By Curmudgeon
Three items of some news interest in this morning's Standard Examiner.
First, a piece by Mr. Schwebke on Tuesday night's Council Work Session regarding the proposed ice tower. It seems that matters did not go as smoothly as Mayor Godfrey and had hoped. The Std-Ex reports that four members of the Council [Stephenson, Johnson, Stephens and Garcia] are willing to pony up $100,000 as a one-time grant to help fund the tower. But apparently there is no majority for a $200,000 grant. An unhappy John Patterson, Mayor Godfrey's chief administrative officer, told the Std-Ex that he's "unsure whether $100,000 would be enough to leverage additional contributions from donors waiting in the wings. " Perhaps "allegedly waiting in the wings" or "perhaps waiting in the wings" might have been a more accurate way to put it, since later in the story, we find this: "Patterson has said $200,000 is needed to demonstrate the city’s financial commitment to the ice tower so that private foundations will also be inclined to contribute." Un-named donors only inclined to contribute? And then only if the city ponys up $200,000?
Council members Wicks and Gochnour said they could support a one-time $50,000 grant, but not more, and Councilwoman Jeske said she did not favor additional public funding.
The Std-Ex reports that there is a majority on the Council for tying a condition to any grant that none of it actually be spent "until there are sufficient funds from other sources to complete the ice tower." The Council, in short, has not rolled over, sat up and wagged its tail on command as the Mayor had hoped.
Second, the Std-Ex reports that the 21st Street Pond has received a promotion, as well as a new name. It's no longer a pond. It's now a lake. Goode Lake. While the city continues to own the new lake, Goode will operate it as a water-skiing venue, and will buy and additional four acres to expand the lake to a size sufficient to hold water ski tournaments. Goode hopes that the expanded lake will permit Ogden to host the World Championships some day.
The story also discusses a planned amphitheater complex for the new lake area. It's been touted before, but has not appeared in the news much of late. Here is the update:
Following the expansion of Goode Ski Lake, Ryan McEuen, president of Incandescent Entertainment, based in Salt Lake City, hopes to move ahead with construction of an adjacent $18 million amphitheater that would hold as many as 13,500 spectators.Finally, we find an article on the Std-Ex sports page, reporting on the Raptors season opener which we discussed on Monday.
The amphitheater would have retractable walls and about 3,500 fixed seats, allowing performances year-round.
McEuen said he is working with investors for the project, but declined to identify them. It hasn't been determined when construction on the amphitheater may begin, he said.
McEuen envisions booking premier rock, country, folk, blues and pop acts along with Broadway touring companies and attracting spectators from throughout the Intermountain West
The city's only significant investment in the amphitheater project would be the installation of infrastructure such as water and sewer lines, John Patterson, Ogden's chief administrative officer, has said.
23 comments:
Thanks for the submission, Curm. Regarding the Ice tower, I too was struck by this Patterson quote:
"Patterson has said $200,000 is needed to demonstrate the city’s financial commitment to the ice tower so that private foundations will also be inclined to contribute."
The administration is putting the cart before the horse.
These so called private donors (the Eccles Foundation seems to be constantly mentioned) need to demonstrate the the private sector's financial commitment to the ice tower first, so that the council can intelligently weigh whether any financial commitment on the part of the city might be warranted. Seems to me, the burden ought to rest on the promoters and private donors to make the case for the city's participation. Subsidizing an ice tower is about as far from a legitimate city government function as the council can get; and no financial commitment should be made by the council in any amount whatsoever until there is clear and convincing evidence that the private sector is squarely behind the project.
Like you, I believe the council is on the right track in demanding that these purported donors show us the color of their money first.
A Weber County Tip O' The Hat to the Council.
It appears that the Scottish firm that operates an ice tower of similar size to that proposed for Ogden is building one in Burlington, Vermont.
A .pdf of the proposal is here. Very nice, professionally done job.
I can't get to the news story anymore, but it apparently was written up in the Burlington paper on Feb 19. I did find a cached version, however.
Of interest is the $21 million construction cost. "Only" $7 million (if I'm doing my math right) is for reclamation of the Moran site in Burlington, so that leaves $14 million for actual construction. A far cry from the $1.6 million (I think) which is the latest promise from Ogden Climbing Parks, Inc. and a really really far cry from the original $120 thousand estimated for construction costs.
Such a low number for an incredibly complicated and HEAVY object (see, for example, this description of the construction specs on the Scottish site) indicates that the principles of Ogden Climbing Parks, Inc. have next to no idea what they are doing.
Someone please explain to me the discrepancy between a $14 million cost for constructing the Burlington Vermont site, and $120 thousand (or even $1.6 million) for the Ogden site. Being off by a factor of 10, or 100, is troubling to me.
Edit to the above:
Principals, not principles. I should know better.
Mono:
I know precisely zero about construction, but I wonder if part of the difference can be explained by the fact that Ogden Climbing Parks bought an already existing tower, which it hopes to erect here. I suspect the Scottish site costs involve the manufacturing as well as erection costs of their tower. That might account for some of the discrepancy.
But I think you're right that continued pleas for more subsidies are all but inevitable once the thing goes up, if it goes up. Especially since the Administration's preference for low ball bait and switch tactics in getting approval for costly projects is well-established.
Item #3 in the Burlington pdf's FAQ indicates that the citizens are voting on the tower because their city government wants them behind it if it is to be built.
What a concept! Guess they aren't lucky enough to be living in a Republic.
Og:
If public opinion on an Ogden city subsidy for the Godfrey Memorial Icicle comes anywhere within shouting distance of the comments I heard in Ye Olde Coffee Shoppe this morning, they won't dare put it up for a referendum, and for the same reason Hizzonah wouldn't put the gondola up for a referendum.
Typical comment this AM:
"I don't care if they build it; I just don't want them taking the money out of my pocket to do it."
[NB: I was not part of the conversation; just eavesdropping shamelessly.]
Good stuff Mono; thanks!
Og:
Even more interesting stuff from the cached story Mono provided:
McCully said Ice Factor has provided the city [Burlington] with "a preliminary business plan" and will provide detailed financial records of its previous Kinlochleven loan from the Bank of Scotland....
"The key element," Ice Factor founder Jamie Smith said in an e-mail to The Burlington Free Press, "is that the city controls the lease, the tenants and everything they propose to operate in there. As this process has evidenced, they proceed with caution and only on the back of support. The tenant's ability to pay is clearly important, which is why at my very first meeting with the mayor I provided evidence of our ability to finance the whole project."
And: The city estimates tax and fee revenues from the Moran plant project at $122,000 a year.
Where is their funding coming from? The Bank of Scotland. I.e. a commercial loan: " the Bank of Scotland [is] 'eager to provide us with the funds we need to expand in Burlington.'"
This raises all kinds of interesting questions. (a) if this is such a can't miss venture, why has Ogden Climbing Parks been unable to convince banks and commercial lenders of its viability? The Burlington builders managed it. (b) Why is the Burlington project expected to generate lease and tax revenues for that city, while the Ogden project instead is begging for subsidies from the taxpayers? (c) The Burlington proposers have provided that city with a business plan covering operations and maintenance and anticipated revenues, and proof that they have sufficient funding already arranged to complete the project. Has Ogden Climbing Parks done the same here?
Mono, that was a great post, and great link. Everyone should go to the cached site he posted to see how this sort of thing can be done, is being done, with private commercial funding.
Which has me wondering, yet again... why not here?
Curm:
I may know less about construction than you do, not having attended construction conferences for the last 35 years, but I do have a calculator and know how to use it.
The note on the Ice Factor webpage about the weight of the ice and frame above the base is significant to me. They have poured concrete 15 meters (50 feet) thick to support the weight of the overlying structure. That can't be cheap.
Assuming that the pad is 15 m x 15 m x 15 m (about 15 x 15 x 15 yards, or 3,375 cubic yards), that's $240K for concrete alone at $70 per cubic yard. That's just materials cost, not even labor for excavating the thing or the rebar that has to go into it.
I just don't see how you can do the deal for $1.6 million, even with a pre-existing tower being shipped from Crested Butte. If I saw some sort of rational breakdown of the numbers, I might start to believe.
Those who do not attend crime conferences typically have difficulty with principles v. principals. Oh, and the Lying Little Matty Gondola Godfrey Frozen Forehead is dumb, dumb, dumb, diddy-dumb-dumb.
THE SKI IS BEAUTIFUL BLUE
First, keep in mind that Jeff Lowe's ice tower, you know, the one ESPN dropped after only two years of use, originally cost only $245,000. It was built about 1997.
The piece of junk sat for awhile until Lowe bought it from the owners for $30,000, thereby saving it from the scrap heap.
So when you talk ice towers, remember the one touted for Ogden is $30,000 worth of crap that nobody has wanted to use for 10 years.
Regarding the council comments, thanks to the reliable Jekse for always looking after the public and not succumbing to the mayor's BS.
Regarding Gochnour and Wicks for $50,000, it seems like a lot for something like this, especially considering the county has already ponied $200,000. But to hold it to that much and only that much for "seed money" is forgivable.
As far as Garcia, Stephens, Stephenson and Johnson going for $100,000 - - shame on the first two who are better men than that, and good for the last two men for standing up to their master for ONCE. Could this be the start of some independence from those two formerly useless Godfrey yes men?
As far as Patterson's whining - he knows he has nothing in the way of donations on the way and this is only a con to get the city on the hook. He's afraid that with them cutting the funding to a token amount at this point makes it look less likely he can con them into paying for the whole thing going forward, which is Godfrey's plan . . .
Burlington, VT is a mountainous, rocky area. Downtown Ogden sits on fill from Lake Bonneville. How much concrete would it take to keep the entire base and tower from sinking once it reached its full size? Ice isn't light and neither is concrete. Can the ice tower even be built in our fair city?
That's one question that should be answered before we sink (sic) our money into the project.
. . . for the less informed my kudo above regarding Stephenson and Johnson supporting $100,000 for the ice tower was in relation to Godfrey's request for $200,000. For them to cut their master's request in half was very encouraging . . .
But I wish Garcia and Stephens had joined Wicks and Gochnour for only $50,000.
Of course, Jeske is in a class by herself, as is often the case.
. . . for a good time,
Click Here
Be sure to click on the "Tour" button to travel through Detroit. See what years of government getting so big it drives business out then heeding calls for government to "do something" does for a city.
Ogden has some grand old buildings, but Detroit . . . oh, Detroit.
Speaking of Detroit...
The Stanley Cup returns to Hockey Town USA!
Two for 1/4, four for 1/2 and one with total imunity. Perhaps geigarian geigery has past it's contagious germinal period and is losing all it's effect.
I have also given thought to this list of supposed pledged, the reason I say supposed is due to my short stint in the world of grant writing. If anyone has been attending grant writing conferences for 35 years and can offer more information, please do.
It's my experience that in order to recieve money from these larger foundations you have to write a grant. They review these once a year and it's a yea or nay, you recieve your grant request or you don't. If you don't, you're welcome to submit a new one during the next years grant writng period.
I can't help but think a couple of things when I read Patterson's comments.
True to this administrations undying commitment to dishonesty, these are not pledges at all, I suspect that his comments reflect the reasons for denial of the grants from the foundations, I also suspect that the writer of these grants is an employee of Ogden City, one that writes lots of grants annually. Perhaps one of the foundations offered to match the City's contribution? Unfortunately poor Pattersons' credibility leaves us only to wonder.
My remorse is that I wish this tunnel visional administration would spend some of it's energy on good causes for the benefit of the residents. The grant writer should request the same amounts for programs directed by the Marshall White Center, this type of grant is more likely to recieve approval due to who will benifit.
Curmudgeon,
You posted: “This raises all kinds of interesting questions.
“(a) if this is such a can't miss venture, why has Ogden Climbing Parks been unable to convince banks and commercial lenders of its viability? The Burlington builders managed it.” I really don’t think that is a path that has been pursued. They want “free” money.
“(b) Why is the Burlington project expected to generate lease and tax revenues for that city, while the Ogden project instead is begging for subsidies from the taxpayers?” That is Godfrey’s way of doing business – remember he has said that the money the City receives from the “taxpayers isn’t real money – it’s funny money.” He’s young, has a very good paying job, so he can’t comprehend how our older, retired citizens have to struggle to make ends meet.
“(c) The Burlington proposers have provided that city with a business plan covering operations and maintenance and anticipated revenues, and proof that they have sufficient funding already arranged to complete the project. Has Ogden Climbing Parks done the same here?” NO! A BIG FAT NO! When the Administration was asked if there was a business plan, the answer was “Of course!” So Councilwoman Jeske asked for a copy – what was provided was a financial statement – no business plan! John Patterson was amazed that the Council didn’t accept that as a business plan. So the request has been for the third time for a copy of the business plan and the contract with Jeff Lowe.
“Which has me wondering, yet again... why not here?” I believe it has us all wondering why can’t the Administration be honest, straight-forward and business-like? You just have to look at their leader, to know the answer to that question. I have a new name for Godfrey – “No ethics Godfrey!”
Knowing how the Administration (Dave Harmer) stood before the Council and with a straight-face convinced the Council that the tile company wanted to buy the property on the west side of Wall between the Union Station and St. Anne’s – they just had to have it! And Patterson several times told the Council that “Yes, the St. Anne’s Board of Directors wanted very much to move to a new site and building on west 12th St., I ask the Council “How can you believe Patterson now?!! The Administration has left you with egg on your face so many times, and yet you keep coming back for more! When do you get smart and wait until you have the documents that prove what they’re telling you the truth before you vote?
If you don’t do it this time, there will be a number of us campaigning against Stephens, Garcia and Johnson next year! Do your job! Be fiscally responsible! Represent your constituents! Not “No Ethics Godfrey!” Go ahead and don’t believe me! Kent Jorgenson didn’t believe it when he was told that if he continued to support the gondola and Chris Peterson’s project, he wouldn’t be re-elected – well he found out!
George K:
We are in substantial agreement, except on two points. First, involving opposing Johnson's election "next year," wasn't Johnson just elected, and so he will not be standing for election next year?
And second, so far as I know, Councilman Jorgenson did not come out in support of the gondola/Peterson proposal while he was on the Council. As I recall, the complaints those who opposed his re-election had about him centered on his having run for office opposing demolition of the old downtown mall, and his having changed his views on that after election; and on his votes supporting the Rec Center [now Solomon Center] and its funding.
I was at a Lift Ogden meeting during Jorgenson's re-election campaign, at which council candidates attending were invited to say something about the gondola/Peterson proposal. Two as I recall got up and did the expected cheer leading and were applauded enthusiastically. Mr. Jorgenson rose and said simply that he would look at the proposals carefully. The Lift Ogden crowd was not pleased with that reply.
He was kind enough to offer me a lift following the meeting [I'd of had to wait half an hour for a bus], and we talked about the proposal. His main comment was that so far, particularly regarding the economics and financing and projected use, it was all generalities and promises of funding and ridership and success, with no specifics. He was skeptical, but willing to look at a formal proposal if one came forward [and it turned out none ever did].
To call him a supporter of the gondola/Peterson proposal as a Councilman would not be accurate, and so I doubt that was, directly, a cause of his defeat.
It may well be true, though, that many opponents of the gondola/Peterson plan took Mr. Jorgenson's voting for the Rec Center as a sign that he was "in the mayor's pocket" [as one of them put it to me] and could not be counted on to exercise independent judgment on the gondola/Peterson proposals when it came before the Council, as people expected it would. I thought then, and think still, that that conclusion about him was not justified.
I believe Blaine Johnson is filling a two-year term (the end of the term held briefly by Glasman and VanHooser.) His seat will be open next fall for a full, four-year term. If anyone is thinking of running, please run.
Danny:
Ah, OK. I was wrong, then. Thanks for the correction.
In light of that, I will pay a little more attention to Mr. Johnson, eagerly searching for some signs... any signs... of independent judgment on his part, in hopes that he will not turn out to be the kind of hopeless sycophant of Hizzonah as Councilman Stephenson has sadly proven himself to be.
Curmudgeon,
I don't know whether you are aware or not that Blain Johnson sits on the board of the infamous Ogden Foundation and meets regularly with the Mayor as does Stephenson.
Maybe I was wrong about Jorgenson supporting the gondola/Peterson project, but he was a supporter of the rec center, and "yes" man who met regularly with the Mayor. He was one of the "Gang of 5" who always voted in support of everything that Godfrey supported.
Danny is right , Johnson has only two years to serve on the Council.
George i:
Yes, I knew that. I hold no brief for Johnson and supported his opponent in the election, but I figure any new member of the Council starts with a clean slate, and ought to be judged on his or her performance in the job. Mr. Johnson's performance so far has not been particularly encouraging. But it's still early days in his term.
Hope this blog is not too late on this issue, the ice tower was originally slated to be placed in Big D Park along the River Parkway - does anyone know why that changed?
What councilmembers are up for re-election this year, any?
Stephenson and Johnson are in Godfrey's back pocket, Stephenson is just now realizing that may not be the best place to nestle so he is ever so slightly questioning Boss Godfrey, but for him let's hope it is too late.
Post a Comment