UPDATED with a couple of today's other news items per Gentle Curmudgeon
Just to fill the void in Emerald City news during the pre-Christmas run-up, we decided to start off the morning with a quickie quiz. For those readers who haven't already caught a glimpse of this morning's Standard-Examiner, we know you'll get a kick out of this:
Today's Std-Ex Top of Utah section features a large photo of a dog. Your task is to identify its owner:
The photo:a) Singer, model, actress, author, and world-famous heiress/gadabout Paris Hilton.
b) Pop music singer, songwriter, dancer, actress and model mom Britney Spears.
c) Comedienne, actress, talk show host, businesswoman, and celebrity Joan Rivers.
d) Utah State Senator, Ogden Police Chief and certifiably macho all-round tough guy Jon Greiner.
Stumped? Click here to find the answer.
Chalk this up to a terribly slow news day; and feel free to treat this as an open thread.
Update 12/22/07 10:45 a.m. MT: Concurrently with the publication of today's article, Gentle Curmudgeon has dredged up a couple of other news items which might be worthy of discussion in today's thread. Accordingly, we link Curmudgeon's supplementary text & analysis here.
23 comments:
Oh yes and greiner forgot to put the tags on the new collar. Seems he has memory problems. I forgot to fire Jones until by boss called in his plate number.
What a joke, my bet is he does not have tags for the pooch, he's above that.
Just got scooped this evening.
Apparently Godfrey now wants to take over all the property on the north side of 23rd Street between Washington and Adams to put in a water feature. Something of an entertainment nature I was told. Knowing Godfrey that probably means a glorified slip and slide. The city is initiating the action but it isn’t clear whether he plans on the residents to fund this creation or whether he is doing it again for another developer buddy. He is after all the land owners on the north side of 23rd Street (including the YCC) to sell their buildings and property to the city so he can build this attraction. The YCC building was built with donations not to many years ago by the community with the help from the likes of Dee Livingood and many other prominent residents.
I draw three observations from this latest news;
First, it appears that any organizations within our city that works to help people in need are being pressured to move out of our community,
Second, once again this is being done in the dark and the city is using its intimidation of suggesting it has the power of eminent domain again,
And thirdly, why do we need an entertainment water feature for (I’m sure it’ll be called high adventure)? I want to know what and where the actual businesses are going to be in the downtown area or are we just going to be a city funded downtown Lagoon? If we are truly going to revive Ogden it’s not going to happen by building more amusement rides.
If Mayors Geiger and their toadie, Lying Little Matty Gondola Godfrey, really intend to build a high-adventure Slip-'N-Slide, how will it be funded? I supose the Mayors Geiger will propose to sell off our sidewalks to Wayne Peterson, leader of his own famed Squirrel Patrol, in order to fund one-tenth of the cost of this unique high-adventure ride. The rest of the $40 million will come from $40K slide decal sponsorships. Homer and Phidia Cutrubus are already on board, as are key industry leaders with two employees, such as Snowsports Interactive, Nidecker, and Kahuna Creations. The high-adventure Slip-'N-Slide will draw dozens of watersports companies to Ogden, making us the high-adventure Slip-'N-Slide hub. We will then leverage this cachet and uniqueness to lure a new tenant into the Jackass Center after fatboy Gary Neilson and his Jackassed Pizza Joint is bankrupt. Then, we'll have such great momentum that GTrain Wilkerson will be in a position to build a GONDOLA from the Jackass Center to Gadi Leshem's "Renaissance Village" and its attendant onion grove, which makes the connection obvious. The only thing we'll then have to worry about is the Roy branch of Hamas driving carbombs into the Renaissance onion and curio shop. Maybe, prior to that threat, we can sell Ogden's trees to build a high-adventure concrete barrier out front of the Renaissance onion bistros. Apparently Squirrel Patroller Lee Carter, publisher of the Gondola Examiner, is a big fan of this "plan," as is Gondola Boy Mike Dowse (jackass!). Gondola Boy Mike Dowse will even get his wife to write a $5K check to the general Slip-'N-Slide decal fund, as he doesn't want to gamble the $35K that the Cutrubuses and THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE are willing to toss around. But Gondola Boy Mike Dowse (jackass!) is a "big proponent" of it.
Loved today's dog story, Rudy! I hope you'll more in the future. Keep up the good work! Woof!
ARF!
Just made available for public viewing the 2007 Ogden City Annual Report, no wonder the mayor didn’t want the report to come out before the election.
Seems the city administration is writing off about $6 million of RDA debt out of the city’s general fund claiming that it's uncollectable debt (that’s about 10% of the city’s total annual revenues). I thought he said that the city wasn’t responsible for RDA debt!
Also the infamous page 50 that identifies Ogden as being responsible for RDA debt is now found on page 48.
Lots of other good tid-bits in there as well.
Email the annual report to Rudi so he can post it, or please provide a link to it. Thanks.
The 2007 CAFR report is here.
How in Christ's Honored Name did morbidly obese, home-care bound Johnson get his fat fingers around a pen long enough to sign that document? Did he spill a sausage in the process? Jeezus. Get that sumbitch a treadmill. Ooops, he likes Hummers instead. Yeah. So does Lying Little Matty Gondola Godfrey, although his are of another variety. Step forward, Curt! Slurp!
THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE
Here is the link to the Ogden City Financial Reports, (http://www.ogdencity.com/manageserv.cafr.html), once there click on 2007 CAFR. It will load the report temporarily on your computer in adobe PDF form.
To come to the results that I mentioned go to the following pages (not adobe PDF page numbers but the actual report page numbers). I’ll try to make this so that even Scott Schwebke can make since of this.
After you’ve opened the document first go to page 48, near the bottom of the page, three paragraphs above “B. Government-wide And Fund Financial Statements” and read “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.” This wording put in by the outside auditor so that he doesn’t go to jail for non-disclosure.
Now go to page 56, “B. Loans To/From Other Funds”, under this heading notice that a loan transfer is noted transferring $2,720,000 dollars to the RDA from the General Fund (but also notice that amount $2,720,000 dollars was derived by deducting $6,322,847 dollars from the original transfer the of $9,052,847 dollars with a note to refer to note 21).
Now go to page 71 where Note 21 Special Item is located and read “As of June 30, 2007, it was determined by management that certain interfund advances receivable would not be fully collectible. Analysis of the funding sources for the various payments indicated that funding for certain payments will expire in advance of complete repayment. A valuation allowance was recorded against the advances receivable with simultaneous reduction in the associated advances payable (See Note 3). This valuation transaction is recorded as a special item given that it has not been the practice of the City to forgive interfund advances nor has it been the experience of the City that interfund advances be determined uncollectible. This policy and history qualify the event as unusual in nature. The magnitude of the valuation was determined to be significant and under the control of management.
The effect of the valuation transaction is reported as a reduction in current year fund balance in the general fund and an increase in current year fund balance in the redevelopment agency. Given that the effect of the transaction is
eliminated in the governmental funds it is not present in the statement of governmental activities.”
To put this into plain English, this is saying that we are not going to get all our money back, bottom line and as such the city is writing off $ 6 million dollars that was part of a few RDA projects. Now you ask what projects and to get that answer you have to now go to Note 3 on page 57.
NOTE 3. RECEIVABLES AND PAYABLES, CONTINUED
B. Loans To/From Other Funds, Continued
In the 7th paragraph down it reads, “General fund to the Redevelopment Agency: These loans have been reserved for in the general fund to the extent that they are considered collectible. Terms of the note specify that tax increment revenue from the individually identified project areas is to be used to repay these loans.” Additional detail follows this paragraph that says,
Allowance for uncollectible advances
As of June 30, 2007, it was determined that a valuation allowance was necessary regarding the above mentioned General fund to Redevelopment Agency interfund advances. This determination was made based on the anticipated revenues from the payment funding sources. The advances and associated valuation allowance are detailed as follows:
General RDA - Central Business District $ 1,751,601
General RDA - 25th Street District 3,821,794
General RDA - Washington Blvd. District 3,479,452
9 ,052,847
Allowance for uncollectible advances (6,332,847)
$ 2 ,720,000
If this detail above comes out a little funky it’s because I was importing the graph above and had problems but the information is quite clear on page 57 of the report.
Long and short of it though is the administration is writing off $6.3 million dollars of RDA debt that was from a loan from the city’s General Fund. As such the General fund is now taking the hit. RDA debt is a liability of the city and these write offs are against some of our new projects. This doesn’t bode well for the future.
I'm sure there are many fine passages in the CAFR Report that we can sift through. This one is my favorite so far (p. 71).
NOTE 16. LEASE AGREEMENTS, CONTINUED
The Redevelopment Agency, as landlord, has entered into a commercial lease agreement with a health and fitness company (the Company). Under the terms of the agreement, the Company has leased substantially all of the property known as the Solomon Center. The initial term of the lease is for 20 years with two five year renewal options. Base rents are scheduled to commence the first month following substantial completion of the facility, which as of June 30, 2007, was confirmed to be July 2007. According to the agreement the future minimum lease payments are $694,800 annually for a total of $13,896,000 over the initial term. The current estimated value of the assets is $22,000,000. As of June 30, 2007, the assets were reported as construction in progress and thus no depreciation we recorded in the current year.
NOTE 17. CONTINGENCIES
As shown in the accompanying financial statements, the City incurred a deficiency of expenditures over revenues of $1,015,173 for the year in the Governmental Funds. These deficits are the results of past and present activity related to the redevelopment of the City. Management considers these deficits as an investment in the City’s needed revitalization development. Management also feels the increased property values generated by the revitalization will increase future tax increment payments. Management also believes these tax increment payments and the related tax increment financing should eliminate this deficit over the next few years. The City will likewise benefit from additional taxes and other revenue sources from this investment.
The Mayor told me, in a phone conversation last October, and has confirmed on a number of other occasions that "the city is not on the hook for this if the Salomon Center goes belly-up." So please explain to me, Mayor Godfrey, how the landlord doesn't end up holding the bag when the tenant leaves town, bankrupt.
Further, it looks to me like you lost a cool $1M on your RDA activities so far. Outside of all the flim-flam, how do you explain this?
The pictures are right nice, too. Makes it almost look like a third-rate annual report from a second-rate business, instead of a sober financial accounting of the state of the city's finances. Someone who reads these all the time, please tell me, do other cities put pictures in their financial reports?
Thanks, deepthroat, ogden resident and reader. I've already uploaded the PDF file to our storage site, just in case it "disappears" from the Ogden City website, in the midst of our anticipated upcoming discussion.
You can find it stored as Comprehensive Annual Financial Report - 2007.
We would suggest interested readers bookmark this page... just in case.
Monotreme,
I particularly like this part under note 16,
The initial term of the lease is for 20 years with two five year renewal options.
and
According to the agreement the future minimum lease payments are $694,800 annually for a total of $13,896,000 over the initial term. The current estimated value of the assets is $22,000,000.
$13,896,000 using discounted cash flow projections makes this a real loser of a deal for the city. We might get 50 cent back on our money.
Here's another gem.
Recall that Mayor Godfrey and Chief Greiner claimed that the population of Ogden City was 63,900 in 1999? They used this outdated 1990 census figure to make it look like there was a huge drop in crime between 1999 and 2000.
According to the demographic information on p. 127 of this CAFR, the Ogden population was 69,262 in 1999.
There were 425 violent crimes in 1999. The Mayor and police chief used a population of 63,900 to claim a violent crime rate of 6.7 per 1000 that year (425/63.9). The FBI and the Utah BCI have the population that year at 67,460 and 67,473 respectively (violent crime rate 6.2 for both).
Now the Ogden City CAFR all agree that the population that year was close to 69,000, which gives a violent crime rate of 6.2.
I wonder where the city got the idea to use the 1990 census numbers as the denominator for their crime rates, but only during the re-election campaign?
Ogden Resident:
I read that, but I'm pretty sure the Mayor and his staff will claim that a 20-year-old building, constructed for $22M, has a residual value of $8M. I don't have enough experience to test the veracity of that statement.
And then on p. 131, the city is claiming that the violent crime rate in 1999 was 5.6 per 1000, when all through the campaign the number was 6.7.
I'm going to shout here.
When will somebody -- and I mean our newspaper here -- wake up and see that the Mayor's supporters made up numbers to support the Mayor's re-election campaign?
Okay, I'm done ranting here.
Let's run down what violent crime rate the city posted to their webpage, during the re-election campaign (10/23/07, "City"), versus what this CAFR says:
Year City CAFR
1997 6.1 5.3
1998 6.8 5.8
1999 6.7 5.6
2000 5.7 5.7
2001 4.6 4.6
2002 5.0 4.8
2003 5.1 4.9
2004 4.8 4.3
2005 3.2 4.4*
2006 3.8 3.5**
*says this is "actual" revised from previous "estimates"
**says this is "estimated" even though I've been able to access the FBI data for several months, and it doesn't at all agree with the city's data. FBI says it's 5.1 for 2006.
Let's look at property crime:
Year City CAFR
1997 97.3 84.9
1998 88.4 75.8
1999 77.9 65.6
2000 65.9 65.9
2001 63.3 62.2
2002 63.5 61.3
2003 62.0 59.9
2004 67.0 64.0
2005 61.8 68.0*
2006 61.2 57.0**
*says this is "actual" revised from previous "estimates"
**says this is "estimated" even though I've been able to access the FBI data for several months, and it doesn't at all agree with the city's data. FBI says it's 62.2 for 2006.
Sorry about the formatting, it's the best I can do. Check these numbers versus these CAFR numbers (p. 131 of the document, p. 143 in Acrobat).
Yes, Victoria Johnson, I mean you. Just print out the pages, look at the numbers, and explain to the citizens of Ogden how this can be. If you need someone to explain it to you, check out your newspaper's Op-Ed page from Oct 23 2007.
Looks to me, from the statistics in the CAFR, that total crime went up from 1999 to 2005, just like Councilwoman Van Hooser claimed.
Who do you think played with statistics now?
The point is, that $694,800 annual rent on the $22M Salomon Center building works out to only 3%. It's equivalent to renting a $150,000 house for $375 a month! Worse, the rent the city gets is fixed for 20 years! Although the renter can leave after any five year period he wants.
And this el-cheapo price is for commercial property! No wonder they have to transfer money from one account to another. It will get worse! (Not to worry though, the SOB contrator who built the Sal Center then kicked Godfery ten grand, got his money cash, up front, just like he paid Godfrey!)
And this doesn't count the cost of dropping the old mall, for another $16M. So the rent ratio really works out to $294 a month for a $150 grand house!
Hey you people who voted for Godfrey - stupid know-nothings! When your taxes are going up, think of Godfrey spending his kick backs and the contractor getting his Vegas sex sandwich between two high class hookers or whatever he spends his filthy lucre on!
This cheap pricing is all Godfrey can get while the Sal building is BRAND NEW. How much do you think it will rent for when the paint starts peeling!
Thanks for giving us all a financial bath courtesy of these corrupt, incompetent SOBs!
monotreme,
Don't disagree with your residual value estimate but the debt is $22 million (and probably more once all the numbers are in)and that's the number that the rent payment will go against to pay down the load. A real loser.
Also Note 17, that you pointed out, states that the city spent a million more dollars last year than it brought in (i.e. deficit spending) and that's after the city recieved more money in sales tax than it was anticipating. This deficit would have been much larger had we been on budget for revenues. Our city can't even balance their budget!
i just read the information on the citys financials and all i can think to say to all those morons that voted for godfrey is why. youre obviously naïve stupid uninformed or all of the above. your ignorance to the fact and your blind faith have cost us all immeasurable. everything that people on this blog have been saying is already starting to show up in our citys financial and weve just started to see the mayors projects come on line. i got a feeling its going to get a lot worse before it starts getting better.
as for the city council all I can say is you idiots are allowing him to do this. do you remember one of the last campaign pieces that godfrey mailed out. the one where he said susies got a secret she love debt. then he went on to show all the rda debt that she had voted on. does it make you council members think. he and the rest of the city are going to blame you members because you board members voted to pass his hair brained ideas that he is financing with your votes. youre such pawns. city council rda board members what ever you want to call yourselves quit sticking it to us residents.
Nicely timed release. In fact, beautifully timed release. Too late to make the Saturday SE [the issue with the largest news stand sales]. Leaving a Sunday, then Xmas eve, and Xmas day for it to break, when very few people will give a political story the time of day. By the time people are over the Xmas break, it will be old news. Very nicely timed. Ya gotta hand it to them.
It will be interesting to see what... if anything... the SE does with the story of the city accounting, both how it reports it, and how it deals with it [if it does at all] editorially. I am sorry to say that if the SE doesn't get off its lazy butt and begin behaving like a newspaper with a real commitment to serving the public [aka its readers], all of what Monotreme and Og and others above have said about what is in the report isn't going to have much of an effect. The material is complex, difficult to unravel and its significance will not be plain to a many people absent good reporting and good editorial discussion as well.
Given past performance, I am not optimistic.
Also will be interesting to see if the Council / RDA Board calls to account in any way, even rhetorically, the administration flacks, particularly Patterson and Harmer, who have been explaining endlessly that RDA debt is not city debt and that the city's general revenues are not going to be on the hook for RDA losses.
I hope the SE, or failing that, the SL Trib [or both] will for example inquire of our newly-elected Godfrey Administration-supported Council member Mr. Johnson what he thinks of the Administration's repeated assurances that the city would not be on the hook for bad RDA debt, and what he thinks about the six million dollar write-off. It should ask our other newly elected Council member as well.
Very nicely timed release.
Lee Carter, a soldier in Wayne Peterson's famed Squirrel Patrol, will not allow a story to be published in, re: Gondola Town's sorry financial state. Mr. Carter is a midwestern jerkoff moron who thinks circus rides through blighted urban thoroughfares are good ideas. Patroller Carter is a first-class dunce and should be run out of town on a rail, as should the entire GONDOLA Examiner editorial board; ooops! They all live elsewhere! But: "We support the urban gondola. We prefer that it be privately funded." Are you creeps for real? Are you in middle school? Does your moron publisher, Lee GONDOLA Carter have half a brain, that clueless idiotic jackass feeb?
monotreme,
You've quoted the crime rates from the CAFR, but if you look at the absolute numbers, you'll find that they mostly agree with the table that the city posted in October. In other words, the CAFR contradicts itself if you compare the absolute number of crimes to the crime rate--unless you assume some rather absurd numbers for the population.
Dan,
This is my point. Despite a rant about the inaccuracy of the FBI or Utah BCI statistics, I think as a minimum standard we should expect the city to agree with itself, particularly when the data in question are eight or more years old.
Post a Comment