This morning's Standard Examiner edition features two articles we think to be worthy of special note.
First, on the front page is this Scott Schwebke story, reporting on the the city administration's response to a formal inquiry on Gondola project expenditures, (requested by Councilwoman Wicks to the Mayor's office a full two months ago.) Aside from the fact that obtaining this information was apparently the governmental equivalent of pulling teeth, Councilwoman Wicks remarks that the information provided by the uber-secret Boss Godfrey is woefully incomplete. As to the the specific deficiencies that Councilwoman Wicks mentions, Ace reporter Schwebke of course offers his readers no clue.
Being the curious type, your blogmeister dialed out to Ms. Wicks this morning, in an attempt to fill in some of reporter Schwebke's "loose ends."
According to Ms. Wicks, Boss Godfrey's belated response falls short in the following general respects:
- It reports only "hard expenditures," i.e. cash outlays expended in the select areas Mr. Schwebke's story mentions;
- Neglects to report "soft expenditures," such as city staff monies expended in pursuit of the select items that are addressed;
- Entirely ignores expenditures releted to gondola promotions on the city website and television station;
- Fails to specify expenditures for the gondola propaganda recently incuded with city water bills;
- Omits any information on the Boss Godfrey's recent Washington, D.C. junket, wherein he visited with members of Utah's congressional delegation, in the company of gondolist Curt Geiger;
- Fails to apportion expenditures of the recently-completed "corrider study" which were directed toward the study of gondolas;
- Neglects to take into account portions of city staff expenditures related to the scores of private meetings and public events that were recently conducted to promote the gondola scheme.
Readers should also find mirth and amusement in Boss Godfrey's typical paranoic pronouncement:
"It’s clear Amy Wicks is against the proposal and what she is doing evidently is trying to build a case with the spending that is going on," he said.
While this may be "clear" to our highly visionary Boss Godfrey, who always operates in a world of his own, the always-wry Councilwoman Wicks' retort makes short work of the poor little guy:
Wicks said she is offended by Godfrey’s remarks. "We (the City Council) have yet to receive a proposal, and I’ve never voiced opposition to the project," she said. "If asking questions is problematic, then why do we have a system of checks and balances?"
And for our added intellectual consumption, this morning's Std-Ex serves up this thoughtful Gretchen Fluhart Guest Commentary. With Frontrunner Commuter Rail coming to town in 2008, she asks, what's the big rush to grant Chris Peterson first rights to our treasured Mt. Ogden Parkland? She proposes that future development be handled prudently and sequentially, once we've had a chance to assess the impact of our new commuter rail system.
We have to concur with Gretchen on this for the most part, inasmuch as none of us can accurately predict the economic impact Frontrunner will have on our city.
And although Ms. Fluhart's article brims with optimism about the arrival of Frontrunner commuter rail in our town, we must also offer a cautionary note.
Like many citizens of Junction City, Ms. Fluhart predicates much of her exhilaration about pending economic development on statistics compiled in connection with urban light rail , such as San Francisco's Bay Area Rapid Transit sytem. Light rail systems like BART, which operate on extended schedules, with multiple stops during the operational day are very different from commuter rails systems like Frontrunner, of course, whose schedules are focused on providing service mainly during normal commuter hours.
In this connection we are linking this excellent Wilf Sommerkorn article, wherein he analyzes some of the rosy assumptions of folks who believe that Frontrunner commuter rail will be the next best thing to the "coming of the railroad" in 1869.
Alright, gentle readers. We now turn the floor over to you.
Who will be the first to launch the comments that will take us into the coming weekend?
Trivia Update 7/15/06 1:23 p.m. MT -- Q: What world-famous Emerald City climbing celebrity is the older brother of Gretchen Fluhart?
Stumped? Click here to find out.
47 comments:
It is amusing to read people comparing things around here to the coming of the railroad in the 1860's!
First it was the Little Lord comparing the gondola fiasco to the railroad. Now we have Mz. Fluhart comparing the Frontrunner to the same. Incidently, I thought the Fluhart piece was one of the best I have read concerning this Gondola and Peterson Develolpment idea. It probably won't make her any friends on the ninth floor, or in the Gondola movement.
As to this railroad comparison, I would suggest that before taking such flights of fancy in the future people should read some history on the railroad in Ogden, and what it truly meant for the city over a hundred year time span. The railroads, and yes there were several, pumped untold wealth into Ogden and Weber County over those years. It put Ogden on the national map. It delivered zillions of dollars worth of goods into Ogden and a like amount of goods out to the rest of the nation. It brought presidents and world leaders to our city. It employed the vast majority of people in Ogden, directly or through related service companies.
The railroad put food on my families table as well as practically every one else's in town.
There truly is no comparison with the railroad and any of this other stuff that is being touted about town.
These comparisons also beg that fact that in addition to the railroad, there are a number of other things that brought prosperity to Ogden way in excess of what the Frontrunner or Gondola could ever dream of bringing. Things like 2nd Street, the Naval Supply Depot, Weber College, the IRS, and most of all Hill Field.
As General Condon suggested yesterday in his Standard Op-Ed piece, people ought to do a little research and analysis before going off half cocked with their speculations.
One last thing, Amy Wicks is the bravest most honorable person in Ogden City Government. She should be mayor. Her integrity far surpasses that of the current Mayor.
To the list of items missing from the mayor's response to Wicks, we can add the $60,000 gondola feasibility study done for the city by RG Consultants in 2004.
It's fun to try to estimate some of the unreported costs of staff time. I've personally observed John Patterson spend a few hundred dollars worth of his time in gondola-related meetings. If the mayor has spent just 5% of his time on gondola-related work over the last two years, the value of that time would exceed the $6,000 "total" figure that he provided to Wicks. And so on, right down to the poor city employees who have been put to work calling residents and inviting them to the mayor's sales pitches.
Regarding rail transit and economic development, I fail to see any important differences, other than scale, between "commuter" rail (diesel trains), heavy rail (e.g., subways), light rail, and streetcars. They all tend to be quite popular, attracting far more riders than buses. They all require fixed station locations. It seems to be well documented that property values near those station locations are significantly enhanced by their presence. Whether there's new private investment and pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented development (commercial and high-density residential) near the stations will presumably depend on local details such as what's there already, what the zoning allows, and whether local communities choose to waste most of the prime real estate on park-and-ride lots. And, as Sommerkorn points out, the scheduling of the trains. But unlike the many commuter rail systems that offer little or no mid-day and evening service, FrontRunner will run all day long, with 20-minute headways at peak hours and 40-minute headways at other times. Sommerkorn knows this crucial fact but for some reason chooses to ignore it.
In Ogden, moreover, we have an additional opportunity: the proposed streetcar system from S. Harrison to downtown, running at 8-minute intervals, with four to seven intermediate stops. If Sommerkorn is right about frequency of service being essential to stimulate commercial development near rail transit stations, then the streetcar should be even better than light rail.
OzBoy:
You wrote of Councilwoman Amy Wicks that her integrity far surpasses that of the current Mayor.
I think you do Councilwoman Wicks a disservice, Sir. You have set an incredibly low bar for her to clear: having more integrity than the Hon. [?] Matthew Godfrey. I think the good Councilwoman can clear, integrity-wise, a much higher bar than that one.
Many thanks, Rudi, for running Mrs. Fluhart's excellent commentary.
I read it while we were driving to SLC, and was anxious to get home to find it as the new thread!
Thanx also for the link about light rail, etc. Very interesting.
Dan S....thanx for your link and comments. I attended the presentation last yr at the Alumni House on the efficacy of a trolley system in Ogden. (The man's name escapes me).
THAT was an eye opener. I saw one member of the administration there for awhile.
Do y'all recall that deliteful cartoon by Grondahl that ran some weeks ago in the SE? It depicted a small girl selling lemonade to passengers debarking the FrontRunner?
The passenger wondered where the other businesses were.
We should be concentrating on filling up the Junction and encouraging businesses to start NOW to welcome passengers who can eat, shop, visit an art store, etc around the depot.
Since the FrontRunner will make many runs a day accomodating just about anyone coming here, tourists, day shoppers, locals....the times seem to be advantageous for anyone.
Now, if we will get busy and partner with the Smithsonian Institution and build 'the country's first ever (listening Godfrey????) NATIONAL RAILROAD MUSEUM, many tourists will ride up here to visit it.
It's been estimated that 7 million visitors stroll Temple Square, and it is estimated that about 3 million visitors would come to Ogden to vist such a museum annually.
Museums, per se, aren't money makers, but the patrons may stay in town to eat, shop, sleep over and some will want to fish, hike, golf, and even SKI !
I'm excited at the prospects surrounding the FrontRunner and the opportunities for those looking for a good place to do business.
Anticipating a myriad of reactions, I'd like to say that we should really give serious thot to a HIGH END DISCOUNT MALL.
Ms Burdett used to sneer that such a mall had to be 'located by a freeway to be successful."
Well, if one could ride the FrontRunner up here, walk a short distance, or hop a bus or trolley to a HIGH END DISCOUNT MALL, I KNOW
it would be successful.
People are always looking for a bargain. To be able to purchase the very best at reduced prices is a draw in itself.
Having the convenience and fun of arriving on the FrontRunner makes it even more so.
With the price of gasoline, gridlock on the freeways, and the frustration of driving and parking....riding the train and having fun shopping and visiting the Junction, Museum and Depot makes sense to me.
Read an article a week or so ago in the NY Times Biz section about the "Outlet Store" scam that is happening all over America - including Park City here in Utah.
They are not what people think they are! They are really a merchandizing scheme developed by the chi chi clothes industry to take advantage of people's need to get "great deals".
The overwhelming amount of merchandise in them are made specifically for these outlet malls.
They are outdated styles that no longer sell for thousands at Saks, so they have them made in China in big volume - (buy em cheap and stack em deep) then they ship it out to their hundreds of "Outlet Stores" around the country.
Did you ever wonder how a company like Valintino, who creates high end and very expensive clothes for a very select customer base, would have so many left over, or factory seconds, that they could supply a hundred or so "outlet stores"?
This is a perfect example of how the little big man acts in every situation that someone disagrees with him. If someone does not think exactly as he does, then they must have a hidden agenda that includes some scheme to get him. Not that an exchange of ideas, which is the best way to get to the best laid out plan. He had a meeting with all of the city employees at the end of last year, specifically to sell the idea of the Gondola. He made the comment that you were more likely to have you vehicle burglarized in Park City than in Ogden. That comment was challenged and the person that did the challenging received a letter of reprimand for insubordination and he was ordered to apologize to the mayor.
By the way, does his estimate of costs the city has expended this for the Gondola include the aforementioned mandatory, paid meeting?
Sorry for the previous post and all the grammatical and spelling errors. I guess my hand hurts from writing so many tickets! (sorry, not really that funny) Here is what I meant to say:
This is a perfect example of how the little big man acts in every situation that someone disagrees with him. If someone does not think exactly as he does, then they must have a hidden agenda that includes some scheme to get him. Not that an exchange of ideas is the best way to get to the best laid out plan, He had a meeting with all of the city employees at the end of last year, specifically to sell the idea of the Gondola. While speaking of the crime rate and the reasons why people would flock to Ogden to use the Gondola, he made the comment that you were more likely to have you vehicle burglarized in Park City than in Ogden. That comment was challenged and the person that did the challenging received a letter of reprimand for insubordination and he was ordered to apologize to the mayor.
By the way, does his estimate of costs the city has expended this for the Gondola include the aforementioned mandatory, paid employee meeting?
$6,000: The amount of taxpayer money spent on the gondola in 2006. $82.00: The cost of the average moving citation. 73.1: The number of citations it would take to pay for the $6,000 expenditure. $1,640.000: The average cost of a moving citation times the 20,000 citations written last year in Ogden.
While the coming of Frontrunner is not in the same league as the Golden Spike, it will clearly make a difference in downtown Ogden, not least of which will be to increase nearby property values. The Fluhart commentary, which urges that Ogden digest the impact of the Frontrunner before deciding on whether it needs a gondola, may be the most sensible thing yet to appear in the Standard Examiner on the issue.
One thing that has baffled me for over a year, and about which I have continued to ask questions and have Never received a satisfactory answer is....
Where is this money that is being spent on the gondola coming from?????
We read that the city pays for this, it pays for that, it reimburses Mayor Godfrey here and there, but never do we hear out of what fund, who approves those expenditures, who authorizes, who writes the checks.
The Council, by law, controls the finances of this city. And yet here we have a member of that body having to Request financial info, being stonewalled for two months, and then receiving only partial info.
If the Council controls the finances of this city, why do members have to request info concerning those finances from the administration??? They should have that right there. If one controls something, one should, after all, be able to get to it.
Here is the law:
10-8-1. Control of finances and property.
The boards of commissioners and city councils of cities shall have the power to control the finances and property of the corporation.
From the Utah Code.
They just had a budget session, for heaven's sake. Wasn't that information in there?
I think we're all looking at this wrongly. We are accepting the fact that Councilwoman Wicks had to undergo a Process, have a letter written in her behalf by Executive Director Bill Cook, Requesting this information.
Whereas, when I read that law, I think that the Council should not have to request that info from anybody, except maybe the fiscal officer. Because they are supposed to be controlling it!
Which is why I find it difficult to comment on the content of the story, because the premise, to me, is all WRONG. This simply should not be happening.
Now. If anybody wishes to make me aware of any technicality that will explain sufficently why, although Utah Law states that in the mayor/council form of government, the Council controls the finances, here in Ogden that is definitely not the case, I would welcome hearing it.
Ozboy:
Interesting response about the 'outlet malls'.
I've shopped in a few and I don't think what I bot was inferior.
However, I can see that some scamming can and perhaps, does happen.
2-4-3: MAYOR; FUNCTION AND DUTIES:
The mayor shall be the chief executive officer of the city and its official head for ceremonial purposes. The mayor's powers and duties include, but are not limited to, the following:
A.Supervise Administration: Supervising the administration and enforcement of all laws and ordinances of the city;
B.Administer Departments, Divisions And Offices: Administering and exercising control of all departments, divisions and offices within the city;
C.Execute Policies: Executing the policies adopted by the city council as reflected by council resolutions or by city ordinances which are consistent with state law;
D.Supervise And Coordinate Administrative Functions: Supervising or coordinating the administrative functions of those authorities and agencies which are related to or affect city operations, such as redevelopment, to the extent requested or delegated by the officers or bodies having primary responsibility for the operation of such authorities or agencies;
E.Authorize Executive Orders: Authorizing the issuance of such executive orders or administrative rules and regulations for the general operations of the City which are not in conflict with the laws of the State or City ordinances;
F.Recommend Legislation: Recommending to the City Council for adoption such measures as may be deemed necessary or proper for the efficient and proper operation of the City;
G.Attend City Council Meetings: Attending all meetings of the City Council; provided however, that the Mayor may designate a representative when the Mayor is unable to attend;
H.Annual Budget And Report: Preparing and submitting to the City Council:
1. An annual budget; and
2. An annual report of the City's financial affairs, within one hundred eighty (180) days following the close of the City's fiscal year;
I.Report Financial Condition To City Council: Keeping the City Council informed as to the financial condition of the City on a quarterly basis or at such other time interval as the City Council shall require by ordinance;
J.Appoint Budget Officer: Appointing a Budget Officer to serve in place of the Mayor for the purpose of conforming with the requirements of the Uniform Municipal Fiscal Procedures Act and in all other respects fulfill the requirements of that Act;
K.Supervise Purchases; Authorize Expenditures: Subject to the requirements of statutes and ordinances now or hereafter lawfully enacted, supervising the purchase of materials or services and otherwise authorizing expenditures of funds on behalf of the City;
L.Make Appointments To Advisory Bodies: Making appointments to City committees, boards, commissions and other advisory bodies in the City, after having received the advice and consent of the City Council on each separate prospective appointment, as provided or required in State law, and removing the same;
M.Make Appointments To Directors, Officers And Agents: Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, hiring and making all appointments regarding department directors, officers and agents, subject to the advice and consent of the City Council where required by State law, and disciplining or terminating the same;
N.Execute Agreements: Executing agreements within certified budget appropriations on behalf of the City, or delegating by written executive order the power to execute such agreements to executive officials, subject to the requirements of State law and City ordinance;
O.Declare Local Emergencies: Declaring local emergencies and exercising those powers and duties necessary to protect life and property as provided in Utah Code Annotated title 63, chapter 5a, or any successor provisions;
P.Perform Other Prescribed Duties: Performing such other duties as may be prescribed or permitted by law, including: issuing proclamations; vetoing ordinances, tax levies and appropriations, subject to City Council veto override as provided by State law; and performing such other duties as may be prescribed by State law or may be required by ordinance not inconsistent with law.
(1979 Code § 2.06.030; Ord. 93-14, 3-30-1993)
-1A-3: BUDGETARY EXPENDITURES; AUTHORITY:
A.Director Of Management Services: The director of management services may approve:
1. Payroll checks, prepared in accordance with the pay plan;
2. Payroll related expenses;
3. Routine, nondepartmental expenditures for the daily operations of the city, such as utility bills, rents, building and grounds maintenance, supplies and materials;
4. Payments on city approved contracts; and
5. Capital improvement expenditures authorized by the city council under the capital improvement plan adopted for the current fiscal year.
B.Department Directors: Department directors may approve any expenditure of funds, not exceeding twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00), which is authorized under the approved budget for their respective departments. A department director may authorize a division manager, officer or employee within the department, to approve such departmental expenditures by filing a letter of certification identifying the division manager, officer or employee and describing the type of expenditures and the dollar limit amount for any one expenditure; provided that any officer or employee who is not a division manager may only be authorized to approve expenditures not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). Any departmental expenditure exceeding twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) shall be approved by the mayor or the chief administrative officer, if so designated by the mayor.
C.Mayor; Budget Officer: The mayor shall have such powers as designated to the "budget officer" under the uniform fiscal procedures act and may designate an officer of the city to act as the budget officer in the mayor's absence.
D.Office Of City Council: The executive director of the city council may approve any expenditure of funds, not exceeding twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00), which is authorized under the approved budget for the city council office. The executive director may authorize other council staff to approve expenditures under five hundred dollars ($500.00) by filing a letter of certification with the finance officer identifying the authorized staff and describing the type of expenditures and the dollar limit amount which may be approved by the applicable staff person. Any expenditure exceeding twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) shall be approved by the chair of the city council. Transfers of unencumbered or unexpended appropriations from one expenditure account to another, within the departmental budget approved for the office of the city council, shall be approved by the chair of the city council.
(1979 Code § 3.02.030; Ord. 94-31, 7-26-1994; amd. Ord. 2000-57, 10-17-2000; Ord. 2003-66, 11-18-2003)
You can access this at: http://66.113.195.234/UT/Ogden/index.htm
Curm...
Ms Wicks is certainly deserving of praise for asking for that financial information, which is still to be forthcoming.
Pleae don't overlook Mrs. Jeske for her integrity and her refusal to meet PRIVATELY with Godfrey. She promised her constituents that she would keep 'the light on' council doings.
She's done just that.
If Ms Wicks and Mrs Jeske continue to stand up for what is right, perhaps they will be able to bring some others along with them.
Abner:
Not dissing anyone on the council. [And my snarky crack above was intended to compliment Councilwoman Wicks, not to criticize her.]
I like members who ask questions. Lots of questions, as Ms. Jeske does. At meetings. At work sessions. Between them. All the time. It's how the system is supposed to work. And when members stop asking hard questions, or accept non-answers as answers, or become cheerleaders dazzled by what the SE Editorial Board calls "the wow factor," they end up making bad policy and the city suffers.
A good proposal for the city should be able to stand up to any and all questions raised by Council members, the press or any others.
That's what's so telling about the Mayor's reply when he was asked at one of his Tuesday Night Gondola Soirees and Lift Ogden Cheerleading Sessions why he would not make public the figures he claimed to have, the studies he claimed had been done, supporting the Peterson proposals. He said "the only reason people are asking to see the numbers is so they can attack them."
If I were a mayor and I was proposing some big public project, and I believed my numbers were good, I'd want them out there. I'd publish them every way I could. I fax them to the project opponents. I'd invite people to have at them. Why? Because I'd be convinced going in that my numbers were good and could stand up to public scrutiny from any source. [If I didn't have numbers I was absolutely certain could stand up to public scrutiny, why in the world would I be pitching the project in the first place?]
Clearly, the Mayor thinks otherwise about his numbers, and prefers to keep them hidden to avoid public scrutiny. Hidden from you. From me. From the Council. From the press. From everyone not already tight with Peterson and his Lift Ogden Amen Choir.
That speaks volumes, I'd say, about the feasibility of the Peterson land specualtion and gondola/gondola scheme and its probability of being successful at doing something other than simply devouring 20% of the city's parklands for a housing development.
Dian,
The general answer to your question is that the Council doesn't micromanage the budget down to the level of every check that is written--though presumably if it wanted to, it could.
Instead, the Council approves various amounts of money for various budget categories, and the administration can then spend whatever it wants as long as it stays within the allocated amounts for each category. I don't know the details, but it's easy to guess plausible scenarios for most of the gondola-related expenditures. For example, there are probably budget categories for the mayor's travel, for GIS (mapping) work, for printing newspaper ads and utility bill inserts, and so on. I believe there's also a mayor's discretionary fund that he can spend on practically anything.
The one gondola-related expenditure that puzzles me is the $60,000 feasibility study that I mentioned earlier. I believe I heard or read something at the time about which budget category this came from, but I don't remember what it was, and I find it odd that such a large amount of excess money could be found in any budget category--and that there would be a budget category that could be interpreted to include gondola feasibility studies.
Ordinarily it's a good thing for the Council not to micromanage the budget, because it would be far too cumbersome. But when you have a mayor who concocts a grandiose scheme for a project that's in conflict with the city's general plan, and who commits all the city resources he can to futher that scheme and lobby the Council to amend the plan to accommodate it, without consulting or even adequately informing the Council, I think it's time for the Council to pull in the reins. This undoubtedly isn't an easy thing to do. Someone might have to put in a whole lot of time, totally rewriting the budget rather than merely tweaking what the administration submits. Perhaps a better approach would be for the Council to pass an ordinance specifically prohibiting certain types of expenditures, regardless of the budget category they come from. For instance, perhaps the Council could pass an ordinance prohibiting expenditures for proposed projects that are inconsistent with the city's general plan, or an ordinance prohibiting the mayor from using city resources to lobby the Council, or an ordinance requiring explicit Council approval for any expense over a certain amount paid to an outside contractor.
Don't forget this gem: Please forward this link to every cop and firefighter you know, they'll get a big kick out of it!
http://tinyurl.com/o2y7f
I enjoy the heck out of this article. Especially funny are quotes like... "Spearheading the initiative is Ogden’s mayor, Matthew Godfrey, who despite his responsibilities for a city with 750 employees and a budget of $110 million, and oversight of everything from the local police to animal control, estimates that he spends about 25% of his time angling for ski companies."....and I'll guarantee you that 25% of his salary won't show up on Councilwoman Wick's GRAMA request. That 25% of his time should mean he could relinquish 25% of his salary, maybe to the police and fire personnel who only make 25% of his salary in the first place. What great integrity this man has! Of course, it's all for our own good, because ...."He admits there are no solid financial models as to the real financial benefits for Ogden that the ski industry can actually deliver"....(except a guar-an-teeeed 1200000 jobs, $4 billion for schools, from a $500 million bazillion investment). Studies have apparently never shown effective and profesional police and fire services to be beneficial to a city, I suppose.
Also fun are quotes like..."Godfrey has widespread local support for his drive to attract ski companies. “Even the usual nay-sayers have been surprisingly quiet” (the only folks against this things are crazies who are out to get me!) ...
"Ski companies are being lured with a million dollar tax breaks if they create 50 part time jobs"...but hispanic supermarkets with full time jobs and actual benefits are shown the door. And not the front door, heavens no!...And, !godfreydammit! Ho can you be on the snow in 20 minutes? I'm pretty tired of hearing that...no matter if you went to Powder, Basin, or Wolf Creek, you couldn't drive to any of them in 20 minutes. Maybe after the bird flu hits you could.
Curm,
I never even hinted that you were 'dissing' Ms Wicks!
I think she's a great gal. I hope she and the others won't give an inch in pressing for all the financial records and keep the press involved.
I was maintaining that Mrs Jeske be included as another with integrity and the two women can lead the council to do the 'right' things.
Dan S and Anonymous...always good to read what you have to say, Dan.
I think that the council rewriting the budget and passing an ordinance that prohibits the mayor's out of control spending carte blanche are ideas to explore.
Anonymous....you are right about the Hispanic 'out the door' episode. Put a dollar figure to the many hours Godfrey and his employees have expended pushing this plan that is not in keeping with the general plan. Sure comes to more than $6000. doesn't it?
This guy is worse than anything operating out of Cicero, ILL decades ago.!
Wasn't the little mayor who fired rocky as his first order of business when he was elected in 99.
When it comes to the duties of the mayor, why is it that the new water utility manager was never voted upon by the city council? read the folling!
M.Make Appointments To Directors, Officers And Agents: Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, hiring and making all appointments regarding department directors, officers and agents, subject to the advice and consent of the City Council where required by State law, and disciplining or terminating the same;
subject to the advice and consent of the City Council where required by State law,
so where was the vote of city council?
now once again did the mayor break the law by not taking it to a vote!
Here come the severance packages!!!
Pay attention to the Weber County Commissioners.
Their headed down the same path as Ogden City.
All three Commissioners just voted to add more administration, thanks to Nate Pierce. According to the Standard Examiner Pierce will have someone help do his job at $50,000 to $65,000 a year? Pierce receives $85,000 a year.
June 13, 2006; Public hearing to consider changing Career Status of the following job positions from Merit to Exempt: Assistant Director, Department of Operations
Property Management, Division Manager
Planning & Zoning, Division Manager
Roads & Highways, Division Manager
County Engineer, Division Manager
Nate Pierce, County Operations Director, stated that at the last budget hearings he had raised the issue of possibly exempting members of the management team in the
Operations Department. The Director and the Solid Waste Manager positions are already exempt. He said that today’s action would allow more flexibility in dealing with individuals, both to discipline and reward, and that it in no way reflected negativity toward any employee.
Commissioner Cain stated that this issue had been discussed for some time. These employees represented a tremendous amount of intellectual capital to county government and the people of Weber County and this was in no way negative toward any employee. The purpose of this was to provide an opportunity for management to actually increase productivity and to complement the work being done in those divisions. She thanked all the managers in the Operations Department for the time and energy they contribute to the county. Commissioner Cain moved to approve the change in career status of the listed employees; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.
This is the same hook, line, and sucker rationale that Ogden City bought into. Look at the severance packages Nate Pierce, and Stuart Reid received! Now these directors will be demanding severance packages when they want to get out.
The Commissioners keep shelling out tax money to all these venders for the county fair, lobbyists, and other special interests. Then when Law Enforcement begs for a raise: are they going to say the same thing as Ogden City? "There just isn’t enough money in the budget."
Watch out taxpayers.
All three County Commissioners bought into it!!!!!!
Well here we go again,
The commissioners are saying that we need to combine the recorder and the surveyor office to save some money. when in reality all the did was remove a check and balance as well as accountiblity for the tax payer. now with that saving, they are going to spend the money for some one to do Nate Peirce's job. because he is enept to do it him self or is because he didn't win the commission race so lets make him a honerary commissioner anyway, so he can show up and just collect a pay check on the taxer dime. he is already pulling a pension from the military and now form ogden city, with a fat 100.000 dallor severance pay, and now 85,000 from the county, boy these republicans really know how to take care of themselves. and they don't call this corruption. does any one out there see all the crap that is taking place here. I think it is time to get rid of the repulican right wing crooks, all of them, that goes for crook croft too.
Dan, thanks. That clarifies things somewhat, but I still think a line item report in those categories should be available to the council members immediately upon request. Just to see what's going where when.
For example, in looking at the proposed gondola project, it has been sold as a "public/private project." One would imagine that the reason city money, time, and resources have been spent on it is because of the "public" part.
But if we look closely, we will see that it is very easy to delineate these two facets, even though it has been said that every facet of the project is dependent on another (what could be termed the domino approach,) and that all facets must be approved before it can get off the ground---still, there are definitely two parts to the project, the public and the private.
The "public" part of the project would be the "urban gondola." Full stop. Nothing else.
In view of this, one would expect city funds to be spent mainly on the feasibility of that and very minimally, how the resort/housing development would impinge upon the city, and this would be only in order to make an informed decision as to whether or not to go through with the project.
Anything dealing specifically with the resort or mountain gondola, since, as it is frequently mentioned, those projects are on Private Land, should not be within the city's jurisdiction, (since it is in the county,) or the city's responsibility to fund.
This is because of the way this project has changed over the year. Now that the grand plan is to sell the golf course to Peterson, what we have here is a simple real estate transaction which, once completed, should result in Ogden City and Chris Peterson going their separate ways to work on their separate parts.
And it is therefore my opinion that the only city money spent on this should be on the need for and feasibility of the urban gondola and also, as I stated earlier, how the resort/housing development will impinge upon the city of Ogden concerning water, flood control, sewage, population congestion, etc. This in order to foster and protect the city's well-being.
If the city is working on anything regarding the mountain half of the project, it should be that last, in my opinion. Money should not be being spent on how wonderful the resort will be or in promoting it in any way, and yet it seems that this is most of what we hear.
Councilwoman Wicks' request is therefore entirely proper and it is amazing that the information was not provided immediately. The request shows the council exerting its fiduciary duty to us, which duty I believe it does have. If it doesn't, it certainly should.
Sharon
I didn't mean to say that the outlet stores have shoddy merchandise. After all, most of it is made in China like most other textiles we now have available in the US. That merchandise is of varying quality, most is actually quite well made.
The point is: Customers of these stores are not getting the high end first class stuff they think they are getting. These are not unsold items from their chi chi stores on Fifth Avenue and Rodeo Drive.
Most of the original, and outrageously high priced, stuff incidently is made in sweat shops in the Garment District of New York City by low paid immigrants - most from China and Puerto Rico.
There is so much corruption in the administration (mayor's office specifically) and also the Council's executive director's office. I'm referring to Dan S.'s posting: "10-8-1. Control of finances and property.
The boards of commissioners and city councils of cities shall have the power to control the finances and property of the corporation." Last November/December the "old gang of 5" passed the mayor's amendment to that State law that takes that control of property away from the Council. Did you know that the mayor does not have to have the approval of the council to sell Mt. Ogden Golf Course? Where in the hell was Bill Cook at this time? He is the expert and supposed to look out for the best interests of the council! I feel that he sold the council out! The Council has GOT TO ASSERT itself and regain the powers that the State Law has provided for it and it has got to do it NOW!! As Ms. Fluhart asks in her commentary, "Why are some Ogden officials rushing to commit to the Peterson development?" Time is running out for them. She also states that "Timing is everything." If the Council doesn't assert itself NOW, the mayor will have irrevocably sold Ogden's irreplacable assets for what? Come on, Jesse, you were put in leadership of the Council, show us that you are a leader! If you can't lead the Council, you sure as hell can't lead the city as mayor, if that is your goal.
We need some strong leadership of the Council, and we haven't seen it yet except for what Wicks and Jeske have shown. Let Bill Cook know that he is supposed to be working for the council, not the mayor, and if he can't make that distinction then the council needs to replace him with someone who can serve them and only them and guide them appropriately in their lawful responsibilities and take back the authority the mayor has usurped from them.
Ogden has started to turn around even before The Frontrunner is here. We don't need a land grab deal with a gimmick gondola to make things happen for Ogden. Let's give the rec center, the Junction and the river front projects a chance. Let's put our energy and money towards making them happen instead of some scheme that hasn't provided any feasibility studies to show that it's even a workable plan. I understand that the WSU land is nothing but a major earthquake fault with millions of little faults going in every direction, and that whole mountain side is unstable. It would be insane to build an upscale gated community on it!
My advice to Mayor Godfrey (though he will reject it because he knows more than any other person on this earth) is to spend your time and money where it will benefit Ogden the most -- DOWNTOWN!! Finish what you start before you go off with some other project. Maybe you wouldn't have the opposition that you do, if you would just finish one thing! You claim that your integrity is important to you and that you have high integrity -- let us see it! So far we haven't seen any.
Well, Dan E., what one Council can do, a subsequent one can undo. The law you refer to, in case anyone wants to read the whole thing, is 4-3A-5 in the Ogden Municipal Code and starts off:
. Every sale, lease, encumbrance, or other conveyance of city owned real property shall be made by the mayor, or under the mayor's express written authority.
I agree that this is concentrating too much power in the hands of the Administration. But all that would be required on the part of the present Council would be an amendment or revision to that law. The Council, being after all, the Legislative body, can do this at any time because they are our Law Making Body. They are not simply our Law Following Body.
It could be changed to read:
Every sale, lease, encumbrance, or other conveyance of city owned real property shall be made by the mayor, with the approval of the Ogden City Council.
Or:
Every sale, lease, encumbrance, or other conveyance of city owned real property shall only be made by the mayor on condition of agreement of a two-thirds majority vote of the Ogden City Council.
Or in whatever legally binding language it takes to get whatever they want to do with it across. And then, of course, follow down through the entire ordinance, making changes as necessary.
They could change this as soon as they put the right language together as long as they had the votes to change it, I think.
4-3A-5: CONVEYANCE OF CITY REAL PROPERTY
Dian,
I'm afraid I disagree with your delineation of what parts of the Peterson proposal the city should and shouldn't spend money on. As the proposal currently stands, you can't really separate the urban gondola from the rest of it. If the mountain resort doesn't succeed (highly likely), or the foothill development doesn't raise enough money to fund the mountain resort (also very likely), the city will be left owning an urban gondola that goes nowhere. So it's very much in the city's interest to understand the mountain resort and the foothill development in as much detail as the urban gondola--and that could very well entail spending some money.
However, I would maintain that the city should spend no money on this proposal until we actually have a proposal! It should be up to the prospective developer to take the initial step of conducting some sort of feasibility study and then bringing a formal proposal to the city. At that point, the city can decide whether the proposal merits further consideration and if so, whether to spend any of its own money on independent analysis (a second opinion). Instead, we seem to have a city administration that's actually doing the developer's work for him, preparing maps and promotional materials and already lobbying the Council to approve the non-proposal.
The urban gondola is a bit more complicated because it sortof also serves as transit within the city. I don't believe for a minute that the mayor ever intended the urban gondola as a stand-alone project, but that is what he basically pretended in 2004 when he paid for the feasibility study done by RG Consultants, and when he got the gondola option added to the UTA/WFRC transit corridor study. The latter study concluded that a gondola could probably work as urban mass transit, but wouldn't be as cost effective as the more conventional options. That study also recommended six stations, of which only three are included in the version of the gondola that's now being proposed. (They've also added two more stations that were not recommended in the study.) I said that the currently proposed gondola, as a stand-alone system, would "go nowhere" because it would make too few stops to replace the local 603 bus, and it wouldn't offer any significant benefit over the bus. Anyhow, it's not entirely inconceivable that a stand-alone urban gondola could have been found to be feasible and cost effective, so in principle, it could have been appropriate for the city to pay for that $60,000 feasibility study by RG Consultants, but it should have been done with the Council's explicit approval through the budget process, instead of by diverting money from something else.
None of which is meant to imply that the administration has done anything illegal in spending all this money on the Peterson project. Unfortunately, it seems that the Council has given the administration a great deal of discretion in the budget, and the administration has used that discretion in ways that I consider unethical. A colleague of mine once told me he had heard the mayor express the opinion that anything that's legal, at least for a business or government, is ethical (if I recall correctly). Such an attitude would explain a lot. The only cure, I'm afraid, is for the Council to restrict what is legal.
On a completely different subject, today was the first Farmer's Market of the season in downtown Ogden, and it appeared to be a huge success. More booths, I would say, than ever before, and more patrons as well. Great music from Blue Sage. Great conversations among old friends and new. Not many farmers there so early in the season, and the few that were there sold out pretty fast. I'm sure that will change as the summer goes on. All in all, a great event that manifestly disproves the often-heard claim that Ogden is in a downward spiral.
Dan,
I disagree. I think we can separate this project into two parts. At one time, I thought that they wanted the urban part of it to end at WSU just so they could show that it was indeed servicing the community, and not for the sole purpose of servicing the resort.
In fact, one of the transit studies made stated, (or someone stated about it, can't recall,) that there was not enough data on how gondolas worked for public transportation to study that data.
In thinking of making this response, I envisioned myself getting on it and riding downtown to the 23rd street station, since I do not go up to WSU all that frequently. And then back up the hill, and getting off at the 23rd and Harrison station. This is probably all the good it would do me personally, if you could call that good.
And it crossed my mind that a cab might be cheaper.
Have not taken a cab in Ogden. Do take the airport shuttle sometimes, and just looking at that price compared to most gondola prices, land transport might be a better deal economically for those of us who live here.
To me, the distinction of public and private is one we really ought to be making. If this gondola is going to benefit members of the public in their daily lives, then public money should be put into it. But if it is simply for the purpose of ferrying people to a private developer's resort, then I would say no.
Here is what the Portland public has had to say about their new tram:
I don't work at OHSU or live in a multimillion-dollar condo in the South Waterfront ... why would I need to ride the tram?"
"Sure, I'll ride it. Why not? Great views, I'm sure."
"More bleeding of the taxpayer."
"It doesn't seem any more convenient than driving up to the hill. But it's a novelty..."
More quotes here: Portland Business Journal
Dian,
I'm having trouble understanding your position. For many purposes, sure, we can consider various parts of the proposed project on their own merits. But we already know enough about the urban gondola to know that it cannot stand on its own merits as a transit system between downtown and WSU: the streetcar and bus-rapid-transit options are more cost effective, and even the current local bus service looks about as good as the particular version of the gondola that's now being proposed. (This isn't to say that the gondola doesn't offer advantages to some users. For relatively short trips the gondola's 30-second headway is a big advantage, and you don't care so much about its low speed. But the currently proposed version doesn't allow for many possible short trips, since there are so few stations.)
Given that the urban gondola can't really stand on its own, its promoters really have no choice but to try to sell it as part of a package. Their argument is that because riders can transfer to the mountain gondola and ride up to the Malan's Basin resort, the urban gondola will attract huge numbers of people who wouldn't ride a streetcar or bus. I doubt that this argument is true, but even if it is, it's irrelevant if the mountain resort is never built, or if the mountain resort goes out of business. Hence, if the city is going to consider investing in the urban gondola, we'd better make sure the mountain resort is feasible and properly managed.
Of course, we could also start from the other direction: ask first whether the mountain resort could stand on its own, without the urban gondola. I suspect that the answer is again no, but perhaps someone out there believes otherwise, and at this point, we can only speculate because there have been no relevant feasibility studies. The mayor, though, has been pretty explicit in saying that none of the parts of this proposal can stand on their own, and therefore "it all has to happen at once." If you think about it, he's being quite candid to admit how tenuous the whole scheme is. Of course, he claims that if you put it all together, it becomes a guaranteed success. My response: A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and there are dozens of links whose strength is highly questionable.
What Dian and Dan S are dicussing is very interesting.
About the council's authority and lack thereof...I can't see any problem with inserting the language that Dian has proposed.
"Every sale, lease, encumbrance....shall be made with the express approval of the City Council...."
How simple is that? I find it appalling that the former council was so asleep at the switch to hand over ALL power to this mayor!It appears on its face that these changes would be easy for this council to do.
And post haste!!!!
As for Bill Cook...this council needs to look around for a replacement quickly.
He lobbied for SB229 at the Legislature. That's the bill that abolished the civil service commission and protections for firefighters from any vengeful mayor.
He left the council out to fend for themselves over the Ernest Hospital fiasco. He was asked for information and background on Brockette and Ernest, and Bill didn't give it to them.
They had no choice but to question Brockette in the public council meeting. They were welcoming and kind, but they did their due diligence there because Godfrey and his sycophants wouldn't cooperate.
So, if Ernest really does go somewhere else, put the blame on Godfrey and Cook.
The council has to start working together as a cohesive unit. Jesse needs to step us and be the leader! He's been there 13 years, I'm sure he knows where a lot of bodies are buried.
I don't see much hope in Stephenson cooperating with the council in making the proper changes...and Glassman worries me too.
But, for the sake of this city, this council MUST act as a unit to address the egregious language and transfer of powers to the mayor that his rubber stamp council endowed him with.
On another note....Peterson must pay for all studies, maps, brochures, videos, and every other piece of propagands associated with his dreeeeeam.
It's disconcerting, telling and a big red flag that he waffled over paying for the paperwork required to start the process that will go before the council.
Does this guy have ANY money? Is Mrs. Peterson the banker here? What is her role?
We don't know how solvent this guy is. Who are his 'investors'? That should be public knowledge.
I agree with others who post here that Peterson will not build a in malan's nor will he build his own tram up there.
How many YEARS would it take to complete any of this scam?
He only wants our precious land.
A plea to WSU...don't sell any land to Peterson. Since this whole scheme is a 'house of cards'...pull one, they all fall, we taxpayers must stand firm and the council has to get on the ball!
Dan,
Oh.
I see where you're coming from. I did not mean to imply that I thought the urban gondola could stand on its own as public transportation. I do not think that.
I was looking at splitting the project into two parts as a possible method of ascertaining who should be paying for what.
And parts of this question are very difficult. Take, for example, the housing development. Should Ogden City pay for studies as to whether that development is feasible? On the surface, one would say definitely not--it is a private project by a private developer.
However, in making the decision as to whether or not to sell that land for such a purpose, one wonders if we should rely solely on developer studies. The nightmares that people are now undergoing as their houses slide down the sides of mountains are an indication that perhaps we should not.
So that is all I was doing with that---trying to figure out a way to allocate costs. I would vote no for the city to pay on the following: any promotional material geared toward the resort or housing development, including TV coverage, DVD's, written materials, staff to prepare materials, arrange meetings, and make calls, etc. Because that is not our project--it's Peterson's project.
I would vote yes on studies having anything having to do with the impact these proposed developments might have on Ogden: Will the sewer system accommodate 400 new homes, how will the water supply and existing drainage systems (which have some problems now,) be affected, can the roads in that area handle the increased vehicle traffic, and things of that nature.
That is very simplistic and by no means all inclusive. There may even be a few things I haven't thought of that might cause these opinions to change, but I was intentionally not looking at the whole picture in trying to find a way to fairly distribute costs.
Dian,
Ok, now I understand what you're saying. In terms of who should pay for feasibility studies, at this point I think it has to be Peterson (or his mysterious "investors"). He needs to commission a credible feasibility study of his foothill development and mountain resort, taking a preliminary look at all aspects of technical and economic feasibility. He doesn't need to re-do the feasibility study for the urban leg of the gondola because that's essentially been done--he can merely pay a few thousand to have it updated for the revised alignment. After this study is complete and the full report has been made public, it would be up to the city (i.e., the Council, since the mayor doesn't even pretend to have an independent viewpoint) to scrutinize the report. They could then decide that parts of it are incomplete and ask Peterson to go back and fill in the gaps. They could decide to hire their own experts to provide a second opinion on any questionable aspects. Also, independent entities such as WSU and Smart Growth Ogden could chime in with whatever expertise they have or are willing to pay for. But because the whole project is a house of cards (switching to abner's metaphor), I don't think there's any significant portion that the Council could conscientiously ignore, trusting whatever Peterson says. For instance, even though the proposed ski area is entirely (during phase 1) on private land, it's the Council's duty to insist on seeing Peterson's design for the ski area, projected dates of operation, number of skier visits, revenue, expenses, etc., in order to determine whether he's being realistic and whether the resort is likely to be a success.
Well, Helloooo, Dan!
Isn't this what so many of us have been saying, but not as succintly, for a lonnng time now??
Again, how solvent is Peterson, who are his investors?
Until and unless Peterson does all his due diligence on his own nickel, I can't see why WSU or Ogden has to pay for a study or report of any kind.
It is a house of cards, and we hold the aces.
RealTiger:
It's not just Peterson. Lift Ogden claims there are investors just waint to build and develop a multi-million dollar five star hotel downtown if the gondola goes through its lobby. But they won't say who it is or how the financing will be arranged. And the Mayor insists he has "private" doners willing to pick up the tab for whatever it will cost to build the city end of the gondola/gondola system [downtown to WSU] over and above what the city would make from the sale of the Mt. Ogden parklands to Peterson, but he can't us who they are or exactly how much they've agreed to pony up of the current estimate of $36 million in construction costs [and rising.] Oh, and he can't tell us how much the city will get from selling the parklands either.
A shell game within a shell game within a shell game. Any day now, I expect Godfrey/Peterson and their Lift Ogden Amen Choir to claim they have aquired exclusive ownership of the Brooklyn Bridge and will finance the gondola/gondola by selling it to a buyer they can't name for a price they can't reveal. It would make about as much sense as what they've told us so far.
Just this past year, Representative Neil Hansen tried to get a law passed that would mandate anyone involved in one of these "public/private partnerships" to show their financials to the municipality. Anyone remember the number of that bill or know where we could find it? (I want to be sure I'm remembering it correctly.
It failed. I think they said it would drive away business.
Baffling to me, because I wouldn't think we would Want to do business with people who will not divulge whether or not they are capable of doing business with us.
Scam artists, in other words.
We can compare this with a graduate of Ogden City's Good Landlord Program.
Would a Good Landlord rent to someone without ascertaining whether or not that person could pay?
And if Mayor Godfrey knows this information and is not divulging it to the public, shouldn't it be divulged to us because it is public money that will be involved, and public property? Aren't we supposed to be able to see those things?
Wonder what would happen if someone GRAMAed them.
I have found it amusing when Curmudgeon and others point out the Little Lord's inane logic when he refuses to answer questions or divulge important public information because it will only be used against him and his "A" team by the "nayhsayers".
I just read an interesting article about the biggest bit of corruption in American Business history - the Enron collapse.
Seem that for several months before the big Enron crash there were a number of "naysayers", including the New York Times, that were raising red flags and asking pointed questions.
Jeff Skilling, the recently convicted perpitrator of these crimes, was refusing to answer questions. His rationale - yep, you guessed it, the same as the Little Lord's: - "People who raise questions are people who want to throw rocks at us".
Is it true that hubris laden criminal minds work in the same way?
Yes! Ozboy, criminal minds are found to be in the same mold. i find it fascinating to watch shows about serial killers and how their minds work. Also, bank robbers, and criminals who scam, big time!
Similarities in all.
RealTiger, thanx. EX Mrs. Peterson, he? So, absolutley NO ties to Hodling and all those billions?
I agree with you all, Curm RT, Oz and Dian.
The public has a right o kow who is coming into town. That horse hitched outside the corral don't look white to me!
They kinda had it right in the old days, didn't they?
Didn't like the looks and attitude of the dude stranger, they just ran him outta Dodge,
And, his little sneaky sidekick went with him, afore the sun went down.
Sharon:
You wrote "That horse hitched outside the corral don't look white to me!"
Nice. In chewing over the same ground a lot, as folks will more or less have to so long as the gondola/gondola Peterson land speculation scheme is on the boards, the language gets kind of repetitious over time. Rare to find a new image and nicely made like That horse hitched outside the corral don't look white to me! Nicely done.
Dian,
Your right I think this is exactly what needs to be done when a public private partnership is created.
but isn't it something that the Ogden city managment fought against this bill, HB113 as sponsered by Rep. Neil Hansen Rep. Hansen told me that he even had a work session with the city council to discuss this very issue and the whole reason for the bill was because of no accountablity for the $5,000,000.00 law suit steming from the mall site and woodbury corp. That work session if I remeber right was in feb aroung the 12 of that month. you may want to get the minutes and read them some very interesting reading. I can't link them because the city's web site didn't publish them on their web.
Thanx for the compliment, Curm.
You add a bit of humor (more than a bit) in some of your meanderings around town also.
See, I told you....are you saying that Hansen spole to THIS council THIS past Feb? Not to the 'old' council?
ozboy,
Great quote from Skilling! Can you document where you got it? I might have occasion to use it some day, but would want to have the source nailed down in case there are any questions.
The Skilling quote was in the article "Is Enron overpriced" which appeared in the March 5, 2001 edition of Fortune Magazine. This was just before Enron imploded. It was also reported in several news papers at that time, including the New York Times.
Sharon
That is true. and from what I was told that Jesse Garcia spoke out against it also. Who's side is he on anyway?
He really is not much of a leader if he doesn't look out for the people!
See I Told You:
In Re: Garcia. Just one caution: it is usually not a good idea to draw large conclusions from the stand of an elected offcial on a single vote or issue. I don't think I could name one elected official [at any level], even ones I've voted for and campaigned for, who voted as I would have wished on every issue. Elected officials can differ, in a principled way, with you, or me, without necessarily betraying the voters. It simply may be that they have a different take on the matter than you or I do.
Differing with me on a matter is unwise, of course, and is never to be encouraged in elected officials, but, alas, it does happen. All it may mean, though, is that the official has chosen poorly, not that he's sold out, or abandoned his principles, or betrayed "the people" etc.
Comment moved to front page by adminstrator
"Stonewalled?" Interesting assumption about why Wicks was not afforded an overnight answer to her gondola expense by the city question. Wasn't that question asked during the budget sessions, when most if not all of the attention was on that? Seems reasonable that it took some time to get some answers.
As for being incomplete, did anyone who is complaining here get a look at Wick's questionaire? Did Wicks ask for as detailed a response that we all assume she didn't get? Did she ask for "hard" and complete facts or what?
I'd like to know if anyone has these answers. I suppose that one could break down this issue in any number of ways that might raise or lower the figure to meet one's own personal needs.
It's the Government here, and sometimes things don't move like an F-15. Other things are on the plate, too.
Weber County Commissioners don’t know how to use the mail system, or a phone, or emails. They’d just rather shell out your money, to lobbyist, to do their job.
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF WEBER COUNTY
Tuesday, October 4, 2005 - 10:00 a.m.
Commission Chambers, Weber Center, Ogden, Utah
Consulting Agreement between Weber County and the Ferguson Group L.L.C. - Contract C2005-125
Commissioner Cain stated that the Ferguson Group represented various governmental agencies throughout the United States in Washington, D.C. to help garner support from Congress for certain projects that counties or cities might undertake. The Commission had been in contact with Ferguson for about two years and had talked with a number of those who had worked with Ferguson. Over the years that Ferguson has been in business, 98% of the contracting agencies have continued their contracts because they find them effective. Ferguson has met with Weber County department heads and reviewed what issues the county might seek federal funding for. Commissioner Cain noted that Weber County only receives a minute portion of the millions of dollars coming into the State. There are a number of pressing issues for Weber County and Ferguson has the expertise at the federal level.
The contract amount is $120,000 per year or $10,000/month payment to Ferguson. Commissioner Cain said that the Commission had considered this contract seriously because they believed Ferguson would be effective in representing the county. She added that under this contract there was no percentage paid of any gain to the county. The contract can be terminated with a 30-day termination notice. Chair Bischoff said that several years ago the county paid about $30,000/year for a State lobbyist and he felt the county could more effectively lobby locally for itself. He stated that the Ferguson Group was well versed in Washington and would represent the county's position on issues. Ferguson had been very successful and retention of clients was very indicative of their accomplishments. Commissioner Dearden felt it was worthwhile to go forward with a trial of this contract.
Commissioner Dearden moved to approve Contract C2005-125, Consulting Agreement between Weber County and the Ferguson Group L.L.C.; Commissioner Cain seconded, all voting aye
New comments are not allowed.