Blog readership patterns are something we watch with great interest here at Weber County Forum. Blog traffic tends to follow a predictable ebb and flow, with readership steadily increasing on Mondays through Thursdays, and then gradually tapering off on Fridays through Sundays. Absent important breaking news, long holidays such as the current Thanksgiving one, even more strongly exhibit the weekend tendency. This is due in part, we think, to the fact that local print news agencies, upon whom we often depend as providers of topic-springboards, tend to operate with limited holiday staffs, and thus reduce news coverage during these extended periods. Another factor, we think, is that a fair-sized segment of our readership inexplicably find other things to do on weekends and holidays besides blogging, a state of affairs we franky find difficult to comprehend and also deem borderline horrifying, here within the first decade of our brave new 21st-centuryt cyber-society.
Our web statistics also reveal however that we have a core segment of dedicated readers who continue to log in daily, regardless of the condition of the calendar. We've even heard from several of them via email. "Post something new," they beseech us. And it is for those dedicated and hard-core gentle readers that we now resist the impulse to take the rest of the weekend off, and have instead decided to establish now a new Thanksgiving weekend open thread.
We invite our readers once again to chime in on whatever topics suit their fancy, and consider this thread wide open. Your humble blogmeister will be distracted this afternoon, watching his alma mater (Utah) battling the evil BYU juggernaut. We doubt we'll post anything new today, unless our beloved Utah Utes somehow miraculously defy the punters' odds.
Just to get things rolling, however, we're linking three items found whilst googling:
First, it seems that Emerald City employees will be receiving an unexpected pecuniary bonus, just in time for Christmas. We don't know whether this is a good thing or not. Perhaps our gentle readers will share their own takes on this:
City health plan pays off -- Ogden city employees to get $307,138 in bonuses
Next, our readers will recall that we made a great fuss a few weeks ago, about the Emerald City Council's failure and refusal to provide application materials submitted by the five finalists for the recent vacancy on the City Council. The Standard-Examiner was irked enough about denial of its GRAMA request, that it unleashed its media lawyer, it appears. Today's Dave Greiling column informs us today that the impasse has been at least partly resolved, with the voluntary production of materials on another three of the five candidates. We thus invite our readers' comments on the latest posture in this matter. Should the Std-Ex continue to press Emerald City authorities for the release of the other yet-undisclosed candidate information (John Thompson,) or should the Std-Ex just let the whole matter slide from here on?
In the end, Ogden comes through on public access issue
Finally, we link a thought-provocative Michael Moore piece from the L.A. Times, which reflects upon the aftermath of the November 7 election. Like him or not, I believe we can all agree that Mr. Moore makes a few pretty danged good points. Or can we?
Michael Moore's pledge - The liberal filmmaker extends an olive branch to disheartened conservatives (Free registration required)
The floor is open, and we're leaving the lights on while we prepare to occupy our trusty barca-lounger, to obsess over this afternoon's BYU-Utah "Holy War."
Don't let the cat get your tongues.
Update 11/26/06 10:55 a.m. MT: One of our sharp-eyed readers got this morning's Standard-Examiner story right in the lower comments thread:
"I just read the Standard-Examiner this morning, city recieves less than expected on settlement from Shupe Williams fire. Doug Stephens says they will have to cut back in other areas to make up the difference.
When are the Council going to relize that this is the same phoney cost estimates always submitted by the Mayor and his croneys. This is so typical of Matt Godfrey and his little over paid bunch of minions."
Keep in mind that this morning's reported half-million dollar shortfall operates in addition to another half-million dollars by which the RDA fell short, when it last January activated a $3 million credit line in anticipation of the originally-expected Shupe Williams $2.5 million insurance settlement.
Of course Boss Godfrey is completely unfazed by all this. And we just loved this Boss Godfrey quote: "'We are not caught in a deficit situation,' he (Godfrey) said Friday. He didn’t provide any details."
That's a million buck shortfall, gentle readers. Have no fear. Be assurred that Boss Godfrey can pull chump-change like that out of his ass, if he needs to. All hail the ever-unruffled Boss Godfrey.
"God save us from God-Free," other more prudent Emerald City citizens wail, as they check their calenders and bleakly observe that the next municipal election/Godfrey referendum remains still nearly a year down the road.
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
46 comments:
Extending the olive branch? After he EATS all the leaves?
"John Thompson, declined to give permission"
I'll definitely keep this in mind the next time John Thompson runs for elective political office.
Our perennial political candidate obviously doesn't "get it".
Kudos to Van Hossen, Grijalva, Taylor and Florence, the four finalists who voluntarily opted for transparency in government.
Thanks, Rudy.
I want to know why the rebates never go back to us, the taxpayers.
The employees are already enjoying their personal health benefits, and tax payer paid (free) memberships to Gary Nielson's Gold's Gym.
I wonder how much these free gym memberships actually cost the taxpayers.
That's correct, Irate Taxpayer.
Godfrey has set up a little socialist pardise in Ogden, where Gold's gym depends substantially on taxpayer subsidies, and Ogden City employees are expected to keep the insurance prmiums down.
This arrangement drives out existing private sector businesses, of course, such as Audrey's all-women gym, because of the taxpayer subsidy.
We need to do a cost-benefits analysis on the gym memberships. Our little socialist mayor has set up an interdependent house of cards already, and it will hurt the people who still depend on the free market.
Of course the taxpayers get left out at the end of the day.
Ogdenites will NEVER have tax relief, so long as Comrade Godfrey remains our mayor.
No wonder Ogden has created the financial mess we are in.
The City gurus in charge of this insurance premium rebate are part the problem.
They can't differentiate the difference between a payor and a payee.
Ogden City paid the premiums as the payor and is entitled to keep any refund of premium. The employee had nothing to do with paying the premium since it is part of their perk package.
The $300K refund would fund the Marshall White Center for a year or patch some holes in some streets.
There is no refund due a policy holder if they did not pay the premium. Anyone who thinks otherwise should be given 2-weeks notice and asked to leave.
The employees should not be rewarded because they finally had sense enough to work improve their own health even though they were bribed to do it with prizes and health club memberships. Gold's Gym is getting close to $200,00 from the City for those.
The best idea yet..change the rules so that each employee pays their own health insurance premium.
This refund is simply a refund of premiums that were set too high to start with.
If this refund to employees is the guideline for financial thinking by Johnson then Ogden will never recover until he gets his walking papers.
Somebody isn't thinking straight here.
What difference does it make for the City's health insurance premiums to go down if the City is going to give any rebates back to the employees?
This is a good example of Godfrey's financial logic.
It's a flatout bribe for city employees.
Boss Godfrey is the Emerald City 19th century Mormon equivant of "Boss Tweed."
We hope at some point our dishevelled and so-far-dysfunctional city council will come up for air, and rein in the little shit, at some point.
Michael Moore's position is what ought to be the Republican position, Sharon.
Your Bush neocons have destroyed your GOP party for years to come.
Bush has dealt the Republican Party a bad long-time legacy.
You loyal Republican meat-heads bought into the radical Bush politics though, while the same radical element within your party disdained your fundamental party principles, and created an in-defensible political situation.
We blame you party brain-dead loyalists, who ought to have blown the whistle on "junior" early on.
You were so busy waving the flag and cheering the troops that you failed to realize that Bush's right wing socialists were doing to America in 2006, what Hitler did to Germany in 1939.
THank goodness for sensible Americans across the country on Nov 7.
And shame on you!
Marko, Audrey's and Curves are part of the program also.
Does it cover what I, yes Dorothy I have to pay for insurance-no.
Does it cover the years of wage freezes by the city-no.
I would also be intersted to see how much the city saved with the reduced sick leave use and thus less overtime.
Anon:
Good points. Let's look at what happened without assuming first that government is bad or that government workers are overpaid slackers. [Starting from those assumptions, nothing the city does is or can be good.] To those who claim providing health benefits to city workers is some kind of socialism, well, I expect if their homes or businesses ever catch fire, they will on principle refuse the assistance of the "socialistic" Ogden City Fire Department [funded by taxes, after all] and put out their own fires.
However mad we might get about this abuse of the public trust by an elected offical or that over-feathering of some favored croney's personal nest, we need government, and we need people to work for government and -- sacre bleu!--- those people want to have homes, and families, and cars, and eat regularly, and buy the kids shoes, and send their kids to college, sometimes, too --- the socialist bastards! This generalized animus towards "government" in general, all too prevalent on the right as a rule, serves none of us well.
So, let's look at the city's health incentive plan: by means of the new program, the city presumably avoided yet another health care insurance rate hike. City employees benefited in two ways: they are apparently healthier [thus taking fewer sick days, which means the city benefited as well] and they got to take home some extra cash without the city adding to the annual recurring budget for wages and salaries. All of this, without costing the city a dime more than it would have cost to pay the health premiums without the wellness incentive program. What exactly is the problem with that?
I noticed a lot of sympathy with and for the city's lower paid employees [police and firemen in particular] during the pay negotiation dispute. And now, what, six months later, some are suggesting eliminating health benefits from the compenstation packages for city employees? Which would mean in effect a pay cut.
This notion that Ogden City government workers are mostly folks who loll around collecting fat checks and benefits is largely nonsense. I have no doubt at the upper levels especially there is some dicey featherbedding going on. [No organization, public or private, operates ast 100% efficiency.] But the great majority of city workers are not driving subsidized Hummers home from work, and such like. I can understand someone who has a job offering no health benefits being jealous of a city worker who has health benefits tied to his or her job. But the solution to that is to provide health beenfits to the people who don't have them, not to take them away from the people who do.
I recall during the police and firemen salary negotiations, we learned how many of them, firemen in particular, were taking jobs in surrounding communities because the pay was better. Cutting health benefits would certainly increase that outflow of experienced people, and cost the city even more in constant training costs and reduced numbers of experienced people on the job.
The health incentive program seems to me to have been a wise move, if the facts reported in the SE are true. Without costing the city a penny more than it was already paying, it led to fewer sick days being taken [at city expence], healthier employees and a small one-time bonus payment to employees that did not increase the city's recurring expenditures one dime. A win win situation it seems to me, all around.
Curmudgeon:
It's a good thing that the city has saved money with the health plan, sick leave and overtime, because the current hiring freeze ends up costing the city more overtime in departments that must have certain staffing levels, such as public safety.
Criminy, Marko...
I'm a 'bush Neo-con", a "loyal Republican meat-head', and a "party brain dead loyalist"....and shame on me?
You little pinkos seem to imbue me with a lot of power....I wasn't aware that I had been setting White House policy and strategy. I should get a tidy little paycheck from the Feds like the City employees.
Johnson's office told me several months ago that the participating employees are given $200. toward gym fees. However, unless things have changed, Audrey's was not one of those gyms....of course, her threatened lawsuit against the city may have changed that.
At that time, the Athletic Club didn't know anything about it...and when I called McKay Dee to ask if their employees were getting this kind of perk...they were incredulous.
The city could do what McKay Dee and other institutions do: hold brown bag seminars on nutrition, weight loss, diabetes, heart health, etc. Memberships in a gym should be the responsibility of the employees. Why do adults have to be bribed into looking after their own health? I agree with Dorothy...that refund should have gone into the city's coffers.
I haven't noticed any employees losing weight or eating less....not those who come to the Council and Workshop meetings anyway. Ever take a look at the food that 'our' dollars buy for the Council and staff to eat? A LOT of food is laid out for them.
BTW Marko, I'm not sure what caused your little tantrum, but since YOUR party is now in charge and is going to do everything "right", I should think you would be gracious in victory instead of carping.
Are you thrilled or just a teensy bit anxious that Pelosi will be only 'two heartbeats' away from the Presidency?
Is your disposition sour because Moore didn't save any leaves for you?
Those city employees should buy their own health insurance. The only ones who should be helped are the public servants like cops and firemen/women.
They put themselves in danger, and about the only thing endangering the lives of the city employees is dead butts, paper cuts and fattening coffee breaks.
Johnson and Godfrey have to go! This town needs leaders with business acumen.
I just read the Standard examiner this morning, city recieves less than expected on settlement from Shupe Williams fire. Doug Stephens says they will have to cut back in other areas to make up the difference.
When are the Council going to relize that this is the same phoney cost estimates always submitted by the Mayor and his croneys. This is so typical of Matt Godfrey and his little over paid bunch of minions.
I suggest htey start by cutting back by not refilling the toilet paper dispensors on the ninth floor, and get rid of the high paid members of the "A" team.
We need a Mayor who will get back to the basics of what government is supposed to do, not play land grab and give all of our open space away, they had to know that they wouldnt recieve what they was predicting.
How can you get 2.5 million fromn a insurance settlement when you are trying to sell the property for half a million dollars?
Feeling Fine[d]:
You wrote: Those city employees should buy their own health insurance. The only ones who should be helped are the public servants like cops and firemen/women.
I'm curious, how would you distinguish between "public servents" and "city employees?" They are all city employees, aren't they? And eliminating health benefits means, in effect, a substantial pay cut for many city employees who will have to pay the city's end of their health insurance costs, or have themselves and their families go without. And no, I don't think it would be wise policy to provide health care for some city employees, officially deemed "public servents," and to not provid it to others, officially designated "not public employees." Again, the solution we ought to be working on is finding ways to provide health benefits to those working Utahans who do not now have them, not finding ways to take such benefits away from those who do.
However much fun it may be to believe that "city employees" are somehow unnecessary, overpaid, and bilking the public [proof, please?], the fact remains we need government workers because we need government. It really is that simple. And since we need them [however annoying you may find that], it follows that we need competent ones who do whatever jobs they do well. And so it follows that we must pay market rates to get and retain them. [It's a puzzlment to me how many of those on the right --- not necessarily meaning you, Fine[d], since I don't know your politics --- praise "the market" endlessly and adivse "letting the market work"... except when it comes to something like compensating city employees. ]
[Disclaimer: I do not know, nor have I ever worked for Ogden City, nor do I have any relatives now employed by or who have ever been employed by Ogden City government.]
Anon:
Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that the Administration was being fully upfront and non-deceptive [I know, I know, a dicey proposition at all times with the Godfrey administration] when it told the Council it expected to receive $2.5 million from the settlement, and the Council, relying on that estimate, borrowed $2.5 million for use on the River Project. [Tried posting link, but it's not working just now. The story is on the front page of the Top of Utah section.]
That means the Administration was off by 20% in its estimate of what the city would receive from the policy. Twenty percent off. Which, were I on the Council [this not having been the first such instance I think of rosy economic scenarios out of the Mayor's office] would have me wondering whether other economic predictions cavalierly tossed around by the Godfrey administration might be off by a similar margin of error.
Has he underestimated gondola construction costs by 20%? Has he underestimated the city's economic liability in the whole gondola project by 20%? Has he overestimated ridership and revenues by 20%? Has he overestimated what the sale of the parklands to Mr. Peterson might yield to the city? Has he underestimated the cost of services and infrastructure the city would have to supply to service the new gated community of upscale villas? Has he overestimated the assessed value of such properties and so as well the anticipated tax revenues? And so on. And, a follow-up question I would be asking myself if I were on the Council, is this: if the Administration has mis-estimated by the same margin of error, what would the financial consequences for the city be? After all, it has now been established beyond question that the Administration's ability to accurately estimate economic outcomes is suspect at best, as a result of which a half a million dollar hole in the Ogden's budget seems to have appeared overnight. How many mores suprises like that await us down the road?
Had the insurance payment come in five percent under estimate or something in that range, I'd let it go. Close enough. But twenty percent off? That strikes me as significant. And troubling.
The story includes the following passage: "Even though the city didn’t receive as much as initially anticipated from the Shupe-Williams settlement, the river project isn’t in jeopardy, Godfrey said. “We are not caught in a deficit situation,” he said Friday. He didn’t provide any details.
"He didn't provide any details." That policy --- providing assurances but no details --- seems to be becoming the signature of the Godfrey administration.
Regarding the City's health plan: 1. The employees agreed to pay a higher co-pay to help keep insurance costs down. So they did contribute out of their own pockets to the bonus they are now receiving,
2. Membership in a health club is optional, and applies to the ANY club the employee wishes to join,
3. Everyone, even the taxpayer, is benefiting by the health program as Curmudgeon states. Studies have shown that sick employees COST their employers millions of dollars every in in lost production, and low production rates. If a person is healthy, they have more energy and vitality and are more productive. I have heard no negatives to the health program so I would think that moral might be better because of this program -- another contributor to better productivity.
4. Feeling fine(d), if the City did as you suggested -- give health benefits only to the police and firefighters, who would process their payroll checks, who would type up their training requests and travel orders to attend trainings to keep them up-to-date on the latest technology? Granted the police and firefighters should receive a wage increase to bring them to comparable area salaries, but you do it at the expense of other employees. Ogden City would have no employees if the City did not provide them with health benefits.
Ogden City is being innovative in their approach to help reduce the rising health costs that are out of control. I will tip my hat to them on this one. Other businesses, cities and citizens should follow their example.
I have always found the health club stipend given to city employees a curious thing. We are, after all, told that we are "branding" our city as one of the premiere places for outdoor recreation. The short hike up Waterfall Canyon is a more than adequate substitute for a Stairmaster, for instance. (Were I a city employee, I might ask if I could buy gear with this stipend instead of paying membership in health clubs.) Be that as it may, the whole stipend for clubs is more along the lines of what a successful private corporation would do for its employees, not what an in-the-red entity like Ogden City should do, in my opinion. A luxury outlay made when a corporation is doing well and can more than afford it.
No one has as yet clarified this "medical insurance rebate" to my satisfaction. Do employees get to just put that money in their pockets and spend it however? Or are there strings attached to it--that it has to be spent on health oriented purposes, or that the city will spend it in this way for one?
Moving on, some of the more acute financially minded participating on WCF might want to suggest what the City should do at this point regarding the $3 million loan and the $2 million return. I for one would be interested to hear of some good financial strategies for Ogden at this point.
Councilwoman Jeske in this morning's article stated that she wanted to know why this settlement was less than originally anticipated. I do, too. It was my impression, when the Council voted to allocate that money for the Riverfront, that it was a "for sure" thing. I am thinking that the Council probably had that understanding, also.
Dian:
On the health club memberships. Granted, the city bungled the offer by not taking care to list all available clubs in the city [or it might simply have listed none, but indicated to employees that they could choose whichever they liked]. I had a colleague once who, when he wanted to indicate staggering incompetence on the part of some university administrator or another [a need he felt not-infrequently], he would say "He [Associate Dean X or Third Vice-Assistant Provost Y] could screw up an anvil." Since an anvil is simply a large lump of metal with no moving parts the major funtion of which is simply to sit there and be hammered on, screwing up an anvil struck him as a perfect symbol for mind- numbing ineptitude. The Administration's handling of the health club membership offer suggests that it too "could screw up an anvil."
That said, I can't complain about the idea itself. Cities ought to be trying different things to improve employee productivity. Some experiments will work, some won't. But I approve of reasonable experimentation to improve city governance, and this seems a reasonable thing to have tried.
Of course, were I Mayor, I would monitor the results over several years to see if (a) it was having a measurable significant effect on employee health and productivity and (b) if it was being broadly taken advantage of by all levels of city employees. If it was being used overwhelmingly only by political appointees on salary as opposed to wage-earners on the civil service list, I'd probably eliminate it. [I presuem the Mayor is monitoring the results. Isn't he?] But I'm hard put to fault him for giving it a try.
How many more buildings to be mysteriously ignited?
Firebug, firebug on the wall
Don't stop at one building,
Pile the papers, Strike that match
Burn one edifice, Burn them all!
Didn't the mayor also say that part of the Shupe Williams settlement money (along with street money) was going to be used in developing the corner (cost overrun item)of the new downtown development next to the high adventure park? I wonder what department funding or what services, that we as residents of the city should be expecting to receive, he will cut from us to make up for his new shortfall?
I am unable to link SE stories, and, after reading Trentleman's column today about the idiocy present in the financial "management" method whereby one borrows large amounts of money and pays larger amounts of interest on it for years on end, I think that linking that column would be appropriate:
Before you slap that plastic this year, add up all the costs
Trentleman talks about figuring out the total interest on a high credit card bill if one paid only the minimum amount required monthly. This formula, when translated to the millions of dollars Ogden City has outstanding, and coupled with the fact that it was mentioned at a Council meeting that we are also borrowing money in order to pay finance charges, does not paint a pretty picture.
But it's one we should be aware of, I think.
Well, hardly the same thing. Most homeowners, nearly all businesses, and most public bodies [school boards, cities, states, nations, etc] borrow against anticipated revenues because that is the only way they have [short of selling stock, which cities cannot do], to raise the revenues needed finance large projects, like school construction, road building, expanding stores or factories etc. [unless of course a businessman could convince a city to sell off prime parkland as open space, then rezone it as residential, thus creating huge profits for the businessman that can be plowed into yet another project so the businessman won't have to borrow in the usual way from the capital markets --- but that would never happen in real life, of course].
And the rates on borrowings by governments are fixed, usually, and much closer to prime than credit card rates [which can go as high as 29% a year or higher] because the loans are much less risky than consumer loans. The borrowing cities do is based on fixed periodic payments [much like a fixed rate home mortgage] and not on a declining "minimum monthly payment."
Trentelman's point was that paying the minimum asked by a credit card company every month is extremely costly over time because it is based on a percentage of the outstanding balance, which balance shrinks a little, a very little, every month that you make a minimum payment, so the subsequent month's minimum payment is smaller, thus nearly endlessly extending the payoff date of the loan further into the future every month. Government borrowing is not the same as consumer credit borrowing. It nearly always has, for example, a fixed term by which the loan must be paid off.
Which does not mean of course that states, cities and nations cannot take on too much debt. Ogden is, by means of its RDA projects, carrying substantial actual and potential financial obligations at the moment I think, which will work out just fine if the Mall redevelopment and River projects "work" as planned, and which will invole the city in significant economic difficulties, I suspect, if they do not. The jury is still out on that.
Curmudgeon:
...borrow against anticipated revenues...
You said a mouthful there. The word "anticipated" can cover everything from revenues one hopes will come in, to those that might, to those promised, to those contracted, to those guaranteed, etc. Basing financial decisions on that gigantic gray area, especially as exemplified by the "anticipated" Shupe-Williams settlement of $2.5 million becoming in reality a settlement of $2 million, is how one gets into trouble.
Debt is debt, I would say, and one ends up paying more for what one gets if one has to borrow to get it.
The authors of the Utah State Constitution evidently saw that these problems could happen, because they attempted, in that document, to put a ceiling on municipal spending. I do not know if in this our modern age ways have been found around it, but here is what it says, in Article 14:
...(b) No city, town, school district, or other municipal corporation, may become indebted to an amount, including existing indebtedness, exceeding four per centum of the value of the taxable property therein...
...(3) A city of the first or second class, if authorized as provided in Section 3 of this Article, may be allowed to incur a larger indebtedness, not to exceed four per centum, and any other city or town, not to exceed eight per centum additional, for supplying such city or town with water, artificial lights or sewers, if the works for supplying the water, light, and sewers are owned and controlled by the municipality.
We might be at a bit more than that four percent, I think, what with the mall and everything. But the point is that the question of municipal indebtedness is in there, and they too recognized it as a negative thing.
Utah State Constitution
Dian:
I disagree that the legislature and Constitution identified municipal indebtedness as necessarily a bad thing. What they did was identify excessive municipal indebtedness as a bad thing, and then they defined what would be excessive [the 4% of the value of taxible property standard].
But overall, you asked a good question: it would be interesting to know what debt load Ogden is carrying as a percentage of the value of taxable property. I have no idea. [Although it seems to me the clauses you quoted permit cities to carry additional debt, another four percent, for the purpose of building or maintaining water, lights or sewer systems, provided they are municipally owned. If so, that would make determining whether Ogden might be in excess of the the allowed limits more complicated, since we'd have to determine the purpose for which a debt was contracted in order to know which category it fit into, etc.]
But your general question is, I think, a good one: what is Ogden's current municipal debt load? I don't know.
Just to make things even more fun, if the value of City's taxable property rises significantly [one much hoped for goal of the various redevelopment projects, and other proposals being considered], that would necessarily mean the amount of debt the city could constitutionally incur would rise as well.
Wheels within wheels within wheels....
Dian,
Excellent sleuthing, as usual.
Re: Excessived municpal indebtedness. Is there a consequence, an accountability attached?
Or is a city only cautioned?
Maybe the consequence and accountability comes at the polls next Nov?
Stop Dorothy Littrell said...
People like Dorothy that complains about hard working government employees which are cops and firefighters are just wrong and hypocritical.
She’s part of the reason the city keeps going in the red. Stop filing Law Suits against the government every chance you get, and stop voting Republican.
Blog Administrator's note: If Dorothy stops filing lawsuits. whom can we rely upon to enforce the law?
Gary Williams? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Curm and crew,
I did a little sleuthing in the 2007 Ogden Budget and discovered our current debt to property tax value: The number given on page 53 of the budget .pdf document (45 in the actual document) as the city's constitutional debt cap is $175,095,774 and the current debt load is only $34,564,633. I do believe that this is a rather conservative number -- if you can use 34 million and conservative in the same sentence.
I suppose the best way to show the current nature of the city's indebtedness is to check out our bond rating. The bond rating would be given by all those stuffed shirts with their ties and other clothing cinched too tight and let us know exactly what kind of credit risk Ogden is.
I have no clue if the hypertext link will work, but I'll give it a try. I right clicked and downloaded the link since it was such a large file and it worked much better in my Acrobat after downloading than trying to access it directly. The information in the budget was enlightening. I have this forum to thank for making me actually go and look at what is happening.
Ogden City 2007 Budget
Polonius:
Thanks for the update and info. I didn't know that information was conveniently available on line in the city budget. I am in your debt. And if the numbers are accurate [and there is no other debt the city is carrying not reflected in them], then the city seems, clearly, to be well within its mandated debt limit, and has significant capacity to borrow constitutionally still available to it.
Your point about the credit rating [expessed as a bond rating] is an excellent one. The amount the city can legally borrow may be far more than the city should wisely borrow, and far more than it can comfortably carry given current tax rates and business conditions. The bond rating would reflect capacity to carry more debt better than the amount of constitutionally permitted borrowing the city can still do. I wonder if anyone reading WCForum knows what what the city's bond rating is? This is not my turf and I have no idea how to find the information on line.
Thanks again Polonius for doing the digging. Always wise to have the facts in hand when discussing public policy, and now I know enough, thanks to you, to counter vague suggestions that the city is already in debt up to its constitutional eyeballs.
Thanks again.
Thanks for the effort, Polonius, but we're afraid your research may not be as useful as it seems at first glance.
If you go to page 45 of the Ogden City budget document, you'll note that the publicly-disclosed debt calculations include general obligation bonding only, and exclude any revenue bonding (other than low-risk sewer revenue bonds) that Ogden City, or any associated agencies, have standing at the moment. The most recent of these are subject to "moral obligation" clauses, whereby Emerald City may be required (as a practical matter,) to "cover" these liabilities in the event of the default of the underlying revenue sources (Golds and Fat Cats for example.) Although these unstated liabilities are contingent upon the default of the underlying obligor(s), they must be at least factored into the calculations, which is something that seemingly hasn't been done on Emerald City's web-based Budget document, so far as we can determine.
Page 45 (Debt Disclosure)
It's doubtful in fact that the full scope of Emerald City's potential debt liability can be readily determined even by a diligent review of publicly-available documents.
What is needed is a full professional acounting, which is something several current council members promised prior to the last municipal election, but have failed to deliver.
Unfortunately, the information provided on the city website appears to be no more accurate or complete with respect to the present debt of Ogden city than the information relating to the gondola plan.
If $175,095,774 is representative of 4% of the city's taxable property, we have nothing to worry about and Spring Clean-Up should be instituted again post haste, the Marshall White Center should be funded properly, etc., etc.
Or isn't that the way they're figuring it?
Actually, I have a friend -- not me, who grabs the business page before he grabs the sports page or the comics and he claims to have access to city's bond ratings and he was going to check for me. I'll let you know when I can find that out.
The bond rating would be an outside, third party, market based evaluation of the city's fiscal state. While maybe not a "full accounting", it would provide some insight into the city's overall fiscal policy.
I'm relatively new to the discussion, having only followed these issues peripherally in the news and as I mentioned, was slightly surprised at the relatively low total bond amount. However, issuing city guarantee's on developer or outside business obligations to bring in more tax revenue isn't exactly new, nor is it by default an inappropriate or incorrect thing for the city to do.
While I appreciate scepticism and critical thinking, I think meaningful discussion comes most from properly framing the debate. The real dilemma I see is that the city's prime source of revenue comes from sales tax, which even exceeds property tax as an income source. The question is how to increase the tax base of the city. My own personal inclination is to attempt to revert back to Ogden's railroad hey day (pre I-15 and Riverdale) and figure out how to make Ogden a Frontrunner destination, rather than an exit.
The city's failure to have at least disclosed substantial contingent liabilities (in the many $millions) defies generally accepted accounting practices, and should be interpreted, in our view, as outright deception.
As for bond ratings, they are merely trailing indicators, designed to assist bond traders in evaluating hstorical performance, but not intended to provide much useful information as to the actual financial condition of any municipal bond issuer at any given moment. And They are no substitute at all for the information that would be produced by a full accounting.
The citizens of Emerald City deserve a full accounting. We won't hold our breaths however.
I have been told that every year the city has to undergo an audit from an impartial outside firm. And I would imagine that the results of this audit are public information and could be requested.
Perhaps we should try.
Polonius:
I agree the bond rating would be a kind of quick and dirty market assessment of the city's public revenues "health" [or lack thereof] --- I don't think bond ratings are as useless as Rudi suggests. Maybe making public some kind of audit would be wise, especially since folks are still suggesting, if only by implication, that the city has crawled farther out on a debt limb than it should have. Just by way of clearing the air and moving the discussion off vague allegation and onto the firmer ground of hard numbers, it might be a good idea. If in fact the city is rock-solid with respect to its debt-to-revenue ratio, we should know that when discussing public revenues, redevelopment options, infrastructure repair requirements [think sewers]. And if it's not, we should know that too.
As for your suggestion that we should attempt to revert back to Ogden's railroad hey day (pre I-15 and Riverdale) and figure out how to make Ogden a Frontrunner destination, rather than an exit....
Well, I'd say "yes and no." First off, reverting to Ogden's RR heyday is, however nostalgically attractive, not going to happen. I-15 is here. So is I-whatever [Wendover to Evanston]. They're not going away. Frontrunner is important, but it isn't going to make Ogden the kind of entrepot it was in the heyday of RR travel and commerce, which is what the junction of several routes here did in the past. Nickel cigars aren't coming back either.
What's going to happen, I suspect is some combination of what you propose. I don't think Ogden will be reduced to a mere bedroom suburb of SLC by Frontrunner, but the train's arrival will increase Ogden's attractiveness as a residential community of those who work in Salt Lake. I suspect residential densities, and property values, will rise substantially downtown in the decade following Frontrunner's arrival. And higher population densities, particularly involving relatively well-paid residents who work in Salt Lake, and higher property values will inevitably increase public revenues.
Ogden has one other advantage in all this: it HAS a downtown and a history. It's a real place. There's a there here, so to speak. It will not be simply a place to sleep. 25th Street is [or can be] a tremendous asset in making Ogden a place where people not only sleep and commute but actually live, and recreate. And do business. Branding Ogden as an outdoor "hub" [both for outdoor related businesses and as an easy-access to outdoors place in which to live] can help that along. The River Project, if it develops as planned, my have a similar affect. I have my doubts about the Rec Center in that regard, and particularly about its expensive to use and expensive to operate wind tunnel amusement park ride. But we shall see, soon enough, how that works out.
My real concern about the mall redevelopment is that it will draw business from 25th Street and other areas of downtown, and thus, perhaps, create as many problems as it solves. {I recall the impact the opening the Crown Plaza property at the Convention Center had on the existing Historic Ben Lomand. The Ben Lomand closed. I can see something like that happening again with the Mall Redevelopment.} But, as I said, we shall see.
So there is already potential here --- serious potential --- for Ogden to remain and become something a great deal more than just a bedroom town for SLC workers when Frontrunner arrives. Provided of course [Warning: Elephant in the room ahead!] Ogden does not (a) peddle its public benchlands and the major easy access element of its wilderness trail system to developers to create yet another bench subdivision and (b) does not gamble all on a city built and operated downtown flatland gondola that will not operate as a transit system, will not have its operations subsidized as transit by UTA, and will exist primarily to deliver customers to a private gondola and mini-ski development in Malan's Basin, the economic feasibility of which is at this point at best doubtful.
What we want is a Comprehensive Annual Fiscal Report, or CAFR, I think, for Ogden City. Found one for Ogden online for 2004 and it stated that the taxable real property was at that time $2.4 billion. Roughly.
These reports are much easier to read than that budget. The Weber County budget, however, is easy to read also.
Curmudgeon,
I agree that we shouldn't actually "revert" back to before, but I meant it in the spirit you suggested of making 25th Street the attraction it should be. I went to Fort Collins once and the main street there was bustling and full of activity. The only Utah town I've been in that has a street that felt comparable to me was 25th Street in dear old Ogden. Proven models of urban success need to be emulated when possible and modified to match our particular unique attributes. I agree there is serious potential, the question is what are we going to do with that potential? The Jefferson Street gentrification project seems to be a step in the right direction towards meeting some of that potential. Further community effort is greatly needed, especially in investing in the residential areas circumscribed by Wall and Harrison on the East and West and 36th and 12th on the North and South.
In an effort to attract more people downtown, I look at what Salt Lake did with the ordinances against cruising State Street and wonder if a similar injunction on cruising Washington might not be in order to make downtown more attractive to a wider range of the citizenry.
On a little different note, Ogden has been pretty woeful in developing it's one connection to I-15 on 31st Street. Are there any development plans coinciding with the complete restructuring of the on and off ramps?
As for the Elephant -- I'm sick of the Elephant. I've read, seen and heard enough about the !$@%@^@# gondola. The idea of running a gondola over the Ogden slums is ridiculous. Much more pressing problems need to be addressed like the depressed economic status of many of the city's populace. The main thing the gondola has been good for is to get people involved in their local government, i.e. me and others that read this blog for starters. I'm not anti-development by any means and find the idea of a Malan's Basin resort intriguing, but not at the expense of selling off open space or installation of a downtown gondola. I've just grown weary in the short two weeks I've been reading this blog of the rehashing (as I promptly rehash the entire subject). The only thing left to do on the gondola front is be vigilant in avoiding bureacratic idiocy -- all the legal protections are in place to keep the transaction from occuring -- public hearings, planning and zoning, annexation hearings, city council meetings, the State Board of Regents on the WSU land, environmental laws, etc. -- not to mention the 2007 elections.
Dian,
Do you have sites for the CAFR and the Weber County Budget -- I'm feeling too lazy to look.
Weber County Budget PDF Download Page
Google Search Page: CAFR is Second Entry Down
Understand that JC Penney is coming to Riverdale!!!
When is Riverdale's gondola going to be up and running? Isn't THAT why Penney's is locating there?
WHY isn't Penney's coming into the Junction? Large numbers of OGDEN (and environs ) shoppers enjoyed shopping at Penney's when that store was in the old ZCMI mall.
How come our great economic development "A-Team' let this one get away?
The FrontRunner is coming! Will Wall Ave be developed and attractive as an 'end destination' to the FR riders and visitors to Ogden?
Seems to me that development from Wall to WA and up and down the entire 'corridor' of downtown along WITh the streetcar would be an enticing draw to the city much more than an "urban gondola' which doesn't serve ANY businesses.
Security, good lighting on the boulevards, attractive storefronts, and SAFE walking conditions for shoppers, strollers and visitors will bring people downtown.
What are the plans, if any, for the museum whose expectations of renovating the Shupe-Williams Building were 'burned to ashes"??
THAT would have been a real attractive destination for FR riders to visit. Those folks would've wandered over to 25th Street or some other close-by eateries also.
Wouldn't it be a grand thing for our city to have a Smithsonian RR Museum? And this would be what our mayor likes: a "first ever in the country'!!
A nod to our colorful RR/Pioneer past and a growing economy to take us into the future.
I suppose I'm not thinking in a "progressive, cool and sexy" way.
Polonius:
SE ran a story, some time back, of UDOT plans to add an interchange in downtown Ogden. Not sure the status of it at the moment. There were as I recall a couple of alternative locations. The astonishing thing is I-15 was built with no downtown Ogden exit in the first place. Top of Utah politicos really asleep at the switch on that one, seems to me. But the SE story indicates that a fix of some sort is in the planning stages.
Sharon:
Every store opening in Riverdale does not necessarily constitute a "lost" for Ogden or a muff for the Administration here. Businesses generally locate where they think their interests and bottom line will best be served. [Considerations of existing traffic, other stores bringing traffic to the site, available buildable site, economic incentives, population distribution, etc. etc. Hell, we don't even know, do we, if Ogden pitched them?]
That Penny's is opening in Riverdale does not necessarily mean the Administration dropped the ball. Riverdale location may well have been, for Penny's, a much better location than an Ogden alternative, presuming one existed.
Nobody win's em all. Not even God's Team [aka the New York Mets].
"Every store opening in Riverdale does not necessarily constitute a "lost" for Ogden or a muff for the Administration here. Businesses generally locate where they think their interests and bottom line will best be served. "
Bingo Sharon
Smooch!
kisses to you too, sweetie.
Curm...in your never-ending quest for fairness all 'round (and I mean that in a good way....kisses to you, too)...IF Penney's is looking for the 'action' site, then I 'spose they just weren't as forward thinking as our mayor!
On the one hand, we're dying here, so the litany goes...and on the other, as soon as that glorious gondola goes in, we're alive again.!!!
I wonder if Penney's just wanted some shoppers now?
Fun things are happening in Ogden!!
WSU Dept of Performing Arts and Union Station Foundation will present the return of monthly jazz. Formerly known as jazz in the Skyroom/Jazz in the Junction.
The first offering is titled "Jingle Bell" Jazz at the Station
Wednesday, Dec 6 7:30 p.m.
Ogden's Union Station Grand Lobby,
FREE Performance. "Well-behaved children are welcome for this Christmas Gift event.
Dec 6: Zoltan Vegvari and Friends
Jan 10: TBA
Feb 7: Joe McQueen, Don Keipp and Friends
Mar 7: WSU Jazz Ensemble
April 4: WSU Jazz combo
Isn't this great? There will be refreshments sold, and some tables set up....for an informal 'club' environment. Also lots of chairs.
The Planning Commission meets on Dec 6...but, hopefully, it will not be another MARATHON meeting, and we can scoot over to the Union Station for this wonderful Jazz at the Station event!!
Spread the word to your music loving friends who don't read the blog, eh?
New comments are not allowed.