2005 in lieu of foreclosure from Marina Capital.
Norm Ashton of Ogden City stated his agreement with Mr. Bond's presentation and gave some history of this case. He stated that the city had entered into this agreement with the developer, deeding the property with certain stipulations. The city extended the deadlines for them several times to obtain financing, but Marina Capital was unable to obtain it. The city took the building in lieu of foreclosure. He asked the Commission to consider adjusting the tax obligation by waiving 50% of it. He noted the significant expense for demolition of this building which is now beyond economic rehabilitation.Records show that on July 1, 2005 Ogden City took out a Chubb Insurance Co. policy #35833430 through agent, Fred A. Moreton & Co., Salt Lake City, Utah, in the amount of $2.5 million dollars even though Mr. Ashton in his request for 50% abatement of property taxes is quoted as stating that "this building is now beyond economic rehabilitation".
And this request for abatement was done in a meeting on August 2, 2005 while the property was under the private ownership of Marina Capital until October 2, 2005.
How can Ogden City legally take out a $2.5 million dollar policy on a building which Ogden City Attorney stated is now "beyond economic rehabilitation?"
-Dorothy Littrell
Please help us out on this, gentle readers. Many of our readers lack expertise in the area of insurance claims.
Comments, anyone?
17 comments:
Are the dates correct?
It appears that the city took out a policy of 2.5 million on a building in disrepair in 'o1, but Marina still held ownership til Oct. 'o5.
How can our city insure a building that doesn't belong to us? AND, for such a staggering amount?
Don't think it's not being looked at in the trades:
City in Utah Expects $2.5 Million Fire Insurance Settlement
Ogden, Utah, officials are expecting a $2.5 million insurance settlement for a fire that destroyed a building the city had offered for sale at a fraction of that amount.
...the subject of controversy in recent months between people hoping to renovate it and others hoping to tear it down and rebuild...
...The policy's $2.5 million coverage amount is based on the estimated cost of replacing the building and depreciation.
"It's worth that and more," city chief administrative officer John Patterson said...
...On March 6, Mayor Matthew Godfrey sent a letter to Robert Chugg, president of the Ogden-Weber Museum Committee, offering to sell the building to the organization for $510,000 if it planned to keep the structure or for $310,000 if it demolished the building.
Godfrey said city is willing to sell the property to the group for $510,000, which is the appraised value of the land.
A developer, whom Godfrey didn't identify, is in line to buy the property for commercial purposes if the Ogden-Weber Museum Committee doesn't purchase it.
Insurance Journal
Thanks, Ned. As I understand it from recent media reports, Ogden city held a security interest in the property ($250,000 in recorded liens) during the entire period that Marina was the property's legal owner.
As a secured lienholder, it would have been entirely proper for Ogden City to have ensured the property for its own account.
What's puzzling to some of us is the policy's high policy limit, i.e., FIVE times the property's appraised value.
I'm presuming that there were provisions in the policy providing for a payout of "replacement cost" rather than "cash value." Such provisions are negotiable between a carrier and an insured, and are actually quite common.
What's interesting here, is that Ogden city appears to have taken the public position that the property was beyond repair, yet insured it at replacement value.
This could simply boil down to smart policy shopping on Ogden city's part, for all I know, but I confess the facts seem odd.
I'm confess not an expert on insurance, and don't have time presently to research it myself, so I'm hoping someone will chime in and explain the nuances of this event. That's why I put the email missive on the front page today.
Hopefully we'll have a comment soon from a local insurance expert.
Thanks for the link, Dian. It's quite interesting indeed that this story is attracting the attention of the industry press.
Doesn't the article say that the city offered to sell it for "$510,000, which is the appraised value of the land?"
There was also a building on the property and even thought it was "now beyond economic rehabilitation." It would still have a value.
True, but not five times the value!
We attended the 9:30 showing at the Foursite Film Festival...Peery Egyptian Theater last nite.
I looked, carefully, I thot, thru the GO! and other sections of the SE and couldn't find anything about the Festival.
The one on Snowboarding was breathtaking!
The other one was amusing. Independent film makers who choose to showcase their talents here should be encouraged.
I was told that only about 20 people showed up for the 6:30 pm film.
Probably 75 were in attendance at 9:30.
Mitch Moyes, out of pocket, made 200 copies of flyers with coupons, and passed them out on WA Blvd. Friday evening. He's to be admired for his support of the arts in Ogden. (and trails, museum, etc).
I wish I could've found something in the paper. I did call the Peery and listened to the answering machine, which gave NO info on the Festival.
Anyway, kudos to the independent film makers. I hope they return.
Who is the "buyer" that wants to pick up the SW site?
It was recently brought to my attention, by a member of the Godfreyite movement and former council candidate, and one who's opinion I respect, that I had been impolite and perhaps a bit over the top in my choice of words on this blog toward another former candidate.
Upon reflection, I must agree and Apologize to not only the former candidate who may have been particularly aggrieved, but to all Godfreyites that I may have offended by joking about their physical appearance or stature. The good lord knows that I would not fare well if held to the same standard.
My attempt at humor was funny to some, but not all. It was meant in the spirit of political satire, hopefully in the vein of what Grondahl and Trentelman do in the Standard sometimes. (Not to imply a parity of talent and quality however)
As we all know there is the final battle looming up, like a gathering storm, where in the Lord Mayor is faced with a make or break final hurrah. If he and his followers do not pull off this goof ball gondola - give one of the parks and recreation crown jewels away - their time at the controls of Ogden City government and finances will be at an end. Thank you lord for such a delicious thought.
I will try to refrain in the future from making fun of our political activists and participants based on physical attributes, so help me Godfrey.
Their political manuevering, hubris, heartlessness, methods and madnesses' are still fair game however.
My thought is that the insurance policy that gives the City 2.5 mil is just "good shopping and negotiating" on Ogden's part.
For all the questions that everyone keeps asking aboput that policy, my thoughts are, "call the agent that Dorothy Littrell was good enough to furnish the name of. Then, good people, you'll get the answer right from the horse's mouth instead of from "ned," "mutch" or that bunch.
Ned knows nothing about the insurance policy. Ned only asked a question.
Thank you, tho, for thinking I may be in the know.
I imagine you can call the agent but there is such a thing as privacy, and thankfully the insurance industry now takes it very seriously and should only discuss the policy with the policyholder or his authorized representative or other third parties needed to administer the policy.
Wow, ozboy I think that is a first here. Good form.
arcritic - I am not so sure privacy applies here. We are not dealing with a persons business here - this is city (public) business.
Patterson said neither he nor the mayor knew the building was insured for that amount of money.
Historic building blaze blamed on transients
Also from the trib article that Dian links:
It was the investigator for the insurance company who ended the investigation after no clues were found, said Ogden Fire Chief Mike Mathieu.
Bryan Thatcher, an investigator in the state fire marshal's office, is expected to issue a report as well, but could not be reached for comment late Friday.
The state was asked to investigate to assure residents who had voiced suspicions about the fire in a building the city wanted to demolish, Mathieu said.
Though the mayor had offered to sell it to the museum group for about $200,000 (plus $300,000 in demolition costs) last fall, it was insured for $2.5 million.
Mark Johnson, director of administrative services for the city, said the city had tried to insure it for only $200,000, but the insurance company was bound by rules requiring it reflect a higher value. The city has not yet been paid the $2.5 million, Johnson said.
Ned's questions seem to be coming from a place where most of us don't have the ability to go. Is this some sort of "dupe" that Ned's trying to run on us, pretending that Ned's not who Ned really is. These questions of her's (or maybe his) seem to have been fashioned from a position of knowledge and fact, pointed even, from a knowledgeable base.
What gives Ned? These questions seem more manipulative than inquisitive.
So Godfrey got 2 1/2 million for the Shupe Wms. Bldg. Common practice to insure things for replacement value rather than for a cash cost, especially in the state that that building was in. I say, tip our hats to whoever did the policy and move on to bigger and better things.
Isn't Ashton on record as stating the building 'was now beyond economic rehabilitation'?
Any 'manipulation', you smug kid, is not coming from me. I would wager the manipulations have been honed to a science by this sorry administration...and its 'infulential' friends.
You keep intimating that you know Ned....kid, you wouldn't know me if I walked into daddy's office, and neither would he. So, give it up and get back to work.
New comments are not allowed.