Thursday, November 01, 2007

Economic Report Card for Ogden City

Another article the Standard-Examiner refused to print

By Rob Garner

Like a lot of other people in our community, I have been reading the political mailings and letters to the editor that all contain facts and statistics. I decided to do my own research to determine what the truth actually was relative to some of this data. This is not the type of reading that I particularly enjoy, but the type of reading that I’ve learned is necessary to draw the right conclusion.

The mayor has claimed to be tough on crime and says he’s increased the spending on the police. In total dollars he is correct, but not so in relative dollars to past budgets. In our 2001-02 budget, the city committed 44.2% of the city budget to police, whereas in the 2005-06 budget we are now only spending 38.5% (levels came down each year).

At a recent neighborhood meeting on crime, the police chief was quoted in the Standard Examiner as stating that in 1975 the city police recorded about 25,000 calls per year and that today that number is about 100,000. This does not sound like a reduced problem to me; nor do I think we should be reducing the size of the police department’s piece of the budgetary pie dollars.

During this same time period the Economic Development budget grew from 7.3% to over 25% of the budget, (this does not include the RDA activity). It’s the only budget within the city that continues to grow at the expense of city services and infrastructure, and is far in excess of what most other cities spend in this area.

Second the mayor has touted his successful efforts at revitalizing the economy of the city. The insinuation being that the city wouldn’t be doing as well as it is, without his efforts.

In order to ascertain the validity of his claims I went to the Weber County Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFR) for the years of 2003 thru 2006, (http://www1.co.weber.ut.us/Clerk_Auditor/cafr.php) and then compared those financials with the Ogden City financial reports (http://www.ogdencity.com/manageserv.cafr.html) for the years 2002 thru 2006. This was very interesting (if you like reading financial reports, that is), in that it provides an insight as to how Ogden City is doing financially relative to our surrounding communities, (i.e. is the current administration as "good" as they say?) In simplistic terms, this allows us to compare Ogden’s economy with that of all of the other cities in the county, where the county’s performance represents the average (as a measuring stick so to speak). Since both the County and the City use the same accounting firm to prepare these reports, comparisons are not that difficult.

First though it must be mentioned that the County uses a year-end accounting basis, whereas the City uses a fiscal year ending on June 30th. I mention this because the time periods don’t line up exactly, but the differences between the two entities on the specific comparisons are large enough to minimize this timing difference. I looked at the percentage differences between the years for both entities on various measures. Several stood out, but I’ll just mention a couple of the more significant economic indicators.

Ogden City has not fared as well as our neighboring communities over the last couple of years when it comes to Sales Tax Revenue growth (one very good measure of business activity), or in Total Net Assets growth (this being the city’s investments into capital assets such as land, buildings, equipment and infrastructure). These are two very good measures of business activity within a community, where the first one, Sales Tax Revenue growth, shows how much business is transacted in the community (i.e. how fast is business growing in the community as almost all transactions involve sales tax) and the latter, Total Net Assets growth, indicates how many of the community-generated revenues are being reinvesting back into the community (investments in roads, city buildings, parks, road repairs and infrastructure such as the water systems). These measures generally need to match the local level of inflation to indicate break-even operations when compared to the prior year.

Sales tax revenue growth for all of Weber County was 6.3% in 2005 and 15.8% in 2006, while Ogden City only saw 5.5% growth in 2005 and only 8.6% in 2006.

Total net asset growth in Weber County for 2004, 2005, and 2006 was 3.8%, 12.4% and 11.2% respectively. Ogden City was 1.4%, 1.5% and 2.6% for the same time period, not even keeping up with inflation.

With Ogden City representing 40% of the population of the county, Ogden is lowering the overall performance of the county in these two key measurements of growth. If Ogden is below the county average, the rest of the communities within the county must perform much better economically than Ogden to bring the county average down to its current level. Clearly the hype from the administration that their efforts are paying off has not held true for the last few years when it comes to business activity or city well being.

Also interesting is the mayor’s statement that he has lowered city taxes three times during his 7 years in office, suggesting that this is a major accomplishment. Weber County has 14 cities within its boundaries and of those cities, 8 reduced their property taxes over the same period, cuts ranging from a low of 5.18% to a high of 27.09%. Ogden’s reduction is about 9.08% and that puts us in 6th place among those communities that lowered their taxes. Also contrary to one of his mailings, the city has raised our city taxes twice during his term in office, in 2004 and 2005.

An interesting commentary accompanying the 2006 Weber County financial report states “the County’s economy should be seen in the context of the state’s current economic boom,” as reported by Zion’s Bank economic consultant. The point here is that the county was doing well, not only because of its actions, but also because of greater economic activity going on within the state.

The same could be said for Ogden, except that Ogden hasn’t even kept up with the rest of the county. Seven years of hype sounded good but the numbers don’t lie. We have underperformed our neighbors and are now an additional $50 million dollars in debt. The city can’t stand another 4 years of this type of prosperity.

To summarize this performance of the city under the leadership of Matt Godfrey for the last seven years, let me conclude the following:

1. He has cut the budget spending levels on the police department by 13% (44.2 vs. 38.5) and we, the residents, have felt the effects of those cut in the current level of crime activity.

2. In 2006, his economic programs, meant to encourage business activity within the city, (I used 2006 as it was his best year and the latest which should have shown the fruits of his seven years’ labor) showed that Ogden City only generated 55% of the sales tax revenues of the average in Weber County.

3. His re-investments into our city infrastructure haven’t even kept up with the rate of inflation, which means that the city is structurally falling into decay. His failure to address these needs earlier in his tenure of office have cost the residents millions, as all of the costs, relative to these needs, have escalated enormously in the last five years.

What future gains he projects from his yet to be developed business activities (if they even work) may not even cover the deficit that he has created for the city in delaying several projects in the city, specifically our water and sewer systems.

4. His property tax reductions rank us in 6th place out of 14 cities in the county, not a placement worthy of writing home about.

5. He has almost doubled the debt level of this city in the last two years.

Now the Report Card: If I were an instructor grading him on his management performance, while in office, and grading him on his contributions to the betterment of business activity in the city, I couldn’t give him a passing grade based on how his performance compares to that of other surrounding cities and their management.

Godfrey has taken his eye off the ball in the position that he was elected to serve (that of mayor responsible for managing the operations of the city) in order to focus on things that he prefers, i.e. business development at any cost. He has assumed the responsibility of the department head of business development and, at the neglect of everything else in the city. His actual effectiveness in this business development job has been questionable at best when looked at in the bigger picture rather than in individual accomplishments. His development plans for the city are not coordinated or properly timed; they are too fluid in concept and not consistent in execution. Most of his accomplishments have only taken place when he has been willing to give too much away in negotiations. Ogden residents will ultimately pay the price of his business inexperience and immaturity in this arena as well as in his neglect of his other mayoral responsibilities, specifically as they relate to maintaining the city infrastructure.

The suggestion that Ogden is just about to turn the corner when Godfrey’s whole vision comes together should also be viewed with extreme skepticism in that most of these projects are financed with publicly funded incentives or with public financing activities that will fix the developer’s contribution to the city’s tax rolls at current levels for many years to come. The use of these financial vehicles will severely limit Ogden’s benefit from these future projects and additionally if any of these projects fail, Ogden may be saddled with their debt.

In my opinion, this is clearly a management issue that needs to be addressed in the upcoming election. It’s time for a change.

Rob Garner

I am a 20 year resident of Ogden, a previous Ogden Planning Commissioner, partner in a small business and on retainer to a major company in the oil industry providing expertise in the area of business development.

Editor's Note: The forgoing article was first published in abbreviated form on the Standard Examiner "Flowers and Darts" web page, after having been inexplicably declined for publication in the Std-Ex hard-copy edition. The above article is an author-submitted revised version, which has been considerably expanded since the original Std-Ex submission. We publish it here at the author's request, in order to facilitate the widest possible dissemination of this important analysis, prior to Tuesday's election.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

I see that Godfrey is still lying about crime statistics in today's paper: "According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, crime has dropped 23 percent overall and violent crime has dropped 43 percent in the past seven years." In fact these numbers do not come from the FBI UCR; they come from a spreadsheet that is published only on the Ogden City web site.

I won't beat a dead horse by repeating the actual FBI UCR statistics. Bottom line is that there may have been a slight decrease of a few percent in Ogden's crime rate over the last 7 years, but the noise in the data and the uncertainties in the estimated population make it hard to tell for sure.

Anonymous said...

Rob,
A most erudite and thoughtful commentary. I can't imagine (well, yes I can) why the SE will not publish this in the daily paper.

I wish you would personally deliver this to Andy or Dave, bypassing Don Porter.

We know the SE folks read the blog. After reading this...all facts expounded are verifiable, they will be remiss in their responsibilities to serve and inform their readers if they endorse Godfrey.

Looking at his dismal racord in black and white, no thinking person could recommend another 4 years of this immature visionary as being good for Ogden.

I'm afraid that we will see an exodus of residents and businesses if Matt is re-elected. People simply cannot afford any more of his "prosperity".

Businesses new and old should be concerned about the infrastructure and the necessary raising of taxes to fix what has been neglected for so long.

If Godfrey could get his head out of a gondola and peer into the sewers, he could find his legacy!

Making Ogden safe and healthy should have been his priority.

He is not a manager and his track record must be graded a failure.

He was runner in college, but he isn't even close to to pushing that scrawny chest into the victor's ribbon.

Anonymous said...

Dan:

Apparently, neither you nor I are qualified to determine whether a statement is true or not.

Anonymous said...

Sharon, you are an idiot if you think the SE will publish that.

And yes, the SE will endorse Godfrey too. Why? Who knows?

That's the Standard-Examiner!

And now...an anecdote... After panning the SE for the pathetic rag it is, I was recently reprimanded by a former employee of the SE for such unwarranted and harsh criticism. Then I asked him how do you explain Scott Schwebke? His answer was that all the good reporters quit and go to work for the SLTrib (my subscription) or the Deseret News. So it seems to me that thier mediocrity can be partially explained through thier cheapness. Although, they certainly don't pass these savings on to thier customers, because the SLTrib really isn't that much more than the SE, delivered to my porch. So, I like to think of it as I'm getting a fair publication for a fair price. And those of you who subscribe to the SE are simply being defrauded.

Now did anyone read that excellent article by Kristen Moulton comparing and discussing the Mayoral Candidates? Uh, yeah, it was excellent, and it was in the SLTrib.

Anonymous said...

Rob Garner:

Great words!!!

This why I will never vote for a politician, who says they’re for "LESS GOVERNMENT."

It all started with Ronald Regan.

Politicians like Godfrey always cut police and fire fighter budgets.


So they can shell out, our tax dollars, to their business buddies.

Government is a service, not welfare for rich businessmen.

Anonymous said...

There's a letter in today's SE about what's in Godfrey's "declaration" to save Mt Ogden Park - that Godfrey vowed that the property would not be sold unless something "generally benefitting Ogden city" materializes. Does anyone know where we can read this "declaration"? Is it posted somewhere? I don't see it on his website - just his bogus claim that he protected Mt Ogden golf course because he listened to the people of Ogden - was this why he was telling us that everyone he talked to was for the sale and how if you weren't for it you were against progress in Ogden?

Anonymous said...

I will not vote for Godfrey.

I need to sleep at night.

Anonymous said...

Would this idea work?

Is it feasible to copy Rob's excellent analysis and each of us distribute it in our neighborhoods?

We can chip in on the cost of the printing.

Depending on how many of us participate....we can each be responsible for 50 to 100 copies.

The candidates are still out walking their neighborhoods, and could hand this out also.

please respond. PS Jim's readable and understandable essay on the real crime stats that flared up Greiner's arrogant and insulting salvo should be included.

Anonymous said...

Sharon:

I suspect, Sharon, that Rob's analysis is (a)too long (b) too detailed and (c) too complex for most citizens [and I suspect most readers readers of the SE] to stay with to the end. I suspect that's one reason the SE may not have been interested in printing it. And study after study by the pros who do campaign lit for a living shows that most voters will not so much as read a full letter-size page of text arriving in their mailboxes.

The policy wonks and engaged citizenry here at WCF read it, understood it and realize its potential significance for the election. But I doubt it would be very effective as a kind of broadside widely distributed. Or so the studies tell us.

Anonymous said...

Sharon, maybe you should hand them out at the Firefighters Council Candidate forum tonight. Just a thought...

Anonymous said...

dethmetal:

First, I don't think it's true that "all the good reporters quit" and go to work for other papers. The SE has held onto, for example, Mr. Trentelman, who is a very good reporter on environmental matters, transportation matters, water issues, etc. And he's been with the SE for quite a while. The notion that the SE only holds on to hacks is flatly false.

That said, the SE has a medium-city circulation base, and reporters in the early stages of their careers often want to work for larger papers with broader circulation bases [and so more readers] and of course better pay. That would still be so if the SE set the standard pay-wise for mid-city dailies and was excellently run.

Being a long time reader of daily papers published for a variety of markets, I'd say the main things keeping the SE from being a first rate medium city daily are two: (a) the owner/publisher's unwillingness to reinvest some of the profits into an expanded news staff to support some investigative reporting. As a former SE employee noted here some time ago, the SE newsroom is pretty small, and so reporters simply are not given time to pursue stories that take substantial digging. Those who want to do that kind of journalism do move on to places that will support it. And (b), the editors, particularly news editors, who seem not to demand that all their staff meet higher standards in news reporting. I have to wonder, when I read some of the weaker reporting in the SE... facts not checked, pronouncements of elected officials taken on faith, as if they were graven in stone and handed down from the mount, and reported as such, follow-up questions not asked... if the reporters involved are not in fact doing exactly what the editors wish them to do. If they were not, the stories would be re-written and better-sourced before they ever saw print.

It's sometimes said... with some justice, I think... that you can't have a good school with a bad principal, and you won't have a really bad school with a good principal. Something like that probably applies to the news columns of daily papers: if the editors demand first rate work, insist upon it, and work to develop reporters who provide it, they'll get it. If they don't, they won't. And so neither will their readers.

It's easy to round on a reporter for a weak story or series of them. Too easy. As the sign on Harry Truman's Oval Office desk said, "the buck stops here." In a daily paper's newsroom, the buck stops at the editor's desk. Every time.

Anonymous said...

Distilling Rob Garner's article down into a couple of bar charts would be nice.

It is a great article though.

It is disappointing that Godfrey does not post his "declaration" where he "preserves" Mount Ogden Park, and that the newspaper reports he has "preserved" those things without even seeing the declaration.

Now it appears it is really nothing at all, just something to fool the gullible. Godfrey can cast it aside at will.

I suppose Godfrey and his supporters feel that as long as you've embraced lying, you might as well go all the way.

I note Stuart Campbell has a letter today supporting Godfrey. Hey Stu, would you trust this man with your money, or your daughter? Does his consistent, proven dishonesty mean nothing to you? What will you do when his lying finds you in his crosshairs?

Anonymous said...

I haven't seen any articles written on the businesses that closed in Ogden after being in business for 30 years or more. Why did Cross Western, China Night and the Noodle Parlor close up shop. I don't think kids arcade and a neon bowling alley will generate the revenue needed to sustain a viable downtown. The old Fred Meyer building and IGA seem like good candiadtes for re-development. The Smiths Marketplace in SLC is a success, too bad we couldn't entice Kroger to close the 12th St and Harrison Smiths and have an alternative to Wal-Mart with an Ogden Smiths Marketplace. I have even e-mail Black Angus to look at the closed restaurant on Wall at Newgate Mall for expansion. Ogden is ready for more expansion with all those new transplants to explore and invest in Ogden.

Unknown said...

I have to thank Donald Beal of Ogden for giving me a good laugh this morning. The last sentence of his letter to the SE (page 5A) today reads "Matthew Godfrey would make a good president."

I assume he meant to capitalize President.

Anonymous said...

Thanks to Rob Garner for this research which is very time consuming.

Sad to say but I doubt that the average citizen has the ability to comprehend what he has compiled.

The ones who won't read it are also the ones who will find it inconvenient to vote on Tuesday.

Thank you, Rob, for caring enough to do this paper.

OgdenLover said...

Top of Utah News Beat sidebar: Drive-by Shooting Suspects Sought.

[Witnesses]... reported seeing three shots and seeing a muzzle flash.... They then saw a pedestrian fleeing on foot as a dark-colored, 4-door passenger car squealed its tires and sped away..... Police were unable to locate shell casings, blood, or bullet holes.

So I guess it didn't happen and no shots were fired. Chalk it up to even more crime reduction in Godfrey-Greiner Land.

Anonymous said...

Um...of course the surrounding areas have had different tax base issues compared to Ogden City drive around the County and open your eyes. The development has been incredible in the past ten years. Duh.

Anonymous said...

Many thanks to Mr. Rob Garner for willingness to apply his expertise to pragmatic research that benefits the rest of us.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of commentaries, I submitted one to the Standard-Examiner last week and Mr. Porter asked me to condense it to a 250-word letter because he didn't have space to print the whole thing. So I did that, and I've been watching for the letter ever since.

Finally, this morning, I looked on the other part of the S-E web site and found that the commentary was posted there last Friday! Here it is. I also emailed Porter who assures me that the letter version will be printed in the real paper.

Anonymous said...

On the decline of reporting [nationwide]. There's an interesting Paul Krugman column in today's NY Times that applies, I think, to the current discussion about reporting in the Standard Examiner. Krugman takes as his example Rudi Guliani's widely reported claim that if he'd had prostrate cancer treated in Great Britain, he'd have had only a 44% chance of surviving, but in the US, his chance of surviving would be 82%. This, supposedly, to illustrate the inefficiency of "socialized medicine." Turns out, that's flat not true. The medical statistics do not support his claim or anything like it. It's flat out bogus and demonstrably so.

That's just the incident Krugman uses [I don't want to debate medical reform here]to make his point. "Memo to editors:" he writes, "If a candidate says something completely false, it's not 'in dispute.'" It should not be reported as "Democrats say" or "Republicans say." It's just flat wrong and readers ought to be told that.

Sound advice. It has gotten so bad, this resort to lazy "he-said/ she-said" journalism, that I think if Bramble, Curtis and Buttars [the Wingnut Troika] introduced a bill into the Utah legislature tomorrow mandating in Utah the sun rise in the west and set in the east, the Standard Examiner [and many other papers] would report that "the future direction of sunrise in Utah is in dispute; Republicans say it will rise in the West; Democrat legislators believe otherwise. Views differ."

Krugman's column is worth the reading on this point. It can be found here. And he's right. When candidates, elected officials, etc. say things that are flatly untrue [i.e. say something that is demonstrably, on the basis of verifiable fact, not so], newspapers should tell their readers.

Anonymous said...

OK, amidst all the SE bashing, let's give the paper a nod for running the past few days, and today as well, hugely expanded "letters to the editors" columns. Entire pages of them. As we approach the end game of a hotly contested election, it was the right thing to do. Of course, running their endorsement editorial for Mayor only days before the election, and too late to permit of a response by the non-endorsed was not the right thing to do. But the expanded letters space was, and a nod to the editor's for that.

Post a Comment