By Dan Schroeder
Documents recently released by the Ogden City administration indicate that the city bypassed the usual competitive bidding process when hiring Hotel & Leisure Advisors to perform a feasibility study for the proposed field house project.
Although a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the study was prepared by the city in late October, the RFP was apparently never published as the city’s ordinances normally require. Instead, Mayor Godfrey signed a waiver of competitive bidding procedures on January 11, 2011, after the study was completed. City Ordinance 4-2B-9(G) allows the mayor to waive competitive bidding requirements with justification, and requires that the city council be informed of all such waivers, but does not specify when the waiver must be signed.
The newly released documents also show that H&LA was contracted by the city to funnel $5000 to VanZeben Architecture “to develop a building plan and elevations” for the field house. Mr. Van Zeben has created several versions of architectural sketches of the field house over the last two years, and had previously indicated that he was not being compensated for his services. Here is one of his most recent sketches, which appears in the feasibility study report (click for a larger version):
A comprehensive records request
The newly released documents were provided as part of the city’s response to a formal records request that I filed on November 19, 2010, shortly after the city council approved $38,000 in funding for the feasibility study. My request asked for all city records pertaining to the field house since last April, and specifically asked for records of the feasibility study procurement process.
Although Utah law normally requires the government to respond to a records request within ten business days, Ogden did not begin providing responsive records until December 15, when it allowed me to view an uninteresting file of information that had been gathered on other recreational facilities around the U.S.
Field house emails and plans
A week later, on December 22, the city released a large stack of printed emails pertaining to the field house, from which I copied a small selection that seemed interesting (pdf, 1.2 MB). Some of the emails describe behind-the-scenes efforts at lobbying city council members, county commissioners, and the RAMP board to support the field house. Others describe attempts to solicit funding from the Utah Legislature and the G.S. and D.D. Eccles Foundation (with considerable help from Brad Mortensen of WSU). There’s an email from Greg Easton, dated May 22, explaining why the field house won’t work as an archery facility; and there’s a city-produced drawing showing a proposed alternate location for archery. Other emails reflect the decision to relocate the field house from the previously proposed location northwest of downtown, the subsequent push for a feasibility study, and some early communications with the consultant regarding the details of the study.
Along with the emails, I was given an earlier architectural sketch by Van Zeben, showing yet another possible layout for the field house interior (click for a larger version):
This version includes much less space for the water park. Also, like the later version shown above, it includes ground-floor retail spaces facing both 24th Street and Kiesel Avenue. However, the sketches presented to the public last December, and currently posted on the city’s field house web site, show no retail space. It isn’t clear whether that version was drawn before or after the one in the study report.
The emails also included this aerial photograph of the proposed field house site, showing the buildings slated for demolition and the various utility lines that underlie the area (click for a larger version):
The mayor’s narrative
On December 27, the city released a PowerPoint attachment (converted to pdf, 1.3 MB) to one of the previously released emails. Although this slide show, by Mayor Godfrey, is now out of date with respect to the field house features and location, it shows how the field house fits into the mayor’s larger narrative on “Ogden’s Economic Future”.
The presentation begins with photos of old, abandoned buildings indicating “four decades of decay”, then switches to exciting action photos of snow sports, water sports, climbing, and mountain biking. Next come photos of a rejuvenated downtown Ogden, with maps depicting projects that are supposedly “completed” and “in progress”. After describing the field house itself, the presentation ends with inspiring quotations on the virtues of risk-taking from Theodore Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy.
The feasibility study contract
Although my November 19 records request specifically asked for the full procurement file for the field house feasibility study, city officials apparently ignored this part of the request until after Christmas. On December 23 I sent a written reminder, and finally, on January 3, the city gave me a copy of the two-page RFP (which had already been published on the city council web site as part of its November 16 information packet). On January 6, I pointed out to the City Recorder that the RFP was undated, and asked for the city’s record of when it was published. The City Recorder then inquired with the Purchasing Supervisor, who responded with a one-line email: “Was not a formal bid. Estimated to be under $25K when the request came in.”
I immediately responded by pointing out that the city’s ordinance requires a competitive bidding process for professional services valued at over $10,000, not $25,000. The ordinance does use the word “estimated”, and it isn’t clear how big a loophole this opens for exceeding the $10,000 threshold. The feasibility study contract was for $38,000.
After another week, on January 13, the city provided me with a copy of the contract itself. The contract is dated November 24, 2010. Attached at the end is Mayor Godfrey’s memorandum, dated January 11, 2011, waiving the competitive bidding process for the consultant’s already-completed work.
Mayor Godfrey used a similar retroactive waiver in 2007 for the already-completed gondola fiscal impacts analysis. I do not know whether Mayor Godfrey has signed such retroactive waivers for other contracts, or whether there have been other contracts, over $10,000, that bypassed the competitive bidding process but for which it was never formally waived.
Still waiting for financial records
After nearly two months, the city’s response to my November 19 records request remains incomplete. For example, the city has not yet released all records of correspondence with H&LA, or any records of correspondence with the other consultant that it supposedly considered.
Furthermore, the city has not yet released any financial records pertaining to the field house project. My request specifically asked for records of financial transactions related to last spring’s Tour de Drome fundraiser, as well as records of payment for recent travel, by city officials and others, to comparable recreational facilities in Los Angeles and Kansas City. The City Recorder tells me that the City Attorney’s office “continues to work” on my request.
On December 27, the city released a PowerPoint attachment (converted to pdf, 1.3 MB) to one of the previously released emails. Although this slide show, by Mayor Godfrey, is now out of date with respect to the field house features and location, it shows how the field house fits into the mayor’s larger narrative on “Ogden’s Economic Future”.
The presentation begins with photos of old, abandoned buildings indicating “four decades of decay”, then switches to exciting action photos of snow sports, water sports, climbing, and mountain biking. Next come photos of a rejuvenated downtown Ogden, with maps depicting projects that are supposedly “completed” and “in progress”. After describing the field house itself, the presentation ends with inspiring quotations on the virtues of risk-taking from Theodore Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy.
The feasibility study contract
Although my November 19 records request specifically asked for the full procurement file for the field house feasibility study, city officials apparently ignored this part of the request until after Christmas. On December 23 I sent a written reminder, and finally, on January 3, the city gave me a copy of the two-page RFP (which had already been published on the city council web site as part of its November 16 information packet). On January 6, I pointed out to the City Recorder that the RFP was undated, and asked for the city’s record of when it was published. The City Recorder then inquired with the Purchasing Supervisor, who responded with a one-line email: “Was not a formal bid. Estimated to be under $25K when the request came in.”
I immediately responded by pointing out that the city’s ordinance requires a competitive bidding process for professional services valued at over $10,000, not $25,000. The ordinance does use the word “estimated”, and it isn’t clear how big a loophole this opens for exceeding the $10,000 threshold. The feasibility study contract was for $38,000.
After another week, on January 13, the city provided me with a copy of the contract itself. The contract is dated November 24, 2010. Attached at the end is Mayor Godfrey’s memorandum, dated January 11, 2011, waiving the competitive bidding process for the consultant’s already-completed work.
Mayor Godfrey used a similar retroactive waiver in 2007 for the already-completed gondola fiscal impacts analysis. I do not know whether Mayor Godfrey has signed such retroactive waivers for other contracts, or whether there have been other contracts, over $10,000, that bypassed the competitive bidding process but for which it was never formally waived.
Still waiting for financial records
After nearly two months, the city’s response to my November 19 records request remains incomplete. For example, the city has not yet released all records of correspondence with H&LA, or any records of correspondence with the other consultant that it supposedly considered.
Furthermore, the city has not yet released any financial records pertaining to the field house project. My request specifically asked for records of financial transactions related to last spring’s Tour de Drome fundraiser, as well as records of payment for recent travel, by city officials and others, to comparable recreational facilities in Los Angeles and Kansas City. The City Recorder tells me that the City Attorney’s office “continues to work” on my request.
