In advance of tomorrow night's (August 23, 2011) Ogden City Council sessions we'll provide this heads-up concerning a couple of agenda items which ought to be of particular interest to our WCF readership:
1) Professional Services Contracts. At 6:00 p.m., a regular City Council meeting will convene, to consider the following item, among other things:
7. New Business: ...b. Professional Services Contracts – Timing of Waiver and Notice. Proposed Ordinance 2011-45 amending Section 4-2B-9 to revise exceptions for contract approval. (Adopt/not adopt ordinance – roll call vote)In a nutshell, council action on this item would result in the amendment of Section 4-2B-9 of the Ogden City Code to require any mayoral waivers of competitive bidding to be signed "on or before the date of execution of a contract and filed with the office of city council within 10 days after execution of a contract."
Rather than launch into an elaborate explanation of the rationale for this ordinance amendment, we'll instead refer our readers to the Ogden Ethics Project (OEP) blog, where OEP Director Dan Schroeder provides a masterful, detailed description of the underlying deficiency in the current ordinance and the reasoning behind this proposed municipal code revision:
For the full litany of information about this and all other items set for discussion on tomorrow night's regular council meeting calender, check out the full council packet here:
2) Ogden Streetcar Project. Following tomorrow night's above-described regular council meeting, the council will then convene for a work session to receive an update on the Ogden Streetcar Project, and to discuss the report provided to the policy committee and any feedback received from that group:
We tangentially touched upon tomorrow night's streetcar topic discussion in Sunday's WCF article; but for the full lowdown about what's on the table for tomorrow's work session, interested readers should check out tomorrow night's council packet, which includes almost the whole array of summaries, reports and other supporting documents generated for the project to date:
That's it for now, Weber County Forum readers. In the interim between now and tomorrow night's council sessions, we'll welcome pre-meeting comments from anyone who'd like to throw in their own 2¢.
And needless to say, we'll also leave the lights on for anyone who wants to report back here (of course), during or after tomorrow night's meetings.
The floor's open. Feel free to let 'er rip.
Update 8/24/11 7:58 a.m.: The Standard reports that "the city council agreed during [last night's] work session that its consultant GB Arrington, who works for PB PlaceMaking Inc., based in Portland, Ore., should determine the viability of federal funding and economic impact of a streetcar system linking downtown, Weber State University and McKay-Dee Hospital."
"We want to take the next step and find out if the project is even feasible," said City Council Chairwoman Caitlin K. Gochnour:
Oddly enough, our petulant little "naysayer" Mayor, with a mere four months remaining in his final lame-duck tern of office, still drags his feet and complains about the Council's judiciousness in this matter. "The council should wait to pursue the streetcar project when technology becomes less expensive and federal funding is more readily available," he said.
18 comments:
Godfrey now has no objection to prohibiting an adulteration of the law (retroactive fee waivers) that he has used self-servingly throughout his administration.
He's letting go already. Mmmmm, smell the clear air ahead.
We'll have to see what the street car reports say. I'm up in the air about a system like that, it feels gimmicky to me. If it would be more cost effective then the bus that already runs that route, then I'd say yes. Ecology is good, but trying to change peoples driving habits isn't a easy task. If WSU is looking for a better parking/commuting solution, I would also look into using eminent domain to buy the parking lot from the old hospital. Might be cheaper, and selling parking passes to students could be a more reliable source of income for the city.
Bus vs street car issue is that, if a bus route is bad, you can sell the whole bus. If the street car is a flop, you have to both install then remove the tracks. Why not just paint a special lane for express buses, and buy some of the street car style buses? Things go bad, sell them to another town.
Unless the language that pertains to and that precedes this particular section of this ordinance specifically limits or controls some of the requirements of this specific section I’m not sure much has been gained.
The council’s changes being proposed, by the added language to the ordinance, don’t do much more than force the mayor to let the council know, after the fact (10 days after) that he has let a contract. The changes do not require him to adhere to any of the requirements of this section of the ordinance (i.e. he is not held to the $10,000 limit or any of the other requirements) as incorporated in the body of the ordinance under the following paragraph;
“G. [Waiver By Mayor; Justification:] The mayor, with cause specified in writing, may also
waive any or all these requirements for specific contracts. The waiver and written
justification shall be signed by the mayor on or before the date of execution of a contract and filed with the office of city council within 10 days after execution of a contract;”
In the background section of the write up provided by the council staff to the member, which precedes the actual ordinance it also states the following:
“The Mayor may waive the public process if he has cause and makes his justification in writing.” (after the fact of course) and then “Although specific causes or justifications for waiver are not outlined in this section of the Code,”
In other words the mayor can spend as much money as he or she chooses however he or she chooses for professional services and is only required to notify the council (now with the new language added to the ordinance) 10 days after the fact.
No wonder Godfrey isn’t objecting.
dirty words, those: eminent domain
trax is still working in SLC ...
js
BB
You sound like the guy in the Music Man ...
js,
BB
Good points, disgusted, which raises this question: Why do Ogden City ordinances grant the mayor the unilateral power to waive any of these protective provisions in the first place?
Slc is a different town then Ogden. We don't have the population. density they do. I don't like eminent domain much either, but if it's for a public purpose like supplying a school with parking it has needed for decades, I think it fits into the proper role of that power.
Another unresolved issue is what happens if the mayor violates the new ordinance and signs a retroactive waiver anyway? Or what if he never even bothers to sign a waiver for a contract that was done without competitive bidding? I don't know of any sanctions, other than possible criminal prosecution under general laws regarding malfeasance. And we know those laws will never be enforced in such situations.
It's precisely that flexibility that makes buses ineffective at encouraging private investment in higher-density transit-oriented developments along the route. If the only purpose is merely to move existing passengers between existing locations, a bus is the better option as you say. But if the purpose is to enable higher-density redevelopment, a bus is a very poor second choice.
Aside from these generalities, the route of the existing 603 bus (25th and Harrison) has a proven capacity to generate high transit ridership. So there's a high level of confidence that a streetcar along that route will be successful.
It's still a gamble though. Sort of a field of dreams kind of thing.
you mean things like parking garage designs that are part of hotels?
name a university or college or school that DOES have enough parking for all the students ... I dare you
js
BB
Agreed, its just a question of which is more cost effective. If we weight all the options, and the trolley system is more cost effective, then by all means lets do it. But if we are simply doing it for the novelty, that seems misguided.
You gots it, Smaatguy. When Godfrey waives the rules regarding competitive bids to favor his friends, legitimate and honest contractors who play by the rules get screwed over royally.
"Still, the change that's proposed in tonight's agenda is a positive step
and the council should pass it quickly rather than delaying in an
attempt to resolve these other issues."
I'm in reluctant agreement, Dan; but I'll also express my frustration that the current Ogden City Council continues to address problems like this in "baby steps," when they could grab the bull by the horns and get to the root of the problem... which in this case, is the inexplicable concept that the Ogden City Mayor should have ANY AUTHORITY AT ALL to unilaterally waive provisions designed to promote competitive bidding, and to thereby LOWER the costs to the city on Ogden City funded contracts and projects.
you mean like guys that get paid for fieldhouse designs and say they didnt but did through another avenue....
"you mean like guys that get paid for fieldhouse designs and say they didnt but did through another avenue...."
Yup. That's exactly what I'm talkin' about.
Post a Comment