Just like clockwork, the Standard-Examiner comes out, endorsing another knuckleheaded Boss Godfrey project, with this morning's editorial, urging the expenditure of the hard-earned money of Ogden City taxpayers for the Ice Tower project. In a nutshell, we'll briefly sumarize the Std-Ex editors' rationale, and throw in a few of our own editorial comments as we move along:
The project isn't "bizarre;" it's merely "unique;" and at least loosely fits Ogden's recreational mecca marketing plan. Remember, unique is good. The key to success is building attractions goofy enough that we won't attract copycats. Godfrey represents that certain (un-named) private donors wait in the wings to pony up a cool $1 million. They're laying low, however, until they see taxpayer dollars thrown into the pot. $200 thousand in other taxpayer dollars (RAMP Funds) also hang in the balance. These taxpayer funds will be lost, the Std-Ex editors hint, unless Ogden City becomes involved as a cash-on-the-barrel-head stakeholder. Godfrey promises (scout's honor) that whatever contribution the city makes, it will be a one-time donation. The taxpayers will never be on the hook in the future. (Where, we ask, have we heard that promise before?) Jeff Lowe has even promised to set aside funds to dismantle and store the danged thing even if (or when) it flops.
And here's the kicker:
To hear Godfrey tell it, Lowe’s business plan is not dependent on making money from experienced climbers. Lowe will market his facility primarily as a datenight activity, schedule ice-climbing festivals, competitions and clinics, and attract a steady stream of people who will only do this periodically.Hey waitaminute! There's an actual business plan floating around somewhere in the Godfrey ozone? If so, we lumpencitizens have yet to lay eyes on it. And it's the same for the city counsel, we understand. Despite repeated and serial requests on the council's part, Godfrey hasn't furnished a copy of it to them, either.
Just off the top of our head, we believe there are at least a few preliminary matters to be considered before the council even contemplates committing one dime to this project. Here are a few necessary prerequisites, among others:
1) These mysterious private donors need to step up identify themselves, both as to their identities and the amounts they're willing to cough up toward this project. 8-1/2 years into Godfrey governance, it doesn't seem reasonable to take Godfrey's word for anything.
2) If there is truly a formally proper business plan, it should be revealed for public inspection. So far all we've seen are a brief grant application and sales brochure, which business plan-wise, doesn't really cut it.
3) And what about the idea of a feasibility study? Doesn't anybody do independent analyses anymore?
The above preliminary matters certainly aren't exhaustive of the subject. Perhaps out gentle readers can supply a few more ideas.
And one other thing. Ask yourselves folks, who among you would be inclined to take investment advice from the likes of the editors at the Standard-Examiner? According to our recollection, the last knucklehead Godfrey project for which the Std-Ex editors fell madly head-over-heels was the "Peterson Proposal" (so called), which Don Porter and crew at one time labeled "impressive." As far as we can recall... that's a proposal that never actually materialized, (notwithstanding the Std-Ex endorsement,) and the rest is history, of course.
Don't let the cat get your tongues.
32 comments:
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! I would have shit myself reading this excrementitious garbage early this morning, but I hadn't yet slurped my requisite coffee! The Gondola-Examiner does it again! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Get behind the ice tower! Get on board the G-Train! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
The ice tower editorial is reprehensible and idiotic. All the encouragement and forbearance this Forum extended to the S-E, cheering its broadsides on Gadi Leshem's boarded-up Lesotho-in-Ogden district, the FrontRunner's impressive debut, and Godfrey's lies in the matter of lobbyist Jolley, were for naught.
If we get the mayor we deserve, does it follow that we're getting the hometown paper we deserve?
MM:
Well, compadre, we're in disagreement on this one, at least in part. I don't think the SE editorial is "reprehensible and idiotic." I think its wrong in its conclusions, but what'a happening here is a policy disagreement. The reasoning it uses is not convincing, certainly, but I'm don't think its reprehensible for the paper to take a stand on the issue [even if I disagree] in an editorial column, nor do I think its reasoning is "idiotic." It's just unconvincing.
The main problem I have with this whole business is that it's being done as a publicly owned project, and a publicly subsidized one [to the tune of $200K so far, and probably another $100K at least if the Council approves the compromise subsidy]. Other ice towers are financed by banks and run as businesses, and I don't see why [if the tower is a good idea and likely to be profitable] that model wasn't followed here. The editorial itself concedes that the project must be publicly owned because otherwise, it couldn't get the $200K in RAMP [i.e. tax] funds that it apparently could not raise in the private sector. And now it has to have more. If it's an economically viable project, why can't its advocates find commercial funding for it? And if it is not likely to be economically viable, why is the public being asked to fund it? The editorial addresses neither question.
As for the "business plan" providing for money to remove the structure if it goes south... well, I wonder along with Rudi if they have a business plan or they simply plan to have a business. Not the same things at all.
Let's not forget, though, that the editorial [properly, in my view] hailed the Council's insistence that all the money be in place before any city contribution is spent as "prudent management:"
The city should only be contributing to this project if the tower's private financial backers express confidence in its viability -- that skin-in-the-game philosophy is a two-way street.
MM, I'd agree with you that "reprehensible" applies to one part of the editorial. This part:
Involved in this halving of the mayor's request may be some payback for his administration's hand in amending the state redevelopment agency statute earlier this year; Godfrey's people pulled it off without first informing the council. But whatever the motivation over the amount of the city's financial participation...."
That crack was --- or should have been --- beneath the Editorial Board. They want this project considered on its merits [which they find compelling]. They have no business, then, insinuating in the editorial that those [on or off the Council] who think differently are driven by something other than their view of the merits of the matter. Besides which, we should remind the SE Editorial Board that their own paper reported substantial skepticism on the Council about this subsidy when it was first proposed well before Godfrey's fast shuffle regarding legislatively cementing him in place as RDA exec became known.
If the Editorial Board wants the matter considered on its merits, it ought not to go around accusing those who reach different conclusions of having base motives. That portion of the editorial sounded like it came straight from the ninth floor of City Hall. And it weakened substantially their overall case for funding the tower.
Other than that, though, MM, it was just an editorial with which we disagree, and which can be countered on the merits, and without assuming the Board majority to be idiots. On this, they're just wrong.
By the way, nor is it true that All the encouragement and forbearance this Forum extended to the S-E, cheering its broadsides on Gadi Leshem's boarded-up Lesotho-in-Ogden district, the FrontRunner's impressive debut, and Godfrey's lies in the matter of lobbyist Jolley, were for naught.
It's kind of unrealistic to expect a paper's editorial board to agree with us all the time, on every matter. The editorials you mention were good ones, they still stand as substantive and convincing on the merits, and the justified praise they drew here was absolutely not "for naught."
This goes to show just how out of touch our local paper is. What do they know about Ogden? Apparently not a damn thing! Unbelievable. How embarrassing. Spending $200K at this point in time on the tower is the last thing that we need.
I still say there's a huge difference between erecting an ice tower on solid granite in Crested Butte for a couple of weeks, and erecting an ice tower on Lake Bonneville fill in downtown Ogden for the long term.
If the ice tower in Scotland needs 50 feet of solid concrete to support it, then I'm betting the ice tower in Ogden needs the same thing.
In any case, the onus is on Ogden Ice Climbing Parks, Inc. to prove me wrong. I have yet to see any engineering studies, which would be part of a comprehensive business plan.
In fact, the whole thing is eerily similar to the Peterson "proposal", with some fancy (and fanciful) architectural drawings but no substance whatsoever that any of us can see.
Since the general topic is Ogden development, there are three other stories in the papers today worth a look see.
The first, in our Very Own Home Town Paper, is headlined Walkability A Transit Goal, It reports on a recent transit conference in SLC and it includes a quote from Our Very Own Mayor, Matthew Godfrey, with which I am in substantial agreement. [Now how often does that happen?]. Here are some excerpts:
Monday, at a Utah Transit Authority transit development conference in Salt Lake City, transit officials said the key to efficient transit is walkability. Walkability means short commutes, lots of public transit options, a reduced need for parking, and living, working and playing all within one central location.
"Pedestrian-oriented communities are the way things are headed," said UTA General Manager John Inglish. "I think people are realizing that's not only what they want, but what they need." Because of that need, Utah communities are changing the way urban planning and development is done. Inglish said billions of dollars are being invested in transit-oriented developments, which create more livable, sustainable communities and increase the potential for growth and development. "People should be able to park once and walk," Inglish said....
With the UTA Intermodal Hub, The Junction, Union Station, Historic 25th Street, Megaplex Theatres, Lindquist Field, the Salomon Center and the Ogden LDS Temple all within a few blocks of each other, Ogden is fast becoming a prototype for a transit-oriented development.
"We are trying to go back to the old Ogden, like it was 50 years ago," said Mayor Matthew Godfrey. "But people have to be willing to adopt a different lifestyle. People have to get used to the idea of not jumping in their car for every trip."
Your Text Here
Your Text Here
Damn.
The other two articles [which I meant to include above] are both from the SL Trib. The first reports on the same SLC transit conference, and is headlined Developers Focus on Mass Transit and can be found here. Here are some excerpts:
Today's suburban "McMansions" will give way to tomorrow's densely stacked urban flats as the Utah family's ideal, developers say - if local officials will just get out of the way.
Metropolitan Salt Lake is the envy of western U.S. cities for its extensive and growing mass transit system, developers said Monday at a transit-oriented development conference sponsored by the Utah Transit Authority. But some jurisdictions that are gaining the convenience of rail commutes are mired in last century's car mentality and won't allow more tightly packed housing with fewer parking stalls.
"You need to be slapped around," Wasatch Property Management President Dell Loy Hansen said, targeting suburban planners who won't embrace transit....
After almost a decade of TRAX light rail, Utah has been slow to sprout major nodes of new, walkable commercial and residential centers around stations. Monday's conference was at Grand America Hotel, a downtown Salt Lake City corner that has a TRAX station but almost no retail in sight, and many parking stalls. Developers and officials alike are excited, though, about plans for Murray, South Salt Lake and other commuter hubs....
Tom Warner of West Coast builder Holland Development said cities that are serious about growing their transit cores throw out the old rules that mandated a couple of parking spaces per unit and separations of commercial and residential districts.
Finally, the SL Trib has a story about an Ogden oil marketing firm swallowing up a SLC petroleum products marketing firm: "After nearly 50 years operating as a wholesale petroleum products 'jobber' - the past 20 as the owner of the company his stepfather Ora Jensen founded in 1948 - Werrett has sold Jensen Oil to Kellerstrass Oil Co. in Ogden." Link here.
I think the Ice Tower is one of the coolest ideas in the state of Utah. It's innovative and progressive. Sure it's not a 100% deal that it will be a fantastic success but think of the positives. It will go along way in promoting Ogden as no longer the armpit of Utah (I live in SL and I'm sorry but more than one person thinks that). It's like the Junction- super cool and a reason why I would actually travel there.
Actually I thought the editorial was mostly reasonable, with the major exception of one unstated fact that relates to the following:
"As long as taxpayers aren’t on the hook for the long-term..."
The problem is that we have every reason to believe that this thing will not be self-supporting and that therefore the city would soon be faced with a choice: subsidize the thing on an ongoing basis, or have it dismantled and lose our investment.
That's why it's so important for Lowe and the other ice tower promoters to be explicit about the anticipated sources of private support--not just for construction costs but for operating costs. Are these sources real or imaginary? At this point the public has no way to tell, so I suspect the worst.
A minor weakness of the editorial was the unwarranted speculation about payback for the RDA statute amendment lobbying. The only legitimate reason to bring that up would be as yet another example of why Godfrey's word cannot be trusted. But the editorial doesn't make that connection, even though the editors know full well how many times the mayor has lied to them in the past. When will they have the guts to say it?
Here's an email I sent to the council 10 days ago. It may shed some light/answer some of your questions.
Dear Council members:
With your imminent decision looming regarding the administration’s request for a $200k contribution for the ice tower project—which will trigger the larger grants needed to construct the tower—it is time for me to address a number of key points. Two months ago, I spoke with Amy on the phone and made the offer to address these same issues and any others you might bring up at a work session. Amy said she’d try to arrange it, but I have yet to receive the call.
So, my input:
1- HISTORY
a- In 2003 Mike Vause introduced me to Matt Godfrey. Mike had piqued Matt’s interest in developing an outdoor ice park in Ogden Canyon along the lines of the one in Ouray, Colorado. I was directly involved in the formation of that park, and created and for seven years operated the annual Ouray Ice Festival, to help fund the operations. Both the festival and the park have been very successful (www.ourayicefestival.com) and have been directly responsible for turning Ouray’s winter economy around. I sold the festival to Ouray Ice Park, Inc, in 2001.
b- We worked for over a year in 2003 and 2004 to work the details out for an Ogden Ice Park. It quickly became apparent that water rights from Pineview Water Association would be very difficult to secure. Also, The cliffs below the pipeline in Ogden Canyon are south facing, and any ice on them would be sensitive to warm spells.
c- We finally focused our efforts on Wheeler Creek, where the water rights are owned by Ogden City and the west-facing cliffs are deep down and protected from the sun for much of the day. We did due diligence with the Forest Service, including paying for a botanist to do a survey looking for Burke’s draba, a sensitive plant species (none was found in the area). We drew up plans and a budget for an ice park in Wheeler Creek. (As an aside, the budget was $130,000, which has been referenced at least twice by reporter Schwebke in the Standard Examiner as the initial budget for erecting the ice tower, which it was not) After the final application for a special use permit was submitted to the Forest Service, we were informed that their review had revealed that Wheeler Creek had recently been placed in a category of lands wherein absolutely no additional development could take place, so our application could not be considered.
d- Whereupon I contacted ESPN to inquire as to the status of the ice tower I had designed for the Winter X Games. They had retired the tower from use a couple of years before. Chris Ford and I then formed a non-profit corporation (November of 2004), acquired the tower, and shipped it in pieces on several big flatbeds from Crested Butte, Colorado, to Ogden.
e- During the year 2006 we negotiated a low-cost lease from the City for a site in Big Dee Park, and developed plans and a budget (450k) to erect the tower as it was. The original configuration, and liquid nitrogen refrigeration system, could reasonably make ice about five months of the year, and we planned to use fresh-cut aspen wood slabs as a climbing surface in the warmer months. I had tested this on a small wall twenty years ago, with decent results. It was this plan and budget which was submitted for-- and received--the $200k RAMP grant in 2007.
2- THE NEW LOCATION AND RE-DESIGN
a- When John Patterson approached me with the idea that the tower should be placed at the corner of Kiesel and 25th, and re-designed for year-round ice climbing and architectural/iconic beauty, I was initially skeptical. However, after examining the site, I could see huge advantages over the Big Dee location. For high-adventure landmark visibility, for festivals, for competitions--including World-Cups which we will host—and to help create a walking link between the Junction and Historic 25th Street, down Kiesel Avenue.
b- Working as a team with myself in a conceptual/expert-consultant role, Bill Salerno as the architect , LA Roser Company for refrigeration design and C&D Engineers for structural engineering; Spectrum Engineering for electrical and lighting; top-flight construction management by R&O, and Bowman-Kemp to build the tower, we will create a beautiful structure that will serve Ogden well, year-round. But, as we solved each new challenge, the price went up, and we are left with two big obstacles: How do we pay for construction, and how do we cover annual operating costs? You are quite aware of how we are raising the funds for construction. Your requested vote to approve $200k--restricted to be used only when the rest of the construction funds are in hand—will help to assure we accomplish that goal. What about the annual operating budget, then?
3- PLAN TO MEET ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET NEEDS
A- If I tried to structure a business model that could cover both debt-service on a $1.6M building, AND cover operating costs, AND yield an acceptable ROI, I would fail. The fact that Ogden City will own the building, which will be mostly funded by grants and donations, and Ogden Climbing Parks (OCP), a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation will lease the tower from the city at a low rate and operate it for public good rather than investor benefit, has huge advantages:
1- In this case, for a 200k investment that will be returned in a few years through increased tax revenue, Ogden City will own an asset worth in excess of $2M ($1.6M plus the value of the existing fabricated structure which will be donated by Ogden Climbing Parks. The fabrication and steel cost 245K, in 1996, and would be about double that, now). This asset will continue to generate tax revenue for years to come.
2- OCP, as a non-profit, is able to solicit grants and donations for programs for school kids, underserved members of the community, and people with certain disabilities. These programs drastically reduce the need for normal user-fees to cover costs. In the last six months, OCP has successfully trained and graduated five certified guides under the auspices of the American Mountain Guides Association (AMGA), and seven more guides are in training. This month, using our AMGA-certified guides, we will begin two programs. The first will be promoted through Ogden Parks and Rec teaching real climbing skills and responsibility (as opposed to just giving people a ride on a rope) at iRock in the Solomon Center. The second program, with clients from the Pioneer Adult Rehabilitation Center in Clearfield, will teach people with mild disabilities, real climbing skills at the climbing wall at Hill Air Force Base. A third program will begin soon, in partnership with the ‘Splore Foundation of Salt Lake City. For over thirty years ‘Splore has been providing adventures for the disabled. All of these programs, as well as others, will be expanded to the ice tower when the tower is ready. Each of the programs will pay a fee sufficient to cover ice tower time, and will also yield a profit that OCP will reinvest in additional programs.
3- OCP will also book blocks of tower time for seminars that will be promoted locally, nationally, and internationally. I have three decades of experience with such events. Typically, one week each month we’ll host a 5-day seminar during mid-day, mid-week, low usage days. These all-inclusive seminars will be priced at about $1,200/person and will have anywhere from 10 to 20 clients. $3,000 to $6,000 will go toward tower time, depending upon the actual costs of operating the tower. Again, excess profits will go to cover OCP administrative costs and to fund additional programs. In a similar manner, we’ll host corporate team-building days, and other special programs.
4- Because the tower and OCP operations are essentially subsidized, we can keep normal user fees low. We will have three potential 4-hour blocks available on most days, except in the summer months, when hours will be reduced. Each 4-hour block will be available to the experienced climbing public at a rate of $20/person, including boots, crampons, ice tools, helmets, harnesses and gloves. Inexperienced people can join classes of 3 and receive AMGA-certified instruction for $60/person. Semi-private instruction will be $70/person, and private instruction will be priced at $80.
5- The new location on 25th Street allows for a greatly enhanced sponsor-signage matrix in an attractive display on the south wall of the parking structure behind the tower. We are in final negotiations with our title sponsor, and have contracts with a number of others. When funding for construction is complete, we’ll go full-speed ahead until we’ve completed the matrix. When completed, the sponsor matrix will yield $225,000 or more annually. However, OCP has agreed with the Ogden City administration that the title sponsor slot can be used for construction funding. This still leaves $150,000 annually toward tower operations. In the pro-forma you have seen, only $60,000/year sponsor income is projected.
6- Likewise, the new location allows much better competitions and events to be held, with more spectators. Bigger crowds mean better television coverage. In the past 20 years almost all of the events (about a dozen) I have run have been broadcast nationally on ABC, NBC, CBS, ESPN or cable network. All events have received excellent local news exposure, as well. Ogden’s Ice Tower will do even better. The director of the bi-annual Outdoor Retailer Show in Salt Lake City, is enthusiastic about OCP hosting the OR demo days on the tower.
I could go on and on about how the tower project fits into the overall plan of OCP to make Ogden a new center for American mountaineering. We’re already well on our way to achieving that goal by hosting the world’s best at ClimbFest, our mountain-adventure art and literature festival each spring (we just held the 2nd edition at the Union Station and Eccles Community Art Center), and Utah’s High Adventure Mountain Film Festival, scheduled for September 18 through 21 at Peery’s Egyptian and other venues. But I’ll stop here. I just wanted you to know there has been a lot of careful planning and activity behind the scenes, at OCP. The proof of the efficacy of our efforts will be “Best Climbing Town” recognition in up-coming issues of Rock and Ice, and Outside magazines. Ogden was not even on the radar screen two years ago.
Please vote yes to provide $200,000 in restricted funds for the construction of the ice tower.
Sincerely yours,
Jeff Lowe
Exective Director
Ogden Climbing Parks
Dan wrote:
"A minor weakness of the editorial was the unwarranted speculation about payback for the RDA statute amendment lobbying. The only legitimate reason to bring that up would be as yet another example of why Godfrey's word cannot be trusted. But the editorial doesn't make that connection, even though the editors know full well how many times the mayor has lied to them in the past. When will they have the guts to say it?"
Perhaps they did.
The CC work session in which they mentioned funding $50K or $100 toward the ice tower, rather than the 4200K requested by Godfrey occurred on Tuesday, June 3.
The work session in which they considered removing the lobbyist funding from the city budget was on Thursday, June 5.
Is it possible that the Council members knew of the RDA ammendment on Tuesday and still considered paying even $100? I'd think it would have been zero.
Oops. That should have been "rather than the $200K" not 4200K. Sorry.
"As long as taxpayers aren’t on duh hook fer duh long-term, duh council ortta git behind Godfrey, Lowe and duh downtoed ice-climbin towuh."
Thank goodness for the morons of the Standard-Examiner.
This statement alone scares me as a taxpayer from Jeff Lowe "The fact that Ogden City will own the building, which will be mostly funded by grants and donations, and Ogden Climbing Parks (OCP), a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation will lease the tower from the city at a low rate and operate it for public good rather than investor benefit".
This sounds like the Junction where the mayor has leased it out cheap and the city pays over $125K plus a month on debit service, over what is taken in on lease payments. How many more buildings can Ogden city lease out at lower payments to businesses or non-profits? How can we be assured donations and grants will continue, especially with the economy slumping. The donors need to be identified and tell us what they intend to do long term and how much they are putting in the pot.
Jeff L:
Thanks for posting the letter to the Council. It fills in some holes for me, but not all of them. As you've probably noticed, one concern several of us have is that the annual operating costs [power, security, insurance, maintenance, pay for staff and so on] will eventually have to be paid for by the city. And once the project is built, with an infusion of $300k to $400K of public money plus, the pressure to "not lose all we've put in" by failing to pony up operating subsidies will be very great.
I didn't find in your letter a breakdown of the anticipated annual operating costs, which makes it difficult to draw conclusions about the probability that OCP will be able to meet them or whether the public will,in the end, be asked to subsidize them.
I'm sorry some think the way to respond to you, your proposal and your posting the letter is with invective. But you need also, I think, to understand that you've allied yourself in this matter with a Mayor whose actions over the past eight years have created substantial distrust among a not inconsiderable portion of the community. Which means, unfortunately, that that distrust extends to some extent to those involved in proposals he advocates. So you're going to have to cut the skeptics, myself among them, a little slack. We have reason to be distrustful of the major advocate for your project, for he has a history of low-balling bait and switch tactics to win approval of projects he wants adopted, which subsequently end up costing the ratepayers a great deal more than they bargained for. [Ask folks at the SE about his absolutely assuring them that the urban flatland gondola project would not involve any public money for its construction... not a dime, following which assurance the paper endorsed the project. Within months, it became clear that in fact the urban flatland gondola was going to require millions in public funds to complete. Or talk to the members on the Council when he sold the Rec Center, now Solomon Center, with a promise that Ogden would not have to guarantee the construction bonds for it, then returned and said Ogden would have to, but that was not a problem, since the city would not have to actually make bond payments out of other revenues, which in fact the city is now making.] There's a history here, Mr. Lowe.
I note you expect to have a great deal of grant money coming in to subsidize prices and so make use of the facility more within the reach of ordinary Ogdenites. Admirable goal. But I also know that grants funding can be... mercurial? There one fiscal year, gone the next; at one level once, and there at a lower level later. And so I have to wonder if that's a sound model, for the long term, on which to base anticipated revenues to cover operating costs down the road. You may, probably will, disagree, but I don't think at this point these are trivial concerns.
Note that Lowe's letter (above) purports a great many things as fact that are in actuality, only claims with no substantiation whatsoever. It is an abundance of words masquerading as a history, and fabrications masquerading as financials, all gossamer as a vapor of smoke. Had Jeff more space, he could have filled it too, with more nothingness.
"I am the great Jeff Lowe, I have done all and I will yet do this, and that, and so forth and so on!!!"
Jeff, what I'm saying is you're a pitch man, a con artist, a liar, IMO.
The truth is your icicle was dropped by ESPN, whose games continue, just without your over-hyped hardware, which has sat, unused for years as you tried vainly to find someone, anyone, foolish enough to buy it, until at last you came across Matt Godfrey.
Yet another leech has slithered into Ogden to feed off the taxpayers. Jeff, rest yourself beside the men who sell gondolas and wind tunnels and the sleazy contractors who use cheap paint that peels off all around the flowrider leaving rust when only a few months old. Prepare to sup with the California con man who turned the river district into desolation. But remember, as you prepare to glut yourself, leave some table scraps to kick back to Matt Godfrey.
Surely, if he will feed all these other maggots, Matt will go for your icicle too, right?
Let's finally say it. Mayor Godfrey is simply a vain and inept man who attracts parasites by the swarm.
jeff l,
Hope you don’t mind a high level (shoot from the hip) review of your cost estimates using some of your own high level cost estimates and a little mathematics applied to those estimate numbers.
You stated that your original wall was going to be re-erected at a “budget (450k) to erect the tower as it was. The original configuration, and liquid nitrogen refrigeration system, could reasonably make ice about five months of the year.” That project budget was developed using the already paid for wall, i.e. 245K was just the cost of the existing wall and 195K was the cost to make the whole thing (the single wall) work. Paragraph 3-A
And
“The fabrication and steel cost 245K, in 1996, and would be about double that, now.” This cost refers to the cost to build a single similar wall today, ie. 245K X 2 = 290K. Paragraph 1-E
By your own numbers a single wall would cost 490K and your plan for the new Ogden facility would have 4 walls and one pole. So applying a little math would suggest that 4 X 490 + 1 pole X 100K (shot from the hip) = $2,060,000. And if you assume you give your investment in the existing wall to the city for free (which I don’t think you will), you can subtract 245k from that total above and the total now becomes $1,815,000. This amount builds the climbing walls and climbing pole but does not cover the cost of building the building that houses these walls. I won’t speculate on those costs nor the cost of the extra refrigeration needed to run 5 climbing surfaces for more than 5 months of the years other than to say that that could conceivably add at least another $500k to the project cost. Your cost estimate is $1.6 million. Seems to me that your cost estimates are low relative to your own numbers. Also I see no reserves in that $1.6 million for start up costs or where there is a reserve for your initial cash flow requirements or for the dismantling of the wall. How are you planning on dealing with construction cost over runs?
In paragraph 5 your state, “The new location on 25th Street allows for a greatly enhanced sponsor-signage matrix in an attractive display on the south wall of the parking structure behind the tower. We are in final negotiations with our title sponsor, and have contracts with a number of others. When funding for construction is complete, we’ll go full-speed ahead until we’ve completed the matrix. When completed, the sponsor matrix will yield $225,000 or more annually. However, OCP has agreed with the Ogden City administration that the title sponsor slot can be used for construction funding. This still leaves $150,000 annually toward tower operations. In the pro-forma you have seen, only $60,000/year sponsor income is projected.” Question where does the 75K (difference in 225 and 150) get applied in the construction funding? Is someone offering to carry a note on this tower for some amount of the cost or cost over runs? Could it be the city?
The annual revenue for the whole project is projected at only 309K and that offsets 296K in operating expenses for roughly a 13K per year profit (i.e. break even). Not a very large margin of error and yet you state “the tower and OCP operations are essentially subsidized” (paragraph 4) yet your performa shows your major source of revenues coming from Potential User Fees (56%). So which is it? If you’ve now changed your revenue expectations to depend subsidizes and those subsidies go away or are diminished (and almost all federal, state and city funding are being trimmed back for the types of programs that you’ve mentioned), the tower will become a big financial drain. Like wise if you can’t sell the space on the parking garage wall (matrix as you prefer to call it), the tower will become a big financial drain. You assume with confidence that you can sell all of the space on the wall for an aggregate value of $225K per year, yet you put in only 60K in your performa. I personally think your confidence level is too high. I’ve had a little experience with advertizing and your product is not cheap for what you’re offering. Hate to hurt your feelings but this ain’t NASCAR. More to the point though you look for 60K per year in direct advertizing revenues and 20K per year in membership sales (indirect advertising) or what amounts to 26% of your annual budget. Any slippage in your sales of space on the garage wall and the tower becomes a financial drain. Remember only 13K of room.
I could go on and on about the tower’s understatement of operating costs as they relate to electricity costs or as they relate to the number of employees you think are needed to operate the tower or to how much the city will benefit overall by it’s presence but suffice to say I don’t think the project is financially cost justifiable by your own numbers or that the proper amount of attention has been given to evaluating it’s viability. Of course I’m just shooting from the hip.
ANOTHER REASON THE COUNCIL SHOULD NOT VOTE TO EXPEND MORE TAXPAYER MONEY ON THE ICE TOWER:
I tried to sell the Council and the Administration the other night on the idea that the City had contributed considerably to the ice tower in services and engineering data, etc. The Administration indicated that those donating money wouldn't buy that because it wasn't much. I requested information on how much Ogden had really contributed already to the ice tower. Here is the info the Council received:
June 30, 2005: $12,000. to Jeff Lowe for professional/technical, category Recreation
June 30, 2005: $2,000. paid to “Ice Park” unfrt Miscellaneous Grants & Donations
June 30, 2006: $15,000. – Major Grants Expendable Trust
No date: $44,875. – expended in the following categories: engineering, geotechnical, refrigeration engineering, advertising and miscellaneous items which totaled $21,750.
Nov. 28, 2007: $50,000. was to be contributed by the City (per John Patterson in Standard Examiner article. This is in-kind contributions – Administrative staff time, geo-tec work, appraisal and land negotiation (fees/parking).
TOTAL: $123,875. plus $98,808. RAMP funds for purchase orders dated July 1 to Sept 25, 2007
There will be a budget hearing on June 24th during Council Meeting for the budget amendment to include $100,000. of carry-over funds in the FY2008 budget. I read a lot of indignant and agitated posters on this blog, but how serious are you? Serious enough to attend Council Meeting on June 24th and let the Council know your concerns?
Sam from Salt Lake said that the ice tower would be the coolest thing in the State -- you could be right, Sam, and if private funds will build, maintain, manage it and dismantle and haul it away, then I have no problem with the ice tower. Ogden City has already donated $124k toward the ice tower, plus the City applied for and received $200K of RAMP funds for it. I think Ogden residents/
taxpayers have seen enough increases in their utility bills and a number of fees that the Council is responsible for to last for quite awhile. I believe that if this is as great a venue as the administration and Jeff Lowe tell us it is, then civic-minded foundations and philanthropists should fund it, not the over-burdened taxpayer.
We will have the ice tower in Ogden! Mitch Moyes presented each Council member a copy of the "Ogden Recreation Programs & Events" for 2008-09 tonight at Council Meeting. On the back cover "High Adventure Activities" are listed which include:
"Ogden's Holographic Ice Tower - Come try Ogden's ice tower! The Holographicice tower is available for all climbers, from the experienced to the novice, year-round! For more information visit: . . ." and it lists a couple of websites. Do you have any doubts about the presence of the ice tower in down town Ogden? It's a done deal, so why does the Council have to fork over $100K of taxpayer money that could go to repair roads, provide sidewalks or a dozen other NEEDS throughout the City(this is capital improvement money so it must be spent on capital improvements).
I expect to see you at the public hearing for this on June 24th. (If I'm still alive.)
Begging diquised as philanthropy. "programs for the disadvantaged youth." Excuse me, but this stupip greedy attempt will compete for funds, with real programs that can be of great value for disadvantaged youth. Please explain what possible good will be achieved by pulling a poor innercity kid up a wall of ice?
You'll be competing with funds that could go to youth programs like those offered, or that could be offered, at the Marshall White Center and Headstart. Did lying little matty write your script? Do you seriously believe you have more to offer and can provide a greater benefit than the Marshall White Center and Headstart?
This kind of absurdity will continue til we finally unveil the truth about the absurd interpritation of " high adventure outdoor/indoor artificial phony hyped up recreation. What is it? Where is it? Just what does it mean? How pray tell does it relate to Ogden City? We have some coat, ski, snowboard and gogle warehouses now, but nowhere in this city can you even buy their goods. How many more millions will this phony branding myth cost the people that reside here? Fools and charletans.
How many of you can say corporate welfare? Get on it standard exaggerators. It's not your money because you don't pay taxes.
How many GONDOLA freaks does it take to change a lightbulb?
Three.
Jeff Lowe to use his "celebrity" to endorse the change.
Bob Geiger to make me pee my pants while ordering me to retreive a sphere from the package.
And THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE to eat a vidalia onion.
What?
THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE
Jeff-Is there anyone who showed up at Ouray this year still using equipment from the 70's?-didn't think so. The FAA laughed at the airports crash truck, its the same one that your brother worked on when he was here and no longer meets standards. We have other engines with broken frame welds and tanks that leak hundreds of gallons of water a day, stations that are crumbling. These problems along with many others in this city have been ignored for too many years-now we may be in too deep a hole to get out.
Fireman Joe:
Were any of these matters addressed in the budget just passed?
Curm, in response to your question, Were any of these matters addressed in the budget just passed?
The Mayor and Council are well aware of the problems mentioned by Fireman Joe. The Council recently paid some $53,000 far a independant audit by Citigate that brings to light all of those deficiencies in the fire department.
However, like said before, the Mayor wont spend a dime on fire department matters because of the firefighters lack of political support for the little vindictive sneak.
Playing with the publics safety so he can retaliate for the political support thrown to other more honest public safety candidates.
It pretty plain to see, popscicles, gondolas, handouts to cronys, nothing for basic services required by the city.
Fireman Joe and Another Humble Servant, I missed seeing you at the Council meeting. I did mention that due to Chief Mike Mathieu's hard work the Fire Dept. was awarded a Federal SAFER grant which provides funding for the three firefighter positions that were cut several years ago. This grant also calls for a commitment from the City to fund these positions as the grant money decreases over a 5-year period. I also stated that the Council was committed to addressing the other issues and needs of the Fire Dept. as identified in a management audit in 2007. The Council has set intents and expectations for future planning in the area of facilities rehabilitation and equipment replacement. We have talked with Fleet in obtaining new trucks for you. The Council is committed to supporting you. As you state "the hole is deep," and we are addressing your needs, but it can't be done overnight. The infrastrucue of the City has been ignored and neglected for years, which the broken water pipes prove, and we are addressing them. Just please be patient with us. We are trying to work around the obstacle we confront.
Dorrene-Thank you for your support. We have been told by his ego that we are relying solely on grants and that he will do everything in his power to see that any money allocated by the council will remain unspent while he is in power.
Curmudgeon, thank you for your civil post. I can respect concerns that are couched in such a manner. I don't expect all to agree to using tax dollars for the ice tower, as there are, indeed, many important programs/projects that could use the money. But it's not my intent to just take from Ogden. Quite the contrary--it's my wish to contribute to the revitalization of the city. In that respect, challenging any assumptions in the plan is a good thing. Your concerns are noted--as are the concerns of others as expressed in this blog--and I will address them where possible. But this forum is too disjointed (not a criticism, just the nature of the beast) for a cogent presentation.
All the best,
-Jeff
Note to fireman Joe:
I pledge to you that within six months of openning the tower for use, we will hold a major fund-raising event with all proceeds to benefit the Ogden Fire Department. This could be a weekend, or a week, where we find a sponsor to cover the cost of tower time, and all user fees and donations would go directly to the department. We can build and improve on the idea to maximize its' impact. -Jeff
Jeff, I am sure you are a great guy with good intentions.
It is difficult to explain to co-workers that the City Administration will not commit to ongoing reoccurring expenses for the general fund, and then they turn around and want money for a project, that looks like an ongoing reoccurring expense.
The City employees are not greedy, but we have helped out and forgone merits to help the city balance the budget, but the employees are dropping further behind pay comparisons, and not even able to keep up with inflation. A large majority of the employees are 10-20 percent behind market along the Wasatch front, with many as high as 40 percent behind.
The equipment, cars fire trucks and staffing is below what it should be.
I just can not justify throwing tax dollars at unnecessary projects, until the deficiencies throughout the city departments are corrected. It seems to be another one of those items that will suck money from the basic services that the city is supposed to provide, but is only doing so on a shoe string budget.
Post a Comment