Friday, October 24, 2008

Another Document to Add to the Windsor Hotel Document Glut

The heretofore missing half of Ogden Properties' 10/9/08 extortion letter

We published this article yesterday, for the first time publicly revealing the contents of the 10/9/08 Ogden Properties demand letter, transmitted to Ogden officials almost two weeks ago. An important element was missing, however. Here's the setup:
Although we believe the publishing of this document was important, there was one thing left hanging. As mentioned in our earlier article:

"And sorry folks. We haven't yet succeeded in obtaining the
'separate document' referred to in the letter, in which Ogden Properties itemizes its 'expenses' to date." Rumor has it however that the developer is putting the arm on the taxpayers for at least a cool $million."
Well... the situation is now changed, changed utterly.

With great delight, we post what is purported by a reliable WCF Souse to be the Ogden Properties' "capital expense statement" (i.e., the "separate document' mentioned above) which accompanied the above demand letter:

Ogden Properties Windsor Hotel Investment

With this whole litany of ridiculously padded expenses, these amatuerish developer wannabees are asking for the moon.

Have fun, O gentle ones.

Perfect subject matter to kick off a weekend thread, dont'cha think?.

Have at it..


Screw Ogden Properties said...

according to Curt Geiger and the developer, we're all a bunch of crazy hicks!

Look who's getting the last laugh now!


Historically Inaccurate said...

Shouldn't most of the reported expenses factor into the appraisal of the building and any profit they've made on the total current market value?

If I decide to remodel my home, I don't get to ask the next buyer for the current appraised price – and all of the expenses incurred to get to that price (general contractor, paint, supplies, etc.). I believe the purchase price was around $250,000. While in the current market conditions it’s unlikely the building would appraise for anywhere close to $648,000, if it did that would mean the difference is $398,000. Minus out $288,000 and that’s about $110,000.

Before I took on a project, I'd need to determine whether or not the added value to my home would justify the expenditures. When I sell my home, or any other commercial property, I don’t get to tack on marketing or realtor fees in addition to the home or property price. They come out of my profit.

The building may be worth more than the initial purchase price based on capital improvements, but the price they're quoting is ridiculous.

It was determined the architectural renderings would make the building non-conforming and the contract states they’ll adhere to the Historic District standards – nothing to do with non-conforming plans should be legally recoverable according to the contract they originally signed.

disgusted said...

first lesson in business - something is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it.
give me a break 20% of cost is for development costs and lost opportunity. 56 k in management fees and 12 k in travel when they have other property here in town. i want to loan them money cause they are claiming 17% cost of money. whole deal is bogus. with costs like that i dont think they could ever make money with any business activity they tried to develop.
city should tell op llc to pound sand.

Historically Inaccurate said...

I was told my original figures weren’t clear, so in case anyone else didn’t think I explained well here is how I interpreted what Rudi posted.

This is how most investors would look at a project:

$648,000 approx. current value (per “investor’s” figures)
- $250,000 approx. original property expenditure
= $398,000
- $288,000 Ogden City taxpayer grant – required to be repaid if the project is not completed as agreed within approximately two years of initial purchase (money that could only be counted as a project asset if the project was completed)

= $110,000 profit margin

If it was my investment I’d constantly be looking at what the properties current MARKET value was against expenditures. That’s how you stay in the black. It’s true you have to spend money to make money, but you also have to make reasonable decisions and get advice from experts if you don’t have experience yourself. Buyers don't care about what you spent, they only care about what something is worth. Poperty is on worth what someone will pay for it.

The expenditure for the proposed finished project would have been extremely expensive. The investor’s Web site states they would include a “Gourmet stainless-steel appliance package.” The price tag on that type of kitchen appliance set would have been around $20,000 (assuming they were using Viking, Wolf, Sub Zero, AGA or the other high-end appliances). It states the cabinetry would be custom, and the other proposed design elements all come with an extremely high price tag (hardwood floors, granite and marble counters, roof decks).

In addition to development of the existing structure, they wanted to build an entire additional floor. With structural and seismic considerations and their current reported expenditures, there is no way they could have finished the project without losing money. If they spent anywhere close to $1.3 million at this point, there isn’t a financial institution that should even consider giving them another cent.

They proposed selling the entire second and third floors for $799,000. The total square footage is 2,703 (according to their Web site). That’s $295.60 per square foot. The price tag per square foot is even higher if the building is divided into two units on the second floor and is well over $300 per square foot.

Can anyone in the Real Estate community actually justify that kind of price tag in today’s current economic conditions? It’s property at those kinds of price points that currently has absolutely no movement.

They waited until after election when the new Landmarks Commissioners were in place to get approvals (that should have never been granted) and that cost them significant time. Had they moved quickly and worked within the guidelines using the existing building they may have been able to sell while the market was still on the upswing.

As Rudi said, the council’s vote was probably exactly what the investors were praying for.

However, if the Mayor’s office chooses to pay anywhere close to the price demanded, I would like to personally talk to Matt about city acquisition of my “Beanie Babies” collection. I will be using price listings from 1998, since CURRENT market forces and poor investment decisions are not relevant on the 9th floor.

danny said...

This is all true, but remember the city DID warrant that the site was ALREADY zoned for a use that INCLUDED at fourth floor. See dev. agreement sec. IIA and IIIC3.

But, nothing says the city had to accept ANY design for the fourth floor. Pity OP didn't submit an HISTORICALLY ACCEPTABLE design for an HISTORICAL PROPERTY IN AN HISTORICAL DISTRICT. DUH!

And, the city can buy back for 300g's plus CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS. I didn't see ANY of those on OPs silly padded list. And buy back is the city's choice to do or not under the agreement. Unless they have another buyer, they should let it sit. If they have another buyer, then the price is 300g's, no more.

"All changed, changed utterly: A terrible beauty is born." Rudi is reading Yeats. Yes, a terrible beauty indeed. We see Ogden Properties for the incompetent frauds they are (the beauty of course, being Sue Wilkerson's faded youth - no longer beautiful or terrible though.)

ozboy said...

A million dollar condo on twenty fifth street? Pure fantasy, something only possible in the fertile and deluded mind of a rabid Godfreyite.

Hell, a million buck condo anywhere in Ogden is totally ridiculous.

As much as the Little Lord wants it to be so, Ogden is not Park City, Costa Vita is not fine cuisine and Fat Cats is not Disney Land (or even close to Lagoon for that matter).

It is all a bunch of smoke and mirrors created by a very little mediocre twerp who thinks he is a business genius, but in reality is just a little punk behind a curtain pulling big levers, another wizard of Oz!

Meanwhile the tax payers of Ogden are in for a very long hard grind to pay back all of the hundred or so million in public debt this moron has created on our behalf for all of this nonsense.

See the back room deals said...


There is a smear campaign going on in Leg 9 and it would be nice to get to the truth of how all this came about and who is behind it all.

Monotreme said...

I think the author of the document needs to look up the meaning of the word "capital".

Monotreme said...

I thought I had seen this sort of accounting before.

They should at least make up a new lie, instead of recycling the lies of others (especially others who are in jail right now).

Also, the grant says "capital improvements" (presumably as defined in the post above) and not "capital costs".

Curious 1 said...

The smear campaign is "G" Train and her employee running against Neil Hansen. I think they use her office for his phone and campaign headquarters. They have an ax to grind since he chose to run against the mayor and her best bud Geiger was caught stealing Neils sign, and yes they did pay a fine. Funny how Geiger can still keep a job, well his Dad keeps him employed.

You notice her building across from the proposed Latino development on 25th still has a lift Ogden sign in the window. And I'm sure she doesn't want that element in her back yard. That development has real money behind it, but since they aren't FOM they have been put on hold.

Neil is still ahead but they want to stack the legislature with friends of the Mayor to try and sneak more legislature thru.
His father in law I'm sure is running just to help out his short son in law.

I'll vote against Ed Allen just because he was in the legislature and Brent Wallis seems like a better choice for someone who can work with everyone. He also has better relations with the college community which he will represent.

Curmudgeon said...

Ah, I love mind readers during election season. Like Curious who wrote this of Ed Allen: "I'm sure is running just to help out his short son in law."

And Curious knows that Allen's motive is solely to aid Godfrey how? He doesn't say. Crystal ball gazing, maybe? Consulting the entrails of goats? Interpreting flights of birds? Or something equally convincing?

Hey, two can play this game. I'm sure Wallis is running just so he can get free tickets to Jazz games and get taken to expensive restaurants by lobbyists who want him to vote to pass another school voucher law.

How do I know this? Why, the same way Curious knows that Allen is running "just to help out his short son in law."

ozboy said...

Mr. Curmudgeon

Free Jazz tickets and expensive restaurants? Hell man, sign me up I'll take that deal.

curious 1 said...

Ed Allen is a prime supporter of the Gondola, the Mayors still number 1 priority for the city. He called those at Weber State idiots for not supporting the gondola. He wrote glowing letters to the editor about what a fine man Godfrey was. Now he wants the college to support him? I have talked with him and he is as arrogant as most legislatures past and present can be. I'm sure he will support if not sponsor legislation to sell city property if it competes with private businesses, wow, maybe the golf course will have a state mandate to be sold since it shows a deficit that the city refuses to write off. I don't have a crystal ball, but I do have a gut feeling even though it isn't a city position he still could influence Ogdens mix.
Yes Brent Wallis could take the Jazz tickets and perks, but after being in charge of a schol even though he is a Republician I'm hoping he will support ethic reforms, and he does understand finances and government spending. He will be a fresh political perspective which we sorely need this election. I like that fact that he hasn't help public office and may go in with open eyes and make decisions that will benefit his district.
Two years will fly by and we can choose another representative if either don't work out to our liking.
I always hope for the best, maybe that is too much in the current arena and economic crunch we all, except for the city spending for elite projects, seem to be in.

Curmudgeon said...


Ed Allen supports the gondola, and makes no bones about it. I think he's wrong about that. Were he running for City Council, I'd work for his opponent. But he isn't. He's running for the state legislature, where he previously served as a Senator until gerrymandered out of his district. In the Senate he had a solid Democratic voting record. Thus to claim the ONLY reason he's running for the House is to help the Mayor requires something other than your holding your breath til you turn blue, claiming "it's true, it's true, it's true!" Which is all you seem to have to support your claim. If you do have more, you've managed not to mention it in either of your posts.

Are You Kidding said...

Ed Allen is just like his son in law. If you've ever been forced to sit anywhere near him in any situation you'd know this. He will always back his son in law. He will praise him in church from the stand and not even bat an eye. I won't support someone who runs for a seat as a "Stake President". If you don't believe he's doing this, ask people in his neighborhood how he introduces himself. Curm, you're holding your breath if you really think he's any different than his son in law!

Post a Comment

© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved