Like the Hollywood "B" grade horror-movie monster that never has "the stake" quite driven cleanly through its evil heart until the end of the last reel, Boss Godfrey's strange gondola obsession arises once again as headline news this morning, with this Scott Schwebke story, reporting that the Godfrey administration and the Utah Transit Authority have reached agreement for disposition of the $247 thousand in Federal Transportation Administration grant funds that have been languishing on the UTA books for over a year.Yes, gentle readers, the secret gondola study is once again back on the WCF discussion front burner, right back where it belongs, with a municipal election approaching in a mere 46 days.
As is the usual circumstance in anything involving Boss Godfrey obsessions, opinions differ about the operative facts. Whereas Boss Godfrey contends that the expenditure of these funds will be for the benefit of the UTA, rational spokesmen for the Utah Transit Authority have previously expressed a drastically differing opinion on the subject:
Godfrey said transportation information from studies funded through the contract will benefit UTA, not Ogden, because the city wouldn’t own, operate or maintain the urban gondola.Boss Godfrey of course resides in his own private gondolist universe, and is no stranger to drastic differences of opinion, especially among rational, non-sociopathic people.
“They (UTA) requested the contract,” he said. “They need to find out if it (the urban gondola) is viable to get people from point A to point B.”
However, a July 20, 2006, letter from Mick Crandall, UTA’s deputy chief for planning and programming, to John Arrington, the city’s finance manager, indicates at the time the municipality was interested in using the $247,500 allocation to further study the gondola proposal.
“Ogden city has determined that its preferred use of the funds would be to refine the proposal for the aerial cableway which the city is pursuing as part of a public-private cooperative endeavor,” the letter says.
Among the details nailed down in the UTA/Godfrey agreement are these, according to this morning's Ace Reporter Schwebke story:
"UTA will allocate a portion of the funds to pay Salt Lake City-based Lewis, Young, Robertson & Burningham $16,250 for a gondola fiscal impact study completed in November 2006...And there's also one additional element of the story that we find curious:
"With the exception of the Lewis, Young, Robertson & Burningham bill, UTA will be responsible for all contracts financed in connection with the agreement...
In addition, the city and UTA will jointly develop a “scope of work” for gondola studies that maximizes “benefits to the constituents” of both entities, the agreement says...
The city and UTA will also designate an equal number of representatives to a committee that will review gondola-related study proposals, according to the agreement...
In addition, UTA will review all invoices submitted by each consultant to determine eligibility for payment.
"After UTA pays Lewis, Young, Robertson & Burningham, the balance of the funds available through the contract won’t likely be expended, unless Peterson finds a way to fund the urban gondola, said John Patterson, the city’s chief administrative officer."
We're not sure what the above language means, although it might suggest that UTA will not be required to disburse any funds under express terms of the agreement, until Chris Peterson comes up with a viable mechanism to fund the whole crackpot scheme.
Is the production of a viable financing plan a condition precedent to the implementation of this UTA/Godfrey agreement under its own written terms? Will the UTA be legally required to hold off on wasting these grant monies, until the gondolists produce a plan on paper that passes the "sniff test" -- or is Mr. Patterson merely suggesting that this probably won't happen as a practical matter? There remains a large hanging question in the possible interpretation of Patterson's above statement.
Frankly we do not know. Unfortunately Ace reporter Schwebke apparently didn't ask the obvious followup question. This, buy the way is not intended as a slam on Scott Schwebke, who played perhaps the key role in publicly exposing the Godfrey administration's earlier devious misbehavior in connection with this matter, and whose article today is otherwise very revealing.
We'll attempt to reach a UTA spokesman this morning. If we can get some clarification on this, we'll put it up by way of an article update.
And what say our gentle readers about all this?
Update 9/20/07 11:45 a.m. MT: One of our gentle readers has kindly forwarded to us a full text pdf version of the above-mentioned 8/29/07 UTA/Godfrey Administration agreement, which we've uploaded to our storage site and now make available for our readers' inspection here.
Update 9/21/07 9:05 a.m. MT: Scott Schwebke provides a followup story in this morning's Standard-Examiner, fleshing out yesterday's story with the added information that UTA officials are also dealing directly with the city council and its legal representatives, regarding the ultimate disposition of the Federal Transportation Administration funds.
47 comments:
Props to Scott Schwebke for this morning's article on UTA signing the $247,000 study contract with Ogden city. Instead of his usual "I'll take the mayor at his word" reporting style, Schwebke actually throws in a "However" after the mayor makes some ridiculous claim about UTA (not Ogden city) requesting the contract.
"However, a July 20, 2006 letter from Mick Crandall, UTA's deputy chief for planning and programming to John Arrington, the city's finance manager, indicates at the time the municipality was interested in using the $247,500 allocation to further study the gondola proposal."
One other interesting tidbit from this article -- we find out from Godfrey that the transportation information that will come from the study will benefit UTA, not Ogden, because the city won't own or operate or maintain the urban gondola. So after a couple of years of telling us that the urban gondola is essential to the revitilization of downtown, now we read that studies of the transportation feasibility for this urban gondola, etc. won't benefit Ogden city. Is that because the mayor is sure the studies will show the gondola to be a poor transportation alternative?
Cato:
Exactly. If the Mayor is telling the truth about the origins of the contract [UTA suggested it be to do a gondola study], then UTA is not. If UTA is telling the truth about the origins of the contract [Ogden wanted the money used to study a gondola], then the Mayor is not. They cannot both be telling the truth on this. Their claims are mutually exclusive.
Since a quarter of a million dollars in public money is involved here, seems to me our state legislators need to get involved, need to begin questioning UTA about its involvement in all of this. Time for asleep-at-the-switch John Greiner [R-Ogden and, when he can find the time, Ogden City Police Chief] and rarely-seen-on-local-issues Lou Shurtlif [D-Ogden] to start asking some questions, seems to me.
I also recall UTA in documents revealed earlier saying it would require Council input on this as well as the Mayor's input a reflection of what the city's wishes were. What happened to that?
So many questions. So few answers....
Two more points: the Mayor now insists it will all be done with private money. Uh huh. Watch and wait. If it ever gets off the ground [note John Patterson, Godfrey Flack, trying to smooth the waters by saying none of the money will actually be spent unless Peterson finds a way to pay for the gondola himself], and Godfrey and his clones control the council, here is what will happen: the Administration will produce an estimate that the gondola will raise property values all along its route and at its terminals by some astronomical sum, and the "tax increment" based on that increase in values will be assigned to back the bonds issued to build the gondola.
This also makes it very plain why Mayor Godfrey has opposed, and continues to oppose, the recommendation of the only professionals to actually study Ogden's transit needs that the route from downtown to WSU and McKay Dee is the primary corridor that needs improved transit, and why, against the recommendations of the professionals who have studied the matter, he wants that transit corridor removed as the priority one and a Washington Blvd to Riverdale corridor substituted for it: the corridor the experts say is the one that Ogden needs transit improvements on most [and they reject gondola as a viable transit option for doing that] Godfrey wants reserved for his obsession with gondolas.
Since, mid-campaign, the Mayor is taking every opportunity to appear in public to announce new projects, openings, etc. seems passing strange that this contract with UTA signed three weeks ago was done in the dark, not announced or made public, and had to be ferreted out by the Standard Examiner. Thus does "open government" operate in Matthew Godfrey's Ogden.
Can you just imagine how much would have been accomplished during the past years if Godfrey had concentrated on actually running the city instead of being Chris Peterson's mouthpiece? Now we will have to waste more time that could be spent studying REAL mass transit options while our (Federal) tax dollars are wasted on this wasteoftime Gondola fiasco.
I can just see it- if there is enough public opposition voiced now Godfrey will suddenly "listen to the people" and claim to forget about the urban gondola. Until after election day, that is.
Can anyone say Narcissistic Personality Disorder?
Rosmary:
On transit, the paper yesterday had an article about the big rollout by various public officials and chambers of commerce of Weber County in favor of the proposed "transportation sales tax increase" that will be on the ballot in November. They held the roll out ceremony at an uncompleted Frontrunner Station, with Frontrunner trains in the background. Hoping, it seems clear, that Weber County voters wouldn't notice that none... repeat none of the Priority One list of projects to be funded by the tax involves rail transit in any form. That's right: not a single dime of the tax money is allocated for rail transit in Weber County.
So naturally, the Weber County Supervisors and the Ogden Weber Chamber of Commerce stage their opening ceremony for the tax drive at a train station.
By the way, in the entire list of Priority One projects to be funded by the proposed new sales tax, there is exactly one --- count 'em one --- transit project slated for Weber County. A Bus Rapid Transit route between downtown Ogden, WSU and McKay Dee hospital --- exactly the project the Mayor of Ogden has made it plain will never come to pass while he is in office.
They are going to try hard to sell Weber County voters on the idea that the new tax involves a lot of money for transit projects --- as the Salt Lake Tax did [voters there were promised that if they tax was approved, most of the money would go for expanding TRAX lines and other rail transit... and it did.] However, the tax we are being asked to vote in favor of in November involves no committment on the part of county or city or town officials to do anything specific with the money [beyond corridor access for extension of the Legacy Highway through Weber County]. We're simply being told to pass the tax and trust them to do what is wisest. No guarantees. No committments, beyond Legacy Highway. And only one transit project even on the projected list of priority projects for Weber County, and that one the Mayor won't let happen.
Still gathering information, but without some firm committments by the WC Supervisors and UTA and UDOT regarding what the money will [rather than might be used for, at the moment I'm leaning toward a "no" vote. And given this morning's headlines about the contract UTA just signed in the dark with Mayor Godfrey to fund a gondola study, my tendency to trust UTA's judgment and trustworthiness on such matters is running a little low a the moment.
Bill C calls him "lying little matty"....so right on. Did you notice when lying little matty signed with UTA? Aug 29...two weeks before the Primary!
The man's name is a misnomer...He just THINKS he's God, and nothing he does is FREE.
Soon the unwashed masses will assemble as an unruly crowd in front of the Municipal Bldg with lighted torches calling for the little twerp and liar to get out of town.
Sociopathic Narcissistic Personality Disorder....textbook case.
curm:
I note also that today's paper carries a correction to the headline in yesterday's article:
"The Northern Utah Transportation Alliance, made up of Davis, Weber, and Box Elder chambers of commerce and elected government leaders, kicked off its campaign Tuesday for a quarter-cent sales tax increase. A headline in yesterday's Standard-Examiner misidentified the organization."
In fact, the headline incorrectly identified the organization as "UTA". And I'm sure the confusion was intentional on the part of NUTA and these unnamed "elected government leaders" who want to tax us to subsidize sprawl developers on the suburban fringe. As you say, the plan is to spend very little of the money on transit (or even on roads that would benefit most of us).
Dr. Phil:
Nice catch. Clearly Hizzonah the Mayor did not want that contract coming to public view before the primary. Can't imagine why...
Rudi:
Have to disagree with your swipe at Schwebke/SE above. The SE broke the story. Those here who insist that the best way to keep up on Ogden matters is to read the SL Trib did not read this story this morning. SE subscribers did.
And Mr. Schwebke, admirably, as someone pointed out below, did not simply take the Mayor's word that this was all UTA's idea. He checked that against the record and noted that UTA had said, on the record, just the opposite of what the Mayor said.
Yes, the story raised questions it did not answer. But that often happens with good stories... they lay out matters and questions to be followed up.
The SE served its readers, and the city, well with the story today. It got the contract the Mayor clearly had not wanted made public, it made it public, it checked his claims about its orgins against UTA's statements on the same matter, and it raised new questions to be pursued. My home town paper does that of a Fall morning, I figure I got my 25 cents worth than then some.
Given that much had already been made about the UTA contract and the mystery $16,000 due to LYRB, you would think that the mayor would have wanted to announce that everything was finally cleared up and UTA, in fact, would be paying LYRB, not the city. But of course, announcing such a thing would only remind voters of the mess G and his boys created to start with and that even though they are no longer interested in funding the urban gondola from the sale of the golf course, they still want it ... very badly. But since so many Ogdenites are opposed to it, better to keep it on the back burner till after the election.
Hey folks, just because lying little matty made one statement, via headline, about not selling the golf course, don't be so naive to believe it. That statement was time to get his sorry lying ass thru the primary.
There are quite a few indicators that he still desires to give that property over to his buddy, for a song. This scam has a long shelf life, lying little matty has never once in his pathetic life told the truth, about anything and the only possible way for peterson to fund anything would be via the land grab.
I thought the city council had to approve deals such as this. Is it legal for the mayor alone to sign a deal with UTA on how they will spend a federal grant? I'd sure like to see this so-called "contract."
What happened to the UTA saying they wanted to make sure that the city council was involved, so the money would be spent according to city priorities?
And I appreciate Schwebke for his "However", and for his "despite". That's how reporters are supposed to do it. Quote the politician, then tell the rest of the story.
And let's make no mistake. You Godfrey supporters note, that when the mayor says UTA requested the contract that is a flat out lie. This was an Ogden Mayor initiative from requesting the grant to stipulating what it is for - a gondola. How do you feel, supporting someone who consistently lies to you?
And you people who think the mayor will not sell the golf course if elected: What do you say now?
Good point, Curm. Our comment re what we considered the obvious followup question wasn't meant as a slam on Schwebke, but did come off as "crabby," rather than merely "disappointed."
We've tinkered with the front page article to soften it up somewhat.
No reason to slam the Ace Reporter who broke the story, and continues to follow up.
Thanks Ogden Supporters
Thanks to those who supported me for City Council. I know Caitlain will do a good job. I was dis-appointed by the low voter turnout. It will be a full time position until the issues are understood. I hope more concerned citizens show up for community meetings to keep water rates down, taxes lower, and not give a rubber stamp to the current administration.
Don't forget that Councilman Brandon Stephenson works for UTA.
He will be the logical Chair of the new Council based on tenure and line of succession.
Don't forget also that this UTA grant is Federal money that was supposed to have been used for a bus.
Also, Don't forget to file some complaints with UTA and the Federal Department of Transportation and Hatch and Bennett and Bishop and the FBI just to start with.
If you are going to fight City Hall you have to learn to make waves.
Going before the Council for 3 minutes won't shake it.
Bill C:
Actually, I think the "leak" was very cleverly timed for Godfrey's purposes, if that's in fact what happened. [SE didn't say how it obtained a copy of the contract.]
Consider: (a) he did not want it coming to light just before the primary, given how the gondola polled very badly for him. Note how he has not been mentioning the gondola on the campaign trail, nor have two of his three surrogate council candidates.
(b) But he probably knew the signed contract could not be kept secret for very long, since it is a matter of public record, and he knew the SE was going after it, as were others.
(c) Therefor, the best time for it to surface, from his electoral POV, would be after the primary... and not immediately after, but a week or so later at least... and yet six weeks or so before the final election, to allow time for its headline impact to diminish and recede. [Voters have notoriously short memories.] If I were so abandoned to all decency and honor that I was running his campaign... that is to say, if I were so abandoned to all decency and honor that I was a Republican campaign consultant... I would have advised him to keep it under wraps if at all possible before the primary, and to make sure it got out no later than two weeks after the primary and no less than a month before the November election. And lo and behold... look what happened.
Thanks, Rudi, for making a .pdf of the contract available.
I couldn't help but notice a contrast between what Mayor Godfrey said (assuming this is a paraphrase of what he told Mr. Schwebke):
UTA will allocate a portion of the funds to pay Salt Lake City-based Lewis, Young, Robertson & Burningham $16,250 for a gondola fiscal impact study completed in November 2006.
The city hired the firm even though, at the time, it didn’t have a formal agreement with UTA to do so.
and what the contract says:
[Agreement, page 2, point 4]: Prior Procurement. With respect to the prior procurement of services from LYRB, Ogden will submit a description of the procurement process followed, together with copies of the applicable Ogden procurement policies and all applicable invoices. Upon UTA's review and approval, and subject to the reallocation of the Federal Funds, UTA will pay LYRB directly for invoiced amounts out of the Non-Federal Funds.
I'm no lawyer, but it reads to me like UTA will pay LYRB if, and only if, Ogden City can show that they followed appropriate procurement policy and guidelines — which we already know that they didn't. I don't think the retroactive waiving of the requirement to bid is gonna fly, Matt.
It doesn't say they're gonna pay, it says "if you can show you followed guidelines, then we'll pay". That's a huge difference, in this case.
Mono: Nevertheless I strongly suspect that UTA will, in fact, pay LYRB. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they payment has already been made.
Although we're busy today with real-life business, and thus unable to do any deep research on this, what strikes us at first glance is the language in the pdf document acknowledging that this federal appropriation actually belongs to Ogden City, and not the UTA, as the mendacious Boss Godfrey continues to insist.
Moreover the entire purpose of this document is to effectuate a reallocation of federal money which was originally earmarked for Ogden City.
At first glance, we wonder whether Boss Godfrey even has the legal authority to enter into this agreement.
According to our recollection, it's the City Council who has the sole power under Utah Law to deal with matters concerning revenue and the budget. And plainly, the $247 thousand in federal monies that have been appropriated for Ogden City ought to be considered a city revenue item. Consequently, it's doubtful, assuming we are correct about the council's sole revenue authority, that Boss Godfrey has the legal authority to dispose of the grant monies in the manner contemplated in the written agreement.
We'll be looking into this later when we find the time to do so. Meanwhile, we hope a few of our gentle readers will find this issue of interest, and will dig into it a little more.
Danny touched on this issue upthread, mentioning the fact that this agreement cuts the city council out of the deal.
It's just our initial reaction, without any backup research; but we do believe Danny is onto something when he asked, not entirely rhetorically:
"What happened to the UTA saying they wanted to make sure that the city council was involved, so the money would be spent according to city priorities?"
Just a passing thought, as we digest the material in the 8/29/07 "agreement."
Mono:
As we now know, the UTA pointed out to the Godfrey administration long ago that it had not followed competitive bid requirements in signing the LYRB contract. Ogden City ordinances required the City to put the contract out for bids, but the Godfrey administration did not. Instead, it signed a no-bid contract with LYRB secretly [not wishing as we know know thanks to the Dan S. emails for the City Council to find out what it was doing]. To deal with UTA's objection that the contract had been let in violation of the City's competitive bidding requirements, the Godfrey signed, long after the contract had been let, a retroactive waiver of the competitive bidding ordinance. [If the contract is going to a sole-source provider, the ordinances permit him to do that, but not retroactively.] He justified his retroactive waiver on grounds that LYRB and only LYRB offered the kind of financial analysis services the contract called for. [I asked someone in the banking community if that was true, if LYRB was in fact, as Godfrey's retroactive waiver claimed, the only firm offering those services in Utah. His reply was "absolutely not."]
So, the question now seems to be this: Will UTA endorse retro-active waivers of competitive bidding statues? [Note: retroactive waivers render the competitive bidding ordinances meaningless.] And will it accept as valid the Administration's claim that nowhere in the entire state of Utah is there any financial services firm that does the kind of financial analysis the contract called for?
I suspect, as Dan does, that the answer to those two questions will be "yes." If UTA thus renders municipal competitive bidding ordinances meaningless, it will be time --- it will be long past time --- for our state legislators to drop in on the head of UTA, Mr. Inglish, and inquire, in the best legislative fashion, "What the hell were you thinking?"
From my own, Yellow-dog Democratic point of view, and because I long ago gave up on expecting Republicans to actually pursue the principles of fiscal conservatism and good government they mouth so smoothly come election time, I am disappointed in my own Party's silence about all this. Other than Rep. Hansen, the Democratic Party of Weber County seems to have gone AWOL. It should be raising holy hell, loudly about the kind of governmental secrecy and financial skullduggery the Godfrey administration is involved in on this contract. Retroactive waivers of the competitive bidding ordinances? Where the devil are my Democratic state representatives [besides Neil Hansen] and my Weber County Democratic Party leaders on this? Or have they decided open government, honesty and fiscal responsibility are issues that matter no more to them than they do to Republicans? No wonder we're a minority party in Weber County. We don't seem willing, as a party to stand up when we should, or to stand for much of anything other than "we think what the Republicans do, only except for maybe a little bit around the edges... if nobody minds, that is."
Bah. We're a Democratic minority and we don't want to make noise on issues of open government and fiscal responsibility? What's the point of being a party at all, then, if we don't --- or won't --- stand for something? If we are afraid to stand, in public, loudly, for open government, fiscal conservatism and as basic a principle of both, competitive bidding for public contracts? It just doesn't get a whole lot more basic than that.
Compare the following.
A quote from Godfrey in this morning's article:
“They (UTA) requested the contract,” he said. “They need to find out if it (the urban gondola) is viable to get people from point A to point B.”
And the 5th "Whereas" in the agreement between Ogden City and the UTA:
"WHEREAS Ogden is seeking funding for engineering, planning, and other sutdies related to a proposed aerial cableway."
Notice a discrepancy?
Curm
Tell it to Mark DeCaria, he's supposed to be a Democrat! He is also supposed to be our chief law enforcement officer in Weber County. He is also supposed to be an honest upstanding guy. In my opinion he has struck out on all three. He has repeatedly rolled over and spread his legs for the Godfrey gang and all of their lies and manipulations, just like every other nominal Democrat around here except Hansen.
Hopefully Hansen will stand tall like he has in the past and call bull shit on this bull shit.
Old Pro-
Stephenson does not work for UTA. According to his website, he works for JM Thomas Forest Products.
Former Council Member Kent Jorgenson worked for UTA while on the Council and is currently employed there.
Lying, lying ,lying, lying ,lying,lying all the live long day. Stealing, stealing, stealing, stealing, stealing thats the godfrey way.
I'm not so sure that Danny wasn't quite clear enough, so here goes.
Lying little matty does not now or has never had the authority to enter into a contract with any one that spends city money(Transit earmark) without council approval.
Once again he's broken the law.
Time for the coucil to rein in the lying little gondola worshipping chucky cheeze impersonator.
Which reminds me, a 20 something told me just the other day, they went to the rec(jackass) center for the first time, said it reminded them of chucky cheeze.Vision, salvation and gondolas, gondolas, gondolas.
Only a year ago lying little matty and potato nose were trumpeting the death of Ogden,only a gondola can save us. Now their story is we need to keep this ecconomic boom rolling. Let's see, we have one overly subsidized gym, replacing what was two, thats minus one. Mr. B's gaming center has finally been reborn, excluding Mr. B. We have the city adminstration strong arming and intimidating prperty owners and forcing them to sell their property to an accused fraud, Gadi. Where's the beef?
Oh I forgot, damn near 100 million in debt for this progress.
Dan & Curm:
This discussion of the year-late "failure to follow competitive bid requirements" is very interesting in an acedemic sense; but it doesn't follow the practical reality in "utilitarian" Utah.
What's gonna happen is that Boss Godfrey will claim mistake, inadvertance or excusable neglect as an excuse; which are legal "outs" that would let Boss Godfrey retroactively "approve" an exception to the city "open bid contractor rule."
You're barking up the wrong tree Boyz.
Godfrey's belated adherence to the "bidding requirements" imposed by the Ogden City Code will be excused, absent evidence of "abuse of discretion" or active fraud on the part of Boss Godfrey.
We mentioned the "lack of legal authority problem" in our earlier comment.
Perhaps you lads should dwell on that "more meaty" issue.
One of our sources at city hall tells us that the Ogden City Council is preparing a press release, which will focus on the exact problem which we pointed out, and both of you inexplicably ignored, i.e., that the above mentoned UTA/Godfrey agreement is unenforcible, inasmuch as Godfrey DOESN"T HAVE THE UNILATERAL LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DISPOSE OF THE GRANT MONEY WHICH WAS EARMARKED FOR OGDEN CITY.
Stay tuned.
Rudi:
You are looking at these matters as legal questions. I am looking at them more as matters that resonate with voters. No bid contracts and the back-dating of documents are both matters that voters understand very well. Both matters can be, and if people opposing the mayor are astute, will be linked to the issue of "special privilege" --- "why is there one rule for all the rest of us, and another rule for the mayor and his friends? How come they get to avoid the bid laws, but others don't? Why do the mayor's friends know about city property for sale before anybody else?" And so on.
So, while I defer to your greater knowledge of the legalities involved, still seems to me that back-dating documents, and retroactively suspending the city ordinances to give no-bid contracts that benefit the Administration and its cronies are issues that often have --- and rightly so --- legs [so to speak] during election seasons.
And on a more general level, any time an elected official gets caught with his fingers in the cookie jar [or his fist] dodging the bidding laws or back-dating documents, both political parties --- Weber County Dems and Weber County GOP --- ought to go after him hammer and tongs and run the bastard to ground. [And before anyone asks, yes, I would say the same... and have... about Democratic officeholders.]
And so should the SE. Whoever the office holder is, of whatever party. Every time. All the time. Without exception.
Take my word, Curm.
Boss Godfrey's latest "behind the council's back orchestrations' re the purported 8/29/07 UTA/Godfrey agreement will be the next big news in Emerald City.
Scott Shwebke is already up to speed on this, so we're told.
Ace reporter Shwebke is well on his way to winning an Emerald City Pulitzer Prize.
The only think that might nip Schwebke's latest revelations will be the "Suits from Sanduskey," in which connection we''l help out Scott, by publishing the latest revelations here.
It appears to me that in the mumbo jumbo, the contract says that UTA was going to use some of their own non-federal money to replace buses. If they can use the $247K federal grant instead, to replace the buses, then UTA will use the funds they would have used to buy the buses to study the gondola.
So why all the financial cloak and dagger?
This way, it looks like UTA is doing the gondola study, that's why. UTA loses no money, but Godfrey gets cover for his big lie. That apprears to be the sole reason for the contract.
It all hinges on getting the Feds to re-program the $247K to use for buses, so UTA can then use an equal amount for the gondola study.
How did Godfrey talk them into this? Probably by pointing out that 'twas a city lobbyist who got the money in the first place, so it should be the city that decides how it's spent.
The problem is, the city council should decide how to spend the money, not the mayor alone.
When one sees the length to which Godfrey will go to distort the issue and the cleverness he uses in doing so, it is chilling to think what else he has done and is doing.
But take heart. Godfrey was going to give the full quarter million to Chris Peterson, as Arrington's letter proves. Having him pull back from that atrocity is, at least, a positive.
Lying Little Matty Gondola Godfrey had to sign the contract in order to get LRYB, or whatever these jerkoffs call themselves, paid; they've been threatening all sorts of shit for Little Matty's inability to extract a measly $17K out of the city coffers for a grade-school extrapolation of bogus figures related to:
A five-star hotel with Prada and Malono Blahnik stores on the ground floor, connected via gondola!
A WSU "base village" with student housing, shops, condos, a douche factory, ski wax shops and onion groves in the 36th Street foothills, along with a new clubhouse for Wayne Peterson's Kidd-tastic course over Strong's canyon.
A Tyrollean castle, guarded by magical dwarves, with Wolfgang Puck's restaurant, with auto sprinklers and shit orbs.
A mini-ski area that I could run in 45 minutes flat, and at which I would run into skank-ho Paris Hilton.
And all of this linked by gondolas! gondolas! gondolas! gondolas! gondolas!
And guess who the champions are? Geigers! Geigers! Geigers! Geigers!
Being familiar with federal and state grant writing, programming, fulfillment, and accountability, my question is this:
Even given the contract's considerable leverage on the UTA side for vendor fulfillment and study approval, why the hell is John Inglish signing a document with Lying Little Matty Godfrey that conceptually supports the study of a silly circus ride to nowhere that UTA cannot possibly support, even if Thorazine-addled Wayne Peterson, leader of the famed Squirrel Patrol, were to emerge from hiding and announce that he and THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE raised the requisite $40 million for the urban GONDOLA from $35K sponsorships?
What a flat jackass, moron. And we need to let him know it.
Off topic: Isn't the park/grass property north of Farr's Jewelry on Washington owned by Ogden City? I seem to recall a sign stating as much. If so, it's got a Lying Little Matty Gondola Godfrey sign on it.
THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE.
Danny:
I'd still like to know whose fingerprints are on this quarter million dollar earmark for Ogden's gondola study. Rob. "the Bush Lemming" Bishop's? He's not saying. Senator Hatch's? He's been strangely silent and unwilling to claim this particular bit of Utah-bound pork for himself.... which for him is very uncommon conduct. Sen. Bennett? Silent as the Sphinx on the matter.
Passing odd that none of the Utah's congressional delegation with responsibility for the Ogden area --- Bishop, Bennett or Hatch --- have been willing to step up and claim credit for bring this particular bit of pork home.
Jason:
Not to mention that Godfrey/Geiger/Gondola Inc. seem to think that the Frontrunner will stop at the Salt Lake City airport to whisk all those jet-setters lickety-split straight up to the New Aspen/Park City/Teluride [pick one] right here in Junction City.
Seems to me that I remember reading in the paper when the whole gondola study revelation came about that Godfrey was quoted in the paper as saying that he didn't know who commissioned the study or who paid for the study but that he had received a draft copy of the study.
Clearly the wording of the agreement with the UTA indicates and states that the city had the study done. Godfrey signed the agreement with that wording included.
One more documented lie by Godfrey.
Anyone but Godfrey
Can anyone envision riding in an Urban Gondola that's 65% glass in the summer? Talk about roasting babies in the car, this will be no different.
Can any resident that lives along the route imagine the gawkers staring in their front windows form the gondola cars?
Can you imagine how many times the gondola will be shut down for wind, lightening or annual maintenance? These system are not designed to be reliable mass transit.
Also went to the REC Center today for lunch. You could of emptied a rifle clip off in the place and most likely wouldn't have hit anyone. Maybe two dozen people at most through out the whole place including the food joints(other than the two dozen employees). This place isn't going to make it!
Rumor has it the the Rec Center did not cost the residents of Ogden $23,000,000, as stated by Godfrey. Now that all the numbers are starting to coming in, it looks more like it cost the residents $50,000,000.
We collect $55,000 per month from Fat Cats and the residents were to pick up the other $145,000 of the monthly note,(total monthly mortgage note of about $200,000 based on the $23 million price). Now at $50 million, Ogden resident are looking at being responsible for picking up between $350,000 to $400,000 of the monthly note. One hell of a good business deal by Godfrey. No cost control during the building of the project and a great contract with Fat Cats. Way to got Godfrey!
Anyone but Godfrey
Time will tell.. you'll see. It will cost the ogden residents one hundred billion dollars...grin.
Just a little salt in the wound, spending time and money at the jackass center will in no way help the city pay any of this off, for the next 20 years. All of the money you spend will go straight into neilson's pocket. His lease with the city is far more in his favor than if he went to any mall, no profit sharing or revenue based increases. The actual rent is $57,900.00 per month for 20 years.
Included in this rent is everything in the building, treadmills, bowling pins, free weights, you name it, you bought it, and your lying little mayor has leased it to his buddy, fully furnished for around $.50 a foot.
The gondola aint anyone's salvation, the sooner neilson goes broke and the city is rid of this lease, a more mature and savy mayor can find a more city friendly tenent or god willing, sell the damn building to save our BDO revenues for a more usefull purpose.
Anon:
Can you imagine all the business owners along Harrison watching potential customers being whisked past their business in gondola cars with no way to get off or on at those businesses? Can you imagine owners of apartments or condos along the gondola route having to explain to potential renters/buyers that, why, yes, that's a gondola line downtown or to WSU, but you can't get on or off it anywhere near here.
Friday's secret gondola study contract story is already up on the SE's free site. The link is here.
The twists and turns just keep on coming. Most interesting lines from the story:
UTA and Mayor Matthew Godfrey signed an agreement in August that states the city is seeking funding for engineering, planning and other studies in connection with a proposed urban gondola.
The Ogden City Council made an unsuccessful attempt several months ago to enter into an interlocal agreement with UTA so it could control how the funds are spent, said Bill Cook, the council's executive director. However, Cook said Crandall told him UTA had already made a commitment to Godfrey.
Elsewhere, the story says UTA says that it's in contact with the Council and none of the money beyond paying off LYRB for the study already done that the Mayor signed for [via retroactive waiver of the bidding requirements] will be spent without "city" approval. But it's a tad vague about whether the Mayor alone can or could provide that approval. From the story:
UTA doesn't have any plans for the remainder of the funds and will rely on guidance from the city regarding how money should be spent, said Saley.
"We will leave that decision up to Ogden," he said, adding that funds could be allocated to study various forms of mass transit, such as street cars or buses.
City Councilman Rick Safsten said he would like to see a portion of the funds used for an "alternatives analysis" of mass transit options for Ogden.
How about a study regarding other options such as street cars, trolleys, and other modes of transportation while they are at it???
Ozboy:
Your right as usual.
Crum:
The reason why democrats seem to have gone awol? Is because the Standard Examiner won't point out the facts. Neither does this blog.
The republicans have mastered the art of minulipiation of the people, "hide the dirt." "Fake the good."
Tell lies about the democratic candidates.
Well crum they've been doing it for 30 years here in Utah. And unless one editor on the editorial board, that will shine some light on the republican corruption. It will not change.
Thanks for the Hansen family that have run many campaigns in the past 15 years. The democrats would be home on election nights. I know the Democrat challengers were very educated, all having business and public service in their back ground.
Well because the republicans had challengers. They couldn’t all go into the bathroom stall and start celebrating by tapping they’re toes with the Republican Senator of Idaho. But woops those “pesky cops” caught them.
Well Utah and especially here in Weber County. (It’s good night and good luck). You asked for it you got it.
I now know what President Bill Clinton meant when he said “I feel your pain”.
Can you tell me why anyone would to run for office against wolves in sheep’s clothing.
But the few Democrats will sometime win because Goliath won’t last forever.
Well it seems today's article is backpedaling the reason for the agreement, which is to place money into different pots so it looks like UTA is spending it's own money on the gondola, when really it's the federal money designated for transit studies on Ogden that is what is being spent for gondola studies.
But it is nice that UTA is once again saying council will be involved.
The problem is, the "contract" says no such thing.
This was an attempt by Godfrey, who had a lobbyist get the money, to regain full control of the money so he could spend it for gondola studies, even though, according to Godfrey, there isn't going to be a gondola unless Peterson pays for the whole thing, and Peterson has said he won't do it without being handed the golf course.
So it still doesn't add up UNLESS Godfrey is still planning to sell the golf course, which of course, he is.
Danny:
You've hit exactly the question I've been wondering about. It's all very well for Mr. Inglish and UTA to say "well, of course, we'll insist that the Council be involved in deciding how the city wants the money spent." But since UTA has said flat out that it refused to bring the Council into the contract because it had a handshake [i.e. unwritten] agreement with Mayor Godfrey to work exclusively through his office via the contract instead, I have to wonder is the UTA's "commitment" to involve the council in future spending decision written anywhere? Does it appear in a legally binding document anywhere? Is it part... a written part... of the contract UTA just signed with the Mayor? Or does it all boil down to "you can trust us?" and nothing more?
Also have to wonder, since UTA apparently likes to proceed on the basis of handshake deals of which the public is unaware... handshake deals which apparently involve its nodding like a bobble-head doll at things like retroactive waivers of public bidding laws in order to render the actions of mayors it deals with retroactively acceptable.... what other verbal commitments has UTA made to the Godfrey administration in all this that we don't yet know about?
I hope Mr. Inglish learns from this sordid and embarrassing episode in how not to conduct the public's business at UTA is that when you nod approvingly as your agency proposes to lie down with dogs, you cannot claim to be surprised when your agency arises with fleas.
Democrat:
You wrote: The reason why democrats seem to have gone awol? Is because the Standard Examiner won't point out the facts. Neither does this blog.
Sorry, Dem, but we can't load the problems of the WC Dems on the Standard Examiner, though I will grant you its local electoral coverage leaves a lot, often, to be desired.
The bigger problem is a lack of leadership. The party virtually disappears hereabouts between elections. And when opportunities arise to remind voters that we are here, and to raise holy hell about misgovernment and the violation of principle that most voters agree are important, we sit silently by and let it all happen without comment. The latest example, but only the latest one, is the revelation that Ogden's mayor had violated the public bidding laws by signing a retroactive waiver of them in order to hide a contract he had signed on behalf of the city. WC Democratic leadership should have been all over that. Loudly. So should our state reps. That's what leaders are supposed to do, after all. Take the lead. Not stick a wet finger up into the air to catch the faintest shift in perceived public opinion and wonder if they will offend anyone by speaking out. [To be fair, the national party has been suffering from the same lack of courage for some time now as well, though it seems to be, at last, rising from its slumbers.]
It's hard for a party to have followers when for much of the year it doesn't seem to have leaders.
The Democratic party emerged under Andrew Jackson's leadership as a scrapping clawing fighting party that represented the against the of the the privileged and the insiders of his day. It did not emerge as a party that sat back and watched and wondered if it would be OK to take a stand in public on issues that might offend someone.
Locally, we seem to have forgotten that. When the populist party was being organized, one of its founders, Mary Ellen Lease went around speaking to farmers in the mid-west, telling them at the top of her lungs that they needed to raise "less corn and more hell." Good advice at the time... and effective. Damn good advice for Weber County Democrats right now... though the corn today would refer to the wimpy bromides the local party likes to adopt at its conventions [which are so wimpy bland they are not even reported in the local prints].
It should be exciting to be a Democrat in Weber County these days. It isn't.
Old Pro:
You are mistaken about Stephenson working for UTA. It was Kent Jorgensen, a former council member, that works for UTA.
Crum:
People like you who bark but don't work. Why don't you run for party leadership? Why don't you call and talk to the party leadership? Why don't you run for public office?
We need good leaders like you!
democrat:
I work for the party as I can. I am not a leader, nor do I have the ability to be one, nor could I run successfully for office. None of which precludes me from insisting that my party... my party... have such leaders, and run such candidates as can and will stand up on the issues. All the time. Not once every couple of years.
There are lots of battles that need fighting in Ogden and Weber County. They are important enough that it would be good for the public... and the party... to fight those battles even if we lose. And to keep on fighting them. Hard. However long it takes.
I am pained that I have to turn to the likes of Barry Goldwater Republicans for lessons here that my party needs to learn. They got their heads handed to them when Goldwater ran. But they didn't quit. They kept fighting the battles they thought needed fighting, losing, and losing and losing again. But now they're running the joint. Or their bastard political offspring are.
We've started nationally with Howard Dean's "fifty state strategy" which worked. Don't give the bastards a moment peace, not a single uncontested race. Take the fight to them in what they consider their save havens, like Montana. And Utah. We need to do the same in Weber County. Everytime they commit a public outrage, every time the Republican penchant for corruption and cronyism surfaces, we need to be on them like white on rice. Every single damn time, whether there is an election on the boards or not.
And we need leaders who can do that.
Curmudgeon
Correctomundo, unfortunately we have the likes of DeCaria and Stuart Reid instead!
By the way, I was a real life Goldwater Republican in my foolish youth. No way no how would I claim any Republican loyalty now however. The party left me cold many years ago with their arrogance and corruption.
By the way, I loved your line: "But now they're running the joint. Or their bastard political offspring are." Bastard political offspring is right all right.
Post a Comment