Late in April we noted with approval the cool reception that the "Jeff Lowe Ice Tower Project" had received during the April 22, 2008 council work session. Flush with confidence in the sound judgment and fiscal prudence of our new city council, we made this optimistic editorial comment: "Indeed, it's our strong impression that the idea of dropping $200 thousand in taxpayer money on Boss Godfrey's Ice-tower Obsession has gotten zero traction with our sane and prudent Emerald City Council -- Councilman Stephenson excepted -- of course."
In light of this morning's Standard-Examiner front page story however, we realize that our optimism in this matter may have been a trifle misplaced and premature. Ace Reporter Shwebke's opening paragraphs reveal the latest wrinkle in the icetower saga:
OGDEN — The city council’s initial chilly reception of a $200,000 funding request from the administration for a downtown ice climbing tower may be thawing.There you have it, general readers. According to this morning's Scott Schwebke story, there appear to be at least a few city council members who are willing to pony-up taxpayer money for this risky and questionable venture, provided they can create some kind of "firewall" between a single city-appropriated $200 thousand donation, and continuing serial future expenditures.
The council is considering a provision in a proposed ordinance that would allow the money to be appropriated while restricting when the money could be spent.
According to a draft copy obtained by the Standard-Examiner, the $200,000 could not be used until there are sufficient funds from other sources to complete construction of the ice tower, estimated to cost $1.6 million and planned for the corner of 25th Street and Kiesel Avenue.
In a circumstance where we believe it ought to be facially obvious that the ice tower project is far beyond the scope of reasonable and legitimate municipal expenditure, only Councilwoman Jeske (and Councilwoman Wicks, perhaps) seem to entirely "get" the point that our municipal government shouldn't be subsidizing private ventures:
But Councilwoman Dorrene Jeske said the funding provision hasn’t changed her mind about the project.Notably, each of our two new council members, Johnson and Gochnour, seem to be keen on going forward with a compromise plan, provided other (presumably private) donors can come up with the balance of the projected $1.6 million in construction costs first. From the tone of today's Ace Reporter Schwebke story, councilman Garcia and Stephens appear to be leaning toward variations of a compromise proposal too. Councilman Stephenson is a lost cause of course, on the subject of financial municipal spending discipline and/or prudence. Stephenson, the last remaining holdout from the old 2003-05 "Gang of Six" council (always a reliable Godfrey rubber stamp), never saw a knuckle-headed Godfrey scheme he didn't like.
“I won’t support it,” she said. “I don’t think taxpayer money should go toward it.”
For those who aren't so hot at arithmetic... that's five possible votes for the compromise proposal, folks.
We'll also make special note of a nuance upon which Councilman Garcia seems to have put special focus. In addition to assurances that other private donations will precede the city's $200 thousand contingent contribution. Garcia, (the longest-sitting council veteran during a mayoral administration where Godfrey projects have demonstrated significant financial mission creep,) is apparently seeking additional assurances from Gary Williams, (Boss Godfrey's staff lawyer,) that not only will Ogden City's contribution be the last expenditure -- but also the one and only one.
Although Mr. Schwebke's story suggests that the council will put this matter to a vote "later this month," our information suggests that the council will consider and vote on the matter this coming Tuesday, at its regularly-scheduled June 3 council session.
It's in that connection that we strongly urge all Weber County Forum readers who are concerned about the prospective expenditure of taxpayer funds on this project, to immediately contact the city council with your sentiment. As a convenience to our gentle readers, we link the necessary council contact information below:
Time is running short. Council members are sitting on the edges of their seats, waiting to hear what their constituents think. We sincerely hope none of you will let them down.
The floor is now open for comments.
7 comments:
My feeling on the ice tower is that:
1. It should be paid for by private investors and not with taxpayer dollars.
2. With the push to conserve energy and here the City is pushing for a big energy user -- doesn't make sense.
3. The Mayor (John Patterson) says that the $200,000 will be the only money the City has to contribute to the ice tower -- at first, it was supposed to be privately funded and the City didn't have to pay for any of it -- we've already purchased the land to put it on, and now he's asking for $200,000. Repeat of the Rec Center financing!
4. There are gangs, sidewalks and streets and many other items that need attention much more that we should take care of rather than the ice tower.
If you feel as I about the ice tower before Tuesday please contact those Council members that could possibly be persuaded to vote against it.
I agree on the points listed above. We have plenty of buildings that are empty and this is where City money (if any) should be spent. Not building new buildings.
two obsevations
if the initial construction cost is 2.1 million instead of 1.6 million who is on the hook for the 500 grand short fall in building costs - ogden residents is my guess.
second after reading the proforma there is no consideration for start up. i.e. the time required for the whole thing to start performing according to the proforma. usually it takes time after the initial hoop-la for a regular flow of business to develop. that could take considerable time as we are witnessing with the junction city development. this start up could easily add at least another half million to the project. who will pay for that or fund the negitive cash flow of the operation during that time - ogden residents would be my guess.
if godfrey wants to take this approach of tying the budget to get the things built that he wants then council should take the same approach and only approve the new budget if he provides the mt ogden golf course with a clear debt title.
deny his ice tower and put the money to use on existing assets like our golf course. maybe this would send a message to him the next time he thinks to do something behind your backs. maybe he would start to rethink how he should deal with the council.
I understand that Godfrey expects the Council to use the $200,000. that they had earmarked for the transpotation alternative analysis for the ice tower. We most certainly will know where each Council member's loyalty lies -- whether it is with Godfrey's tourist-trageted vision or with the people, the voters who elected them. We will be watching how they vote! And we'll remember at the polls.
I agree with you "Disgusted" that the $200,000. should go for something that the residents of Ogden will use such as a mass transit system, the Mt. Ogden Golf Course, Marshall White Center, and etc. As I look about his actions for the last eight years, I don't think Godfrey has done one thing for the residents of Ogden -- it's all been for the tourists and visitors to Ogden. Why was he re-elected?
How many Ogden citizens will benefit from an ice climbing tower, ROI (return on investment)? I think the $200K seed money already sitting there is sufficent to attract private financing if this is a feasable attraction. How much will $200K add to Marshall White Center, gang policing, grafetti patrol, Spring clean up that actuaqlly made the city more desirable, or other projects that were dropped by the city to save money. Who will use the ice tower, and real data projections not just more promises. What will the city do with this white elephant if it does fail to perform?
I hope the city council reflects on past performance administation claims which have turned to dust, and cost the city more fund bailouts.
Thank you Dorrene Jeske. I'm sure glad I voted for you. I can't imagine many residents of Ogden utilizing an ice climbing tower. I don't think there's that many ice climbers anywhere, who would travel to Ogden to climb an indoor ice tower. However, I certainly could be wrong. I'd like to see the demographics from the business plan.
Uh, how about spending the $200 large promoting our beautiful, championship golf course. An "Outdoor Adventure Ogden Open" could be a yearly event that would attract numerous outdoor enthusiasts. Make it a scramble so that anyone could play. (Even Mayor Godfrey). Locals could be teamed with visitors. Prizes could be donated by local retailers and restaurants.....An awards banquet at the Convention Center.......
It looks like a mirac... It's in the hole! It's in the hole! It's in the hole! ...
One thing that is possibly being overlooked is the huge amount of money an ice wall takes to maintain. The energy usage alone makes me cringe.
Two-hundred grand on an ice wall in the middle of a desert is not a well thought out plan. There is no demand for that sort of thing in Ogden.
I know where it could go. Environmental initiatives. Why is there nothing in the budget this year for sustainability? That money could go far in showing the rest of the country that we are serious about preserving our magnificent outdoor adventure capital.
Post a Comment