Back on May 3 of this year, we started off a discussion with an article reporting about the departure from the Godfrey administration of Boss Godfrey's financial guru, Scott Brown.
As discussions are wont to do on this blog, the conversation meandered a wee little bit; and in no time at all our readers were talking about the mountain of public debt which Boss Godfrey has accumulated during his seven-year mayoral tenure. Our reader interest in this topic had been sparked by a Standard-Examiner article published one day earlier, wherein Boss Godfrey had gleefully announced a 9-year plan to pay down Emerald City's "$20 million debt".
Midway through the article comments, one of our helpful and attentive readers sent us a pdf file, entitled Ogden City Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Year Ended June 30, 2006, reporting on Emerald City's audited financial condition as of mid-2006.
We promptly uploaded it to our storage site and linked it in the comments thread, and further reader discussion ensued. Most of us were quite shocked, when we learned -- right there on page 124 of the budget document -- that the lumpentaxpayers were on the hook for at least $93 million in municipal debt, rather than the $20 million which ever-truthful Dear Leader had mentioned only one day earlier. These higher 2006 figures of course did not reflect the cost of the Junction project. We haven't received the final bill for that boondoggle yet.
Shortly thereafter, David Smith, one of our more articulate and conscientious WCF readers, "went public" with this disturbing and dissonant information, in this letter, which appeared in the May 13 Std-Ex edition.
And a little over a month later, the Std-Ex published this stern Boss Godfrey administration retort, penned by none other than Emerald City Financial Manager (and CPA) John Arrington, saying to the good people of our fair city, in essence, that "David Smith doesn't know what he's talking about." "RDA debt really isn't really city debt," Mr. Arrington said (presumably with a completely straight face.)
For those readers who are wondering why we're doing a re-hash of this series of events, we just wanted to refresh your recollections and bring everybody up to speed.
And in this connection we now link the latest letter in this revealing series of correspondence, which appeared this morning in the Std-Ex letters section. Our own gentle reader Dorothy Littrell throws down the gauntlet to her CPA colleague in today's letter; and we provide a short "teaser" excerpt below:
I call his attention to page 50 of the last Ogden City Independent Auditors’ Report as of June 30, 2006 which states:We at Weber County Forum await Mr. Arrington's anticipated public response with abated breath. We love to watch professionals "duking it out," whilst dressed in expensive worsted-woolen suits.
"The accompanying financial statements include all activities of the City and Ogden Redevelopment Agency (RDA).
The RDA was included because the separate governing bodies of both entities are comprised of the same individuals and the City is financially accountable for the RDA."
I challenge him to restate his comments in another Letter with full disclosure of all current Ogden City debt whether General Obligation debt, RDA debt, Lease Revenue Bonds, Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, Special Assessment Bonds, Section 108 debt, Enterprise Fund Revenue Bonds, Defeased Bonds or Lines-of-Credit which totalled $91 million plus as of last June 30th.
I suggest that Ogden City officials read page 50 of the Audit Report signed by Schmitt, Griffiths, Smith & Co. on November 27, 2006 so they will quit insisting that RDA debt is not Ogden taxpayers’ debt."
Editor's special sub-topic note: There's been some discussion in previous threads about the Std-Ex editors' propensity to unilaterally edit readers' submitted letters. We talked to Ms. Littrell earlier this morning; and she's definitely "steamed" that the Std-Ex chopped the "meat" out of her originally-submitted letter. At the request of Ms. Littrell, we publish the full text of Ms. Littrell's letter, in its originally-submitted form.
We'll let our gentle readers be the judges. Did the Std-Ex editors substantially alter the meaning of Ms. Littrell's letter?
What about it, gentle readers?
