By Curmudgeon
There's an interesting editorial in the Standard-Examiner this morning about the pending development agreement between Ogden and those proposing the hotel/condo and water park projects. I expected [given past performance] that the Std-Ex would do its usual Ogden-Weber Chamber of Commerce booster rah-rah dance and gush with unrestrained enthusiasm for the project. It didn't.
Here are the opening graphs of the editorial:
Ogden's proposed 14-story, 300-room hotel and adjoining water park has the potential to bring in nearly $2 million a year to the city in property taxes -- if, as hoped, the hotel and water park are moneymakers. That could mean $391,000 for the city each year, and $1 million for the Ogden School District, reports the Standard-Examiner's Scott Schwebke. Of course, those numbers are coming from the chief developer, Midtown Development, but if the company delivers it'll be good for Ogden.The Std-Ex editorial board seems to have learned some caution. The editorial doesn't say the project will bring in $2 million a year in property taxes, only that it has the potential to do that if the projects succeed. And then it adds the further caution that those numbers are coming from the developers, and will materialize only if they can deliver on their claims.
This is significant progress, I think, on the part of the Std-Ex Editorial Board. And it gets better. The editorial notes that:
Part of the package will involve $18 million worth of city-issued bonds to build two parking structures....Ogden City Councilwoman Dorrene Jeske, who has often clashed with Mayor Matthew Godfrey in the past, told the Standard-Examiner's Schwebke she's "pleased that Ogden is at the point where it doesn't have to use tax increment to entice businesses to come."But then the editorial continues:
True, the $18 million for the parking structures won't be repaid with tax-increment funding, but the mechanism is comparable: The city would create a "special assessment" area, levying an assessment against properties in the location to be improved -- the hotel and water park, as well as other developments that would use the parking -- to repay the costs of the projects. The continued financial well-being of the hotel and water park will be necessary for the city-issued bonds to be repaid in full.No dissembling, no slight of hand. The board says flat out, right in front of god and everybody, that if the projects go belly up, the city [i.e. the ratepayers] will be on the hook for paying of that $18 million on bonds for parking to service the two projects. Admirably straightforward.
The editorial goes on, of course, to imply [it never really comes out clearly on the matter] that the City Council's apparent intent to ratify the development agreement is a prudent one. And sadly, [to paraphrase Dan S. slightly] "the white elephant in the room" --- the extent to which the project's success depends upon the success of Mayor Godfrey's flatland urban gondola between downtown and WSU --- is not discussed at all, nor is the related worrisome language in the development agreement: ""The city understands and agrees that the Developer is relying on the location of the Gondola Stop as a material factor in deciding to build the project." Does that mean the city has accepted responsibility for arranging for the gondola line to be built? That its [i.e. the Mayor's] assurances on this matter are part of the agreement between the city and the developers? It could be read to mean that. On this, the Std-Ex board sadly says nothing.
But still, the editorial shows, I think, a laudable evolution of caution on the Std-Ex Editorial Board vis-a-vis developers' claims and promises, and a laudable willingness to indicate the risks involved in city participation in such projects. The editorial, in short -- though it reaches a conclusion I would probably not have reached, at least not yet -- is not the Chamber of Commerce Babbitry I was expecting. I hope the Std-Ex's tendency to look upon developers' promises and claims with at least a partially gimlet and jaundiced eye is a harbinger of even better things to come from the Board down the road.
Comments, anyone?
