Monday, February 19, 2007

Strike Three

By Ogden Red

In baseball, three strikes and you’re out. Within Ogden City three strikes and the City Council should rein you in. The Ogden City administration in my book has now taken that third strike with our City Council. But to recount how we got to strike three please remember that strike one was the botched Chianti/Shupe-Williams land sale in which the administration told the City Council that they had a completed deal to sell the Shupe-Williams land to Chianti so the council needed to approve the sale. Chianti then publicly stated that they had no interest in the transaction as the City had proposed it and weren’t buying the property. Strike two was the St. Anne’s Shelter move in which the administration assured the Council that the Shelter wanted to move from their current location and that the Council needed to request money from the State Legislature to assist with the Shelter’s move. We have since learned that the Shelter’s Board of Directors didn’t even know of the discussions with the City and yet the City is still asking the State for money for people that don’t want the money. Now we go on to strike three as presented below.

Once again our administration is up to no good and most people would call this a definite strike three. It has just come to light that the Ogden City RDA has recently sold a very desirable piece of property on Wall Ave. to a crony of the administration for $270,000. The property was sold under an option agreement to Bootjack LLC which turns out to be none other than Chris Peterson and company. A true copy of the operative December 22, 2006 option agreement is linked here.

This property was sold without any public bidding process and involves a piece of land approximately an acre in size, which has tremendous retail and commercial value once the Frontrunner comes to town. It is located on the same side of Wall Ave. between 21st and 22nd Street as the Frontrunner terminal. Of course the excuse that the administration will put forward is that the money was needed for The Junction (cost overruns, which the administration won’t acknowledge) but why aren’t the residents able to bid for these prime pieces of Ogden real estate? Why are these sales made in private? Is the city getting the best price; and why aren’t the same demands being made of this purchaser as with others?

Point in fact is that Bootjack LLC has no stated viable use for the property or timetable for developing this property. More than likely they will just profit off of Ogden City’s administration’s generosity with the residents' money. Remember that when the Union Station Foundation wanted to bid more money for the Shupe-Williams property than the next closest bid by more than, something like 50%, they were told that their bid was no good because they could not give a timetable for the development of that property. Bootjack LLC has neither plans to build nor any timetable. Clearly this lack of consistency in reasoning is an example of how this administration is operating. This latest land sale, and the land’s huge potential for appreciation with the coming of the Frontrunner, appears to represent the administrations subsidy of Mr. Peterson’s development efforts with our money. With the Frontrunner so close to arrival, why did the city sell this property now? Why didn’t the City get a loan against the property to meet any short term requirements or open the sales up to the public that would have realized the potential of the location and possible offered a much better price to the City than it received from this sale? A public sales process would have only taken 30 to 45 days to complete and this option agreement allows the buyer up to 90 days to close the deal. This sale reeks of favoritism and there is a high likelihood that the City did not get the best price for the property.

Rumor has it that Peterson has suggested that he will offer this property to Weber State University in exchange for property behind the University. Logically one would find it hard to see why the University would find one acre isolated 5 miles from their main campus of much use. The property would need to be much larger for any use other than retail (its highest value usage) and in order for that to happen the city would need to exercise eminent domain on all the houses behind this property. Not that the current administration is above doing that, but one would still have to feel that the University would not find two separate campuses so close together and yet so far apart, to be of much benefit. As such Mr. Peterson’s or the administration’s use of this excuse as to the potential use of this land is to say the least once again lacking for reasonability. Secondly, if the University doesn’t show any interest in the property, then we have squarely placed an administrative crony in the middle of any future real estate dealings involving property on that side of Wall Avenue.

What is very apparent here is that as a friend to the administration, the City is for sale and as a resident you are expected to pay for that friendship. It’s about time that the residents of the City start expressing their discontent with this out of control administration that operates behind the closed door, under the table and has excuses for everything after the fact.

It’s about time that the City Council starts counting up the strikes and starts to meaningfully change the way that they conduct business with this administration.

The administration shows no respect for the City Council’s authority in their dealings with the Council and shows no intent on changing that either. This administration has shown that they cannot be relied upon to operate within the legislative intent of the law, something that has worked with prior administrations. The current administration feels that the end justifies the means, so if the Council interferes with the administration, the administration simply goes around the Council, or doesn’t provide the Council with the needed information to make an informed decision or doesn’t tell the Council about something until it’s a done deal. The Council needs to start enacting resolutions that require their approval before things happen in this City rather than after they have happened.

It is each City Council Member’s responsibility of office to be the checks and balances to the administration and it is each City Council Member’s responsibility to write if needed or to amend the City Laws to make sure that the administration operates within the City Laws and their intended meaning.

The Council should consider their staffs as assistants to that purpose but understand that they can only provide a basic frame work for any resolution that needs to be amended. Any Council Member that expects anything more from their staff is shirking their own responsibility of the position. The Council Members need to be the ones that generate the amended language to any modified resolution and the Council need to discuss these proposed additions to the resolution with other Council Members in order to arrive at a majority agreed upon intent and wording. Council members are the checks and balances, not the staff. The City Council cannot allow these recent types of actions by the administration to continue.

The Council needs to add stronger language to all our City Laws that in effect will require the administration to fully inform and seek the Council’s prior approval before the administration makes any moves that involve the Council's involvement or consent, a modification that wasn’t needed with previous administrations.

This is be the only way to safeguard our community from the administration's uncontrolled actions and the only way to protect the Council from further administration actions that end up as a Council embarrassment.

The City Council cannot consider that they are doing their job if they allow these types of actions by the administration to continue. This property sale to Mr. Peterson can only be called one thing, strike three.

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ogden Red,

Thank you for your masterful analysis of the Godfrey administration's machinations.

Is it possible that Peterson's BootJack LLC was able to purchase that prime property in order to let Godfrey erect a gondola terminal there? Is this property actually going to be in Godfrey's hands one day?

You are giving the Council the advice many of us have been urging them to take for over a year now.

The Council must act as a cohesive unit...all seven...to reign in this run away mayor and his "A Team."

Other cities censure their mayors, and some are even fired! Imagine that!!??! I share your concern and hope that this Council will amend existing ordinances to restore their authority. It is imperative that the Council be in control and not hand over their duties and responsibilities to Bill Cook, Gary Williams. Andrea Lockwood and other staff.

Those 'staff' members have not shown themselves to be loyal to the Council, but too often appear to be pandering to the administration.

Thank you for your analysis. I hope all the Council members are reading it. Perhaps you will send it to each one??

Anonymous said...

It is beginning to look... actually it's well past beginning to look... like the city is now being run primarily for the benefit of FOMs [Friends of Matt]. "Special" unwitten termination arrangments that work to the financial advantage of an FOM and to the detriment of the taxpayers --- an arrangement so raw the old City Council was embarassed enough to revise an ordinance to prevent Godfrey from doing it again. The "community tv channel" [politely so called] turned into the FOM Curt Geiger Interview Channel. The city [as RDA] bidding against a private developer not an FOM for residential properties in the River Project area. The city's parklands on the benches up for sale, if Godfrey has his way, to FOM Chris Peterson. Now the apparent no-bid sale of city property downtown to the same FOM Chris Peterson. And the beat goes on....

Perhaps a question that might possibly be addressed in the coming mayoral and council elections is this: in whose interest is this city being run? The few, the privilged, the insider FOMs? Or the rest of us, otherwise known as the the people of Ogden?

Anonymous said...

It is time to put pressure on Utah Senators who will be voting this week on HB365 that brings back the use of eminent domain for Ogden's RDA to confiscate the land West of Wall Avenue adjacent to the street numbers listed in the option agreement with Bootjack LLC linked to this article.

Don't forget that we tax payers are paying $45,000.00 for Lobbyist Jolley to try to get this Bill passed for Godfrey and his RDA henchmen.

Those of us that own a piece of property in the target area could sure use your help to stop this bill.

Buy a small piece of ground in the area like I did in 2005 that helped us stop the eminent domain bill then. The current bill lists percentages of property owners and values we need to stop the use of eminent domain in case the bill passes.

Since Bootjack's property will now be in the same area that was targeted the last time around the RDA will expand the property area they want to seize this time to include Bootjack and then the percentages will kick in.

If this bill passes and the RDA can institute that plan Peterson and Godfrey will have won.

Anonymous said...

Did Godfrey actually say that his ethics were higher than anyone else's in the Council Chambers? Wow! Then Ogden sure has low ethical standards! I personally know two of the Council members who were elected in 2005, and know for a fact that their ethics are so much higher than Godfrey's that the little dictator should apologize to them and most of the other Council members.

Thanks, Ogden Red, for this latest revelation of the underhanded impopriety of this administration.
All the more reason, we have to find a mayoral candidate that we can back, campaign for and elect - and it won't be Jesse Garcia! I hope he has the good sense to stay out of this election! All he does is divide the votes so it assures that Godfrey is re-elected. Ogden can't afford another 4 years of Matt Godfrey!! In spite of the few things that HE ACTUALLY initiated that have helped Ogden, the harm that he has done far outweighs the good. He has put Ogden farther in debt than any other mayor or city council has done in the history of Ogden. He has changed the role of Ogden City government from one that provides for the safety and well being of its citizens by cutting back on fire personnel, by hiring an unprecedented number of traffic cops to increase revenue to the general fund instead of detectives, community policing officers, cutting the funding to the Marshall White Center that provides supervised programs for youth, getting them off the streets and away from gangs, trying to give a nationally recognized golf course for 19 cents on the dollar to good old pal, Chris Peterson, by making the city into a business competing with private business, taking money that should be spent on infrastructure, especially a new storm system and water pipes and spending it on his wild pipe dreams!

This truly should be the THIRD AND LAST STRIKE FOR THE GODFREY ADMINISTRATION!! If he runs for re-election, let's change the city's form of government back to the council-manager form. It is a sad time in Ogden when it has such a power-hungry tyrant that the only way to get rid of him is to go back to a mayor that can be controlled and a city manager that can be fired by officials that are elected by the citizens! Let's get a petition started!

Anonymous said...

Dorothy L:

Point of information, please. Interesting motive you suggest for the Peterson downtown land purchase... to add it to the existing west of Wall RDA and thus reach the trigger percentages to enable eminent domain powers to be used under the legislation now pending down in Salt Lake. But my question is this: wouldn't expanding the RDA area to include the new property require approval of the Council first?

This in no way, I know, bears on the question of whether the legislature should bring back the use of eminent domain powers to permit a city to take private property in order to deliver it to another private entity. The bill is fundamentally unjust and should be defeated [though I doubt it will be]. Just want to know, if it passes, if the Council would have to approve expanding the RDA area to include the newly acquired Peterson property downtown.

Be very interesting to see how those who vote for this bill, overturning private property rights, vote on HB233 [making it nearly impossible for cities to challenge developers' building on hazardous slopes] whose advocates are touting it as a "property rights" bill. Betcha there will be a lot who will vote for the Eminent Domain bill [erasing property rights] and for HB233. Only connection between the two bills that would explain a "yea" vote for both is this: both serve the needs of major developers at the expense of the citizens of the cities involved. We shall see.

OgdenLover said...

From the Ogden City website:
"Ogden's redevelopment agency was created to encourage private investment in blighted areas of the community or areas with a demonstrated need for economic development. A board comprised of members of the City Council governs the agency."

I've been unable to find further information as to just who makes up the RDA. I was under the impression that it's the same as the City Council. How did they let this slip through?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
OgdenLover said...

ANON,

While you seem to think you're cute, actually you are incomprehensible.

I can't tell who you are making fun of or what your point is. Maybe it's because I CAN spell and stuff.

Of course you're an ANON. You don't have the smarts to come up with an identity and you are making claims about Chris Peterson's whereabouts that might warrant legal action.

Anonymous said...

Curmudgeon:

Utah Statutes provide that a City can create an RDA entity which is a separate corporation but the same persons running the City run the RDA.

Current members of the legislative body of the City run the RDA which are the City Council and Mayor.

The separate corporation has wide ranging powers such as creating debt and doing about what they want to do.

The irony is that taxpayers have no say over any of this such as the creation of the debt but we will have to pay the debt which we have had no say in acquiring or otherwise the regular Ogden City operation is considered bankrupt and can get no loans from any source until the pseudo RDA debt is paid.

Safsten loves to say that taxpayers won't have to pay the final accounting but that is nonsense.

It is what I call our secret government which does whatever they decide to do and taxpayers have no say. It is unconstitutional.

But until someone has enough money to take it on in court it will keep digging a bigger hole for us all.

The option to Peterson is illegal because no sign was posted on the land that it was for sale and there was no open bidding process.

My question is where was Bill Cook who is supposed to counsel the Council?

The Council needs a new adviser with new blood and ideas to tell them when they are stepping into another illegal process and making another big mistake.

And where was the new City Attorney Williams???????Whose side is he on?????

Anonymous said...

I sat in a one of the amen choir meetngs for the gondola when Rep. Hansen asked the mayor that since the golf course is losing money and that is the reason to sell it. (the point and) the question that the mayor was then asked was, and I quote "since the mayor's office does not make any money and is spending tax dollars to be run, would you put it up for sell?" His reply was and I quote "IF I COULD SELL THE MAYOR'S OFFICE TO MAKE A PROFIT I WOULD!!!
when he said that I thought this would wake everyone up at this meeting but the amen choir appauled him. what a shame that someone in the public trust would think that little about the office that he holds.

Anonymous said...

Curmudgeon

I am so angry about this bill that I forgot to make my point in response to your comment which is that the City Council approved the option to sell the land and they approved the eminent domain condemnation in 2004 or 5 so why wouldn't they get the same advice now and act accordingly?
They only seem to go with what some city employee or the Mayor tells them to do.

RudiZink said...

Ogden City Code Section 3-9-2: GOVERNING BODY; ADOPTION OF BYLAWS:

A. The individual members of the city council constitute the members of the board of the Ogden City redevelopment agency, which board is the governing body of the agency and shall have the power to transact the business and exercise all the powers of an agency as provided for in the redevelopment agencies act, Utah Code Annotated section 17B-4-101 et seq., as amended, or its successor.

B. The board of the Ogden City redevelopment agency shall adopt bylaws governing the regulation and management of the affairs of the agency.


(Ord. 2003-17, 3-25-2003)

Notably, Boss Godfrey, who now serves as the "Executive Director" is not an actual member of the RDA governing body under the current Ogden ordinance.

It seems to us that the RDA board ought to be looking at its own bylaws to determine whether Boss Godfrey can be legally removed as director, in view of his continuing usurpation of authority, and manifest lcak of candor with the RDA Board.

Food for thought for the current council.

Anonymous said...

Dorothy L:

Thanks. As to why the council might act differently than it did in 04 or 05: there's been an election since, membership has changed as has the Council leadership. Whether it will act differently I can't say, but this is not the same Council that was in in 04/5. And there is an election approaching. Hope springs eternal....

Anonymous said...

Once again the WCF is where the facts come out.

At this point I think we need to accept the fact that all Godfrey will be doing for the next few months is LOOKING FOR A JOB.

He will be lining what pockets he can within his crony "you scratch me I scratch you" network, so his turn can come next year when he needs it.

One wonders how long it will be before some of Godfrey’s few supporters begin to shake their heads in disgust and wonder about their own morality.

I for one would love more than anything, to hear Rick Saftsen explain the wisdom of this land sale, as well as the wisdom of his giving Godfrey the power to do this. Sooner or later even he and Stephensen must begin to shake their heads as well.

That is, unless they’re part of the network.

Anonymous said...

In Exhibit B of the Option Agreement in the topic area of Delivery at Closing in paragraph (A) it refers to the seller providing the Buyer with a "Special Warrantee Deed". This may put the City on the hook for something that wasn't spelled out in the main body of the Option Agreement. I suspect it has something to due with environmental liability protection being provided to the buyer by the City, (since the three paragraph above this one go into great detail defining various forms of environmental concerns and since the location used to be an auto salvage yard). If so, this Special Warrantee Deed may exposes the City to ongoing liability and could cost the residents big dollars for years to come. It would be interesting to see the term of this Special Warrantee Deed.

I’ve also heard rumor that the City hasn’t yet paid the previous landowner for the property and if that is true then what will the City actually financially gained from this sale after the landowner is paid the money he is due?

RudiZink said...

Thanks, anonymous. We took a look at that provision too; but we believe a "special warranty deed" would actually only operate as a limited warranty in favor of the grantee, providing the buyer lesser protection than under a standard warranty deed.

No warranty would exist with respect to the subject property under such a deed, except for defects that arose during the period that the subject property was held by the Ogden RDA.

Here's an answers.com definition of that term.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Rudi for the explaination for Special Warrantee Deed but I'm still interested in knowing if the rumor is true that the previous landowner hasn't been paid for the property by the city.

Anonymous said...

Ogden City has paid the former owner of the property but only after many months of stalling and only recently was she paid.

The City finally gave the building permit she needed to install bigger equipment after much delay and hardship on her.

Anonymous said...

Godfrey has hogtied the RDA Board just like he has the Council, by getting that rubber stamping council to give their power and authority to him. I was able to access the RDA's By-Laws and I've given you some excerpts from them that are rather interesting:

"Article 1 - Definitions
1.1 e. "Executive Director" means the Mayor of the City, unless another individual has been appointed by the Board to serve as the Executive Director.

Article II - The Agency
2.2 Powers of the Board: The Board is the governing body of the Agency. All powers of the Agency shall be exercised by the Board, except as may otherwise be provided herein.

Article III - Officers
3.1 The Officers of the Board shall be a Chair, a Vice Chair, and a Board Administrator.

3.2 Officers of the Agency: The officers of the Agency shall be the Executive Director, a Secretary, a Treasurer, a Finance Officer, and such other officers as may be determined by the Board. The officers of the Agency shall be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Board, subject to the terms and conditions of any Contract of Services with the City.
a. Execitove Directot. The Executive Director shall be the chief administrative officer of the Agency and shall have general supervision and management over the administrative affairs of the Agency, subject to all policies, rules, regulations, and procedures adopted by the Board and not in conflict with the terms and conditions of any contract of services with the City. Unless the Board has specifically authorized the Chair to execute a document on behalf of the Agency as otherwise provided herein, the Executive Director shall sign all agreements, contractsk deeds and other instruments approved or authorized by the Board. No member of the Board shall be eligible for this office. The Execitive Director may appoint an acting Executive Director, either with the advice and consent of the Board or among those individuals authorized for such appointment by resolution of the Board, which acting Executive Director may exercis e the powers and duties of the Executive Director in the absence of the Executive Director."

Now here is where Godfrey managed to do his dirty little deeds:

"CONTRACT FOR SERVICES
THIS CONTRACT, made as of August 22, 2003, between the OGDEN CITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a body politic and a political subdivision of the State of Utah, acting through its Board of Directors, (herein the "RDA") and OGDEN CITY, a Utah municipal corporation (herein the "CITY").
14. RDA Board Staff and Staff.
Each party hereto acknowledges, understands and agrees that the RDA is governed by the RDA Board supported by the Ogden City Council staff employees. Each party hereto further acknowledges, understands and agrees that the CITY is governed by a Council-Mayor optional form of government where the legislative power of the CITY is vested in the City Council and the executive and administrative power of the CITY is vested in the Mayor. RDA, including the RDA Board and City Council staff employees, shall not provide direction, assignments or suprvisory oversight to the CITY administrative staff or its employees under this contract for services. Performance issues regarding this contract shall be coordinated with the Mayor. Nothing in this section is intended to limit or preclude formal and informal cooperative communications and responses to re quests for information and interaction between the RDA, its Board and City Council staff, and the CITY, its Mayor, administrative staff and employees, that is desirable and intended to fulfill the objectives of this contract."

I hope you notice the date on that "Contract for Services." Jesse Garcia and Rick Safsten both were on the Council/Board and gave the Mayor the Council's/Board's authority.

So much for "checks and balances!" The only thing that the Mayor couldn't take from the Board is the power/right to FIRE the little dirty, underhanded rat!!

Anonymous said...

I bet the bike shop was not the only bidder when they bought land from the RDA the same night that Peterson bought RDA land. Can someone check that? If this is true, it proves that Peterson got preferential treatment.

Anonymous said...

Relative to the RDA by-laws, can the board of the RDA simple cancel the contract that they entered into dated August 22, 2003 with the city or at least give the city it's notice to renegotiate that contract?

Anonymous said...

Curmudgeon

I am getting a little disappointed in you as the voice of equality and fairness on this blog.

In your initial entry on this thread you said:

"Perhaps a question that might possibly be addressed in the coming mayoral and council elections is this: in whose interest is this city being run? The few, the privilged, the insider FOMs? Or the rest of us, otherwise known as the the people of Ogden?"

You very freely tell us, in a some what derisive manner, that the "Friends of Matt" should be known as "FOM".

However, when giving the other side of the story you merely refer to everyone else as "People of Ogden"

Now common Curm, be fair, let us know that the Godfreyites really call us "People of Ogden", are you squeamish with the word "POO"?

Anonymous said...

Ozboy:

[grin]

POO.

Never occured to me. It should have. Asleep at the switch again....

Anonymous said...

Ozboy,

Excrement cannot hide from you!

Anonymous said...

Ogden City desires better than this. Shame on the Mayor and his Administration for doing these kinds of things and shame on the City Council for not stopping them.

Anonymous said...

What can the City Council know (some of them anyway) if they are not apprised of your mayor's chicanery?

Anonymous said...

The registered agent for Bootjack LLC is F L Peterson at 3434 E. 7800 S. #177, Salt Lake City. Chris Peterson is from Sandy. Do you have your "Petersons" mixed up?

© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved