Field House Follow-Up: Architect Selection “On Hold”

Seven proposals received in response to RFP

By Dan Schroeder

We haven’t heard much from the media about the field house recently. But even though none of the hoped-for funding for this massive indoor recreation project has yet materialized, Mayor Godfrey hasn’t given up hope and continues to push the city council to support it.

Meanwhile, attentive readers may be wondering about a loose end left over from early this year. On January 23 the city published a Request For Proposals for architectural services for the field house. A clarification of the RFP appeared on the city’s web site on February 1, and the deadline for proposals was February 9.

This RFP was unusual in a couple of ways. First, it was vague about the scope of the project and the format in which prospective architects were supposed to submit their bids. And second, it failed to acknowledge that the city had already hired an architect, Dan Van Zeben, to draw preliminary sketches of the field house. (Mr. Van Zeben claimed he was doing this work as a volunteer, but documents later showed that the city had funneled $5000 to him through the consultant who produced the field house feasibility study.)

After hearing nothing about the RFP since the February 9 deadline, I got curious and submitted a GRAMA request to the city, asking to see the full procurement file. The usual delays ensued, while the city attorney’s office considered whether the file had to be released. But they finally did so, and I got to look through the file earlier this week.

Seven architects submitted proposals in response to the RFP:

• VanZeben (Ogden)
• VCBO (Salt Lake City)
• CRSA (Salt Lake City)
• Mark Wilson Architects (Lehi)
• Sanders Associates (Ogden)
• EDA (Salt Lake City)
• Ridgeline Design (South Ogden)

All of the proposals consist mostly of information about the firms’ credentials and previous work. The bids themselves are brief and hard to compare, with some consisting only of hourly rates, others bidding as a percentage of construction cost, and so on.

Besides the seven bids, the city received five email inquiries from other interested firms. The “clarification” that the city posted on February 1 was actually a copy of its response to an inquiry from Bertoldi Architects of Ogden.

After the deadline passed, some of the bidders inquired into the schedule for awarding the contract. At first the city indicated that the process would be quick, but this gradually changed until May 6 when Management Services Director Mark Johnson stated that the project was “on hold”. That seems to be where things stand today.

Breaking News: Godfrey Releases List of Potential Fieldhouse Donors - UPDATED

Now we know why Godfrey worked so hard to keep the list of potential donors secret

By Curmudgeon

Hizzonah, Mayor Matthew Godfrey has turned over the list of donors the city's GRAMA review committee told him was a public record to the Standard Examiner, which just put the story up on its website:

• Godfrey releases list of potential donors

The story's most telling sentence: "None of the donors the newspaper talked with agreed to provide money for the field house."

Now we know why he worked so hard to keep the list of potential donors secret. It seems most of them had not committed a dime.

Update 4/14/11 9:58 p.m.: The SL Trib has the story too:

• Ogden mayor’s hoped-for Field House donors lukewarm.

Update 4/14/11 11:44 p.m.: Dan Schroeder has just transmitted to us a scan of the original Boss Godfrey patsy donor list received from Ogden City in the mail on Monday:

Yesterday's News Today: Monday Morning WCF Back-burner Cleanup

So many questions... so few answers

News is a mite slow this morning; so it's time for a little Weber County Forum backburner cleanup. Here are a couple of noteworthy news items which appeared in the northern Utah public press during the last week, which we never quite got around to spotlighting for discussion:

1) Following up on our March 13, 2011 article, wherein we reported that the Boss Godfrey administration had calendered a (statutorily unauthorized) "motion for reconsideration" of the Ogden City Records Review Board's March 3, 2011 decision, (which had ordered the Godfrey Administration to produce a list of potential Field House donors to GRAMA applicant Dan Schroeder), the Salt Lake Tribune reported on Thursday that The Board unanimously (and unceremoniously) denied the city's desperate and dilatory motion:

• Decision to release Ogden Field House donor list stands

It's a commendable written ruling from the Review Board, wethinks, constituting more evidence that Utah's GRAMA law (slow and tedious though it may be) works as it stands, bends over backwards to protect a public agency's privacy interests and requires no further tinkering.

A Weber County Forum Tip 'O the Hat also goes out to Dan Schroeder this morning, for his dogged persistence in this matter.

2) By popular request we'll shine the "high beam laser " WCF spotlight on this truly oddball Tom Christopulos guest editorial, which appeared in Saturday's Standard-Examiner:

• Ten years of economic development in Ogden

Many of our readers have been inquiring behind the scenes why the Standard published this extravagant, inaccurate and shamelessly self-promoting Godfrey Administration puff piece.

So what about it O Gentle Ones? Is the appearance of this over-the-top Christopulos-drivel a sign that it's municipal election season again? How much of the data provided by Mr. Christopulos survives a fundamental "fact check test?" Is there any Godfrey Administration press release at all which the Standard will refuse to publish? Are we doomed to see our hometown newspaper, the Standard, which has performed so marvellously of late in connection with the HB477 kerfuffle, revert again to its old sleepy, Godfrey Administration-facilitating self?

So many questions... so few answers.

Who will be the first to comment?

Standard-Examiner: Turn Over the Donors List

Weber County Forum: Don't be such a stubborn little &@#%!

Sound editorial advice for Boss Godfrey as we enter the March 13 to March 19 "Sunshine Week". Here's the SE "long version":

• OUR VIEW: Turn over the donors list

Here's our "shortened" WCF version:

Godfrey! Don't be such a stubborn little &@#%!

Ogden Administration Requests Redo of GRAMA Appeal

Ever-tenacious mayor really doesn’t want to release his Field House donor list.

By Dan Schroeder

Ten days ago I reported that I had won an appeal hearing before the Ogden City Records Review Board, which decided that Mayor Godfrey’s spreadsheet of prospective field house donors is a public record and must be released. The Board then took a week to write up its decision, which I received Wednesday afternoon.

At the same time, however, the city attorney’s office sent me another document: a formal-looking “motion to reconsider,” with 12-page memorandum attached, asking the Board to redo the hearing and reverse its decision. I’m hard-pressed to describe this stunt in neutral terms, but here is a copy of the letter I sent to the Board the next day.

In brief, there are four reasons why the Board should either ignore or reject Ogden’s “motion”:

1. There’s simply no provision for such a “redo” motion in any statute, ordinance, or policy.
2. Ogden defends its ability to make such a motion on the basis of a single sentence, quoted out of context, from a 1997 Utah Supreme Court case that merely said an administrative board had the authority to go back and clarify an earlier decision in light of changed factual circumstances.
3. In this case, however, there are no new facts. The administration simply feels that it can do a better job arguing the case the second time, and has marshaled some new legal arguments in its memorandum. But there’s no reason to give the losing party a “second bite at the apple.”
4. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking on the 30-day time period during which a party can appeal the Board’s decision to District Court. A second administrative hearing would cause yet another delay and make the judicial appeal deadline ambiguous. But a judicial challenge would be expensive, and the administration may even have to pay my attorney’s fees if it loses.

You can also read about Ogden’s “motion” in the Salt Lake Tribune and the Standard-Examiner.

This incident highlights the difficulty that a citizen faces in trying to get access to public records that the government wants kept secret. Even when the law says a record is public, the government can erect multiple roadblocks in the way of someone who tries to obtain it. First the government can delay its response to a request for several weeks. Next the government can unilaterally declare the record exempt from disclosure. The requester can then appeal, but that introduces another delay. The appeals board is appointed by the government, and the government can spend taxpayer dollars on professional attorneys to research the law and argue its case before the board. Even if the requester wins the appeal, the government can continue to spend taxpayer dollars taking the case to District Court.

And in the present case, the government can try to make up completely new rules in the middle of the process.

Throughout this process, the requester’s only real advantage is the GRAMA law itself, which says that records are public by default, and the burden of proof is on the government to show otherwise. Unfortunately, the newly passed HB477 will (if it takes effect on July 1, as seems likely) put many additional records into GRAMA-exempt categories, and shift the burden of proof onto the requester in close cases. It will also discourage citizens from making GRAMA requests in the first place, by allowing the government to charge practically unlimited fees for fulfilling all but the simplest requests.

Records Review Board Orders Release of Field House Prospective Donor List - Updated 2X

An unexpected victory for open government

By Dan Schroeder

The Ogden City Records Review Board ruled yesterday that the city must release one of the records it had attempted to withhold from my November 2010 request. According to the city’s description, this record is a “draft spreadsheet of potential Field House donors prepared by Mayor Godfrey for personal use.”

Under Utah’s Government Records Access Management Act (GRAMA), all government records must be released to the public on request unless they fall under a specific exemption. About a hundred such exemptions are listed in the statute.

In this case, the city initially withheld the record under the exemption for “drafts, unless otherwise classified as public” (Utah Code 63G-2-305(22)). However, I immediately wrote to the city explaining that this particular “draft” was classified as public under Utah Code 63G-2-301(3)(k), which says that a record loses its “draft” status when the government relies upon it in carrying out action or policy. Other documents showed that Mayor Godfrey had already contacted several potential donors regarding the field house, and that he had publicly expressed his intention to obtain the specific sum of $10 million from these donors.

When the city failed to respond to my informal letter, I filed a formal appeal of the city’s decision to withhold the record. Appeals are heard by the city’s Records Review Board, a volunteer committee of three appointed by the mayor with approval of the city council. Our hearing was scheduled for last Friday, and continued yesterday when the Board made its decision.

During the hearing, Assistant City Attorney Mara Brown conceded that the record had lost its “draft” status. Meanwhile, however, Brown had found another GRAMA exemption to try to apply to this record. Utah Code 63G-2-305(6) protects records whose disclosure “would impair government procurement proceedings....” The plain intention of this exemption is to protect the integrity of a competitive bidding process, for instance, by preventing one bidder from obtaining a copy of a competitor’s sealed bid. Ms. Brown, however, tried to stretch this provision to include “procurement” of grants and donations, arguing that releasing prospective donors’ names “would jeopardize the city’s position with these donors.”

In response, I pointed out that “procurement”, in Utah law, means obtaining goods or services—not soliciting donations. A separate GRAMA provision, 63G-2-305(37), allows donors’ names to be kept secret under certain conditions, but only by government entities that are “primarily engaged in educational, charitable, or artistic endeavors”—not by cities. Furthermore, the city had provided no evidence that any of these prospective donors even wished to remain anonymous.

Although I was confident that the law was on my side, I still expected to lose the appeal. Ms. Brown is much better at oral arguments than I am, and inevitably came across as more authoritative. Furthermore, the Board consists of three government insiders: Robert DeBoer is a former WSU administrator who served for 12 years on the Ogden City Council; Janene Eller-Smith is a long-time city employee who now works in the city council office; and Eugene Hart is Business Administrator for the Ogden School District. I had appeared before this Board twice in 2007 and lost both times, leading to the Sierra Club’s still-pending lawsuit over an assortment of records pertaining to the gondola proposal.

In a further twist, a dispute arose when the Board decided to close the meeting to the public during its deliberations. The Utah Open and Public Meetings Act contains no explicit provision allowing a meeting to be closed for such a purpose, but some activist judges on the Utah Supreme Court have apparently ruled in favor of closed meetings in similar circumstances. I intend to research this point further, but it’s now moot in this instance.

When they invited us back in following their deliberations, both Eller-Smith and Hart made statements favoring disclosure of the disputed record. A motion to that effect was then approved unanimously, and the meeting came to a close. The city can still appeal this decision to the 2nd District Court, and has 30 days to decide whether to do so.

If the prospective donor list is soon released, the public should get a much better picture of how Mayor Godfrey proposes to raise $10 million in private donations for the field house. That information, in turn, should give the public entities—the city council, county, and school boards—a much better idea of whether this proposal is at all realistic.

Update 3/3/11 3:58 p.m.: Per Dan S... here's Cathy McKitrick's writeup from the Salt Lake Tribune:

• Panel: Release list of Ogden’s potential Field House donors

Nothing on this story yet from the Std-Ex.

Update 3/4/11 7:00 a.m.: Per the ever-sharp-eyed Curmudgeon, we're informed that the SE has its story on the review board's decision up on its website now:

• Board: List of potential field house donors should be released

Standard-Examiner Letter: We've Had Enough Optimism from Mayor Godfrey

Gotta admit we're feeling some sympathy for poor ole Boss Godfrey, who's been manically mired in a bog of ill-founded optimism since almost the first day he took office

We're delighted this morning to highlight the latest written discourse from Ogden City community activist and WCF regular Dan Schroeder, which popped up in the form of a letter to the editor on the Standard-Examiner website yesterday afternoon. In response to Sunday's SE story, wherein Boss Godfrey expressed his "undying optimism" for the prospects of his mortally wounded Crackpot Fieldhouse Project, Dr. Schroeder now reels off a little recent history, applies ample doses of logic and common sense, and efficiently delivers the following laudable and well-reasoned retort:

• We've had enough optimism from Mayor Godfrey

Gotta admit we're feeling some sympathy for poor ole Boss Godfrey, who's been manically mired in a bog of ill-founded optimism since almost the first day he took office over a decade ago. It must be disconcerting for the "visionary" little guy to have such a constant, reality-based burr under his saddle as the logically relentless Dan Schroeder. Perhaps he'll feel better though after this year's November Municipal Election, when the well-informed Ogden City lumpencitizens will no doubt firmly and finally "let him go."

Time to throw in your own 2¢, O Gentle Ones. Who will be the first to comment?

Standard-Examiner: Godfrey Optimistic Despite RAMP Board's Refusal to Support Field House Funds

Now the all of a sudden the RAMP golden seal of approval is not so important

Submitted by: ND

Just opened my Sunday Standard-Examiner and lo and behold the Gman says the "Field House Lives"... Front page, top article, now how did that happen? How can this monstrous project still be alive?

Here's the online version:

• Godfrey optimistic despite RAMP board's refusal to support field house funds

Now the all of a sudden the RAMP golden seal of approval is not so important... and the $2.4 wasn't that important either... just a drop in the bucket.

So where is the money going to magically appear from now... once again he declines to say.

Now only Ogden residents could get the discount pass...

Godfrey says "the facility has widespread public support."

I say PROVE IT! PUT IT TO A VOTE!

Breaking: RAMP Board Rejects Money Requested for Field House - Updated

RAMP application rejected for lack of proof

Submitted by: Blackrulon

Happy News for the taxpayers of Ogden/Weber County! A breaking story on the Standard-Examiner website reports the RAMP Board has rejected the Godfrey Administration request for funds:

• RAMP board rejects money requested for field house

The city/requesting authority has not meet several requirements to qualify for funds, i.e.:

• A letter of intent from other donors and revenue sources.
• Confirmation of project approval from the city's Redevelopment Agency.
• Proof that the RDA has secured the property for the project.

Who will be the first to comment on this encouraging news?

Update 2/14/11 3:00 p.m.: Thanks to sharp eyed reader Ray, we learn that the Salt Lake Tribune is now carrying "a more enlighting report" by Cathy McKitrick:

• Ogden Field House denied funding

Despite today's RAMP setback, the ever-optimistic Ogden City CAO John "Pureheart" Patterson assures everyone nonetheless that "the project is not on life support and it’s certainly not to the morgue.”

Update 2/15/11 3:50 a.m.: Not to be outdone by Ms. McKitrick's detailed SLTrib reporting, SE reporter Scott Schwebke cranks it up a notch and provides his own expanded story this morning:

• Setback for Ogden field house

Newgate Mall Kiosk Touts Fieldhouse

Photos, videos, and beach toys lure shoppers to “show support”

By Dan Schroeder

Tipped off last week by a comment from an alert reader, I ventured into the Newgate Mall today to see the rumored kiosk touting Mayor Godfrey’s proposed Fieldhouse. On the first pass I walked right by it without noticing; perhaps I was distracted by the Piercing Pagoda or Famous Footwear. But on the way back I saw the kiosk’s other side which features a monitor showing a video loop. Around the monitor was a sprinkling of sports equipment and plastic beach toys, plus small copies of the four photo display boards from last December’s unveiling.

And there was one more thing: a small pile of nice glossy color cards to pick up. One side of the card lists the various facilities that the Fieldhouse would include, while the other side shows the architectural sketches and instructs shoppers: “To Show Your Support Please Visit www.ogdenfieldhouse.com”. This web site, of course, is the one that until recently dislayed the email addresses of the county commissioners, RAMP board members, and Ogden School Board members, asking supporters to contact and lobby these individuals. I now see, however, that the list of people to lobby has been removed from the site and viewers are merely asked to “email us with your support or questions at contact@ogdenfieldhouse.com or call (801) 629-8111.” That number, of course, rings in the mayor’s office.

Here are a few photos of the kiosk display, for those who want to save a trip to the mall (and to preserve its splendor for posterity).

Standard-Examiner: Olympic-sized Pool Discussed in Ogden

Bum deal for the school district: By closing its two smaller pools and investing in the Ogden School District could recoup its $5.9 million investment after only... (drumroll)... 24 years

By: Dan Schroeder

Interesting S-E article today about the Ogden School District's possible role in funding and using the Fieldhouse:

• Olympic-sized pool discussed in Ogden

Looks like the district isn't exactly itching to close its existing pools at Ogden and Ben Lomond high schools, but even if it did, it would save only $250,000 per year. This is important information that hasn't been reported before, as far as I know.

Meanwhile, the article explains how the district would help pay for the Fieldhouse through the proposed BDO tax increment extension, which the administration says would raise $15 million. But amazingly, the article never says what the district's share of that $15 million would be. Instead, the reporter punts with this useless sentence:

"City officials have not said how much tax increment taxing entities would give up if the project area is extended to fund the field house."

C'mon, Standard-Examiner, it's not that hard. You can do the arithmetic yourself, if you just ask someone what fraction of our property taxes goes to the school district. The answer is about 39%, and at that rate, the district's share of $15 million would be $5.9 million.

So now we can make a comparison: By closing its two smaller pools and investing in the Fieldhouse, the Ogden School District could pay $5.9 million but save $250,000 per year. So financially, it would make back its investment after 24 years. However, there would be added costs to transport its swim teams downtown, and PE classes wouldn't have time for that so they'd presumably lose out, and it isn't clear how much time in the new pool the district would even get, given that the new pool also needs to be available to paying customers if the Fieldhouse is to have a chance of paying its own operating costs.

Northern Utah Print Media: Boss Godfrey Begs For Ramp Funds On Bended Knee

Let the RAMP grant decision makers know that Weber County citizens heartily disapprove of Boss Godfrey's sleazy scheme to use a RAMP grant commitment as "bait" to lure in unwary private donors

As noted last night by sharp-eyed reader Curmudgeon in one of our lower comments sections, both the Salt Lake Tribune and the Standard-Examiner carry online stories this morning, reporting on yesterday evening's RAMP Committee meeting, during which Boss Godfrey and his loyal henchman John "Pureheart" Patterson desperately (but unsuccessfully) grovelled argued for the grant of $2.4 million over five years to "help" construct Boss Godfrey's hare-brained Fieldhouse boondoggle:

• Ogden makes plea for RAMP funds for Field House
• Ogden mayor asks RAMP board for field house funds

Despite the hard sell of Weber County's two most notorious flim-flam artists, it appears that the RAMP Board lives in a world of reality, and that Godfrey's Fieldhouse project comes in dead last among a list of seven major projects. In the words of Board Member Jeanne Hall, “If this was such a hot deal, you’d have business people wanting to invest. And they’re not there.”

The Trib also reports that "The board meets again Monday at 9 a.m. to rescore the applications and determine who gets what."

And in that connection we'll remind or readers of our earlier plea to contact RAMP Board members and Weber County Commissioners to register your objections to the application of taxpayer funds to this project. According to our reliable sources, that effort of citizen activism generated a significant citizen anti-Fieldhouse response. So we'll call upon our WCF readers once again to click the link below to communicate your objections to any RAMP Board support:

• Field House Project RAMP Decision Maker Contact Links

According to the Trib story, the Godfrey administration considers RAMP funding to be “The Good Housekeeping seal of approval.” “It’s what we can use to ask private donors for funds," "Pureheart" Patterson candidly admits.

You know what to do. Do it via the above contact link. Let the RAMP grant decision makers know that they're already on the right track, and that Weber County citizens heartily disapprove of Boss Godfrey's sleazy scheme to use a RAMP grant commitment as "bait" to lure in unwary private donors.

More Useful Info On The Proposed Downtown Ogden Fieldhouse/ Velodrome

By: Dorrene Jeske

This is the report on an in-depth study of the plans for the downtown Fieldhouse/ Velodrome and a plan to make it into one that is world-class by civil engineering standards. Because of the length, it is being divided into two parts:

• Stephen Smith Fieldhouse Analysis and Alternate Proposal - Part 1
• Stephen Smith Fieldhouse Analysis and Alternate Proposal - Part 2

I was asked to put this report on the blog for Stephen Smith, who has significant engineering experience with public projects both in Utah and across the USA. I am happy to do it because I agree with many of the issues and questions that are presented in it.

In Godfrey’s haste to push the downtown plan, major issues/concerns have been overlooked. Please look at the report on the Business Plan and then contact our Weber County Commissioners to register your own concerns immedately.

Salt Lake Tribune: Ogden Seeking Tax Dollars for Huge Sports Project

Looks like a battle between the smart folks and the seemingly endless sea of mindless Godfreyites who'll endorse a loser project like the Fieldhouse, merely because it originates in the muddled mind of The Little Twit

Dan’s analysis is never “independent” because he is a slave to a negative ideology. Dan’s report is not worthy of consideration or comment.

John Patterson's Lame Retort
February 1, 2011

Thank you, Dan, for both documents you provided. They are very clear, give us excellent data to consider, and no nonsense belittling to dilute the issues.
We need people with the thought processes (that you show in these reports) to be administering to our city. But instead, we have the complete opposite. And it is costly.

Gentle Reader PPK
PPK Comment
February 5, 2011

Better late than never, the Salt Lake Tribune, per Cathy McKitrick, chimes again in on the Ogden "Fieldhose Fieldhouse" boondoggle:

• Ogden seeking tax dollars for huge sports project

Once again in Ogden, and thanks to Kathy McKitrick, it looks like another battle between the smart folks who recognize another giant money losing boondoggle when they see it, and the seemingly endless sea of mindless Godfreyites who'll endorse a loser project like the Fieldhouse, merely because it originates in the muddled mind of The Little Twit.

Don't be shy, gentle readers. Chime in here right this minute.

Standard-Examiner: Feasibly, Ogden's Field House Feasibility Study Is Right, Maybe

Implied rest of the headline: Or maybe not

By Curmudgeon

Charlie Trentelman's Sunday "Wasatch Rambler" column deals with the Godfrey Wonder Dome Feasibility study, and Dan Schroeder's critique of it:

• Feasibly, Ogden's field house feasibility study is right, maybe

Often, people are described as being "cautiously optimistic" about something. I think Charlie can be fairly described as "cautiously skeptical." Headline for the column: "Feasibly, Ogden's field house feasibility study is right, maybe."

Implied rest of the headline: "Or maybe not."

The column is well worth a read.

Standard-Examiner: Ogden Field House Could Get RAMP Cash

Then again, Maybe Not: Conditions regarding financing must be met before money will be made available to the city

By: Curmudgeon

Breaking news: The RAMP board has tentatively approved committing $2.4 million over the next five years to the Godfrey Wonder Dome project, but it attached a set of conditions regarding financing the city must meet first and within six months before the money will be made available to the city. Final action by the Board and the Weber County Commission still pending. The Standard Examiner has the story here:

• Ogden field house could get RAMP cash

The story makes it clear as well that several members of the board are less than thrilled with Ogden applying for the money now, think it's premature to say the least, or that if Weber County wants it, it should bond for it, and so on. Board Chairman Dave Holmstron said, for example, that if Godfrey doesn't meet the conditions the board attached to the tentative grant, no money will be provided. "If he comes back a dollar short, he doesn't get it," Chairman Dave Holmstrom said.

Well worth a careful read. The conditions the Board has attached to its tentative approval suggests the members, having been burned by the Godfrey administration before [the ice tower boondoggle grant, which the city had to return to RAMP for violating the conditions under which it was granted], are a lot less trusting of Hizzonah's Rosy Scenario predictions this time round.

Ogden Fieldhouse Cross-talk: Godfrey Administration Spokesman John Patterson Gets His Ass Kicked Yet Again

A pox on Boss Godfrey and his minions, who refuse to deal with with real data, and hang their "fieldhouse hats" on mindless OPTIMISM

Interesting new development today in the Nutcase Boss Godfrey Field House story.

The moronic Ogden CAO John Patterson attempts to rebut Professor Dan's most excellent initial Field House Study Independent Analysis with this mindless follow-up drivel:

• Lame John Patterson Rebuttal

Here's Dan's seemingly off the cuff retort to Mr. Patterson, skillfully issued within a few short minutes (we suppose) of Patterson's above-linked "hooray for optimism rant.":

• A Response to John Patterson's Optimistic Predictions for the Fieldhouse

Hooray for the Smart People of Ogden... especially Dan Schroeder!

And a pox on Blessed Boss Godfrey and his minions, who refuse to deal with with real data, and hang their hats (to the tune 0f $40 million plus taxpayer dollars) on mindless Godfreyite OPTIMISM.

Don't let the cat get your tongues, O Gentle Ones...

Who will be the first (or last) to chime in on this topic?

Request for Proposal Clarification for the Design of a Sports Facility to be Possibly Built in Ogden City

Some good questions... some not so good answers

Submitted by: RFP Reader

Looks like there is an addendum to the RFP sent out by the city.

Here's the gist from the Ogden City website:

• Request for Proposal Claifications:

Request for Proposal Clarification for the Design of a Sports Facility to be possibly built Ogden City
February 1, 2011
Q. What format is the fee to be? Fixed, hourly?
A. It is up to the applicant to propose a fee schedule. It is anticipated that work will be done based on individual task orders, so that time can be tracked and accounted for. If payment is approved, it would be made based on the hours spent under the approved task orders. An applicant could, if it desired, submit a proposal using a fixed fee schedule with a certain number of hours. Such a proposal would be evaluated on its own merits, although individual task orders would still be issued to control the work. The applicant should review the proposal documents in their entirety to determine how it wishes to structure its fee proposal.
Q. What scope/size of the project do we use for determining our fee as the range of the building is from 150,000 SF to 300,000 SF... a range of 100%.
A. The final size will depend on a number of factors that are not yet resolved. It is likely that the size will in the range of 225,000 s.f. to 250,000 s.f., but depending on how land or other issues are resolved, the facility may be larger or smaller. Please refer to the previous answer for any other question about how to determine a fee.
Q. Will there be a short list for interviews or selection?
A. It is unknown at this time whether interviews will be conducted. It will likely depend on the number and quality of proposals submitted.
Q. Who will be making the selection? Is there a selection committee?
A. There will be a selection committee. I believe it will have five members.
Q. What connection is there with this RFP in relation to the design work that has been completed by Dan Van Zeben?
A. Although the work may build on the work previously done by Mr. Van Zeben, the project may also require new or different programming depending on the need for alternative designs as the process moves forward. The RFP documentation indicated that multiple iterations of the work may be required.

Some good questions... some not so good answers.

Weber County Forum Special: An Independant Analysis of the Ogden Fieldhouse Feasibility Study

A highly instructive Dan Schroeder report which highlights the public risk of the Ogden Fieldhouse Project

In the midst of an otherwise slow news day, we have a very special treat for our gentle Weber County Forum readers this morning.

Regular WCF contributor Dan Schroeder has been doing some serious gumshoe work, and has submitted to us a quite remarkable document pertaining the the Ogden Fieldhouse Project. Dan has carefully sliced and diced the December 29, 2010 Health & Leisure Advisors Ogden Fieldhouse Feasibility Study, conducted at least one telephone interview with the President of H&LA consultants, performed a few calculations and produced the following report and analysis, the product of which we are now delighted to present, for the enlightenment of our WCF readership:

• Independent Analysis of the Ogden Fieldhouse Feasibility Study

(It's our understanding that Professor Schroeder has also submitted this document to Ogden City and Weber County officials.)

The document speaks for itself; so we'll skip our usual tedious summary and re-analysis, except to generally note that Dan's report exposes the weakness of some of the fundamental assumptions underlying the H&LA Feasibility Study and highlights the public risk of this project (possible downside, -$1.4 million/yr.). We're putting this up in raw form, but nevertheless invite our readers to chime in with your own comments and observations relative to this new and highly instructive Dan Schroeder document.

Don't let the cat get your tongues... there's much in Dan's newest report which merits even more thorough WCF reader discussion.

Standard-Examiner: OUR VIEW: Voters Should Decide Field House

The Standard believes a large-scale vote, possibly county-wide, would provide necessary respectability and community ownership for the project

Submitted by: ND

Say it ain't so... Standard-Examiner editorial saying voters should decide on funding the project and not fund it from pockets all over the place...

We support the idea of Ogden city officials and others in creating a multipurpose field house in Junction City.
However, extending the life of the Business Depot Ogden economic development project area to garner $15 million in tax increment money is not the best way to provide financing for the project.
In order to provide legitimacy to the field house project, as well as assurance that the $40 million project would be a success, either a bond proposal or a sales tax initiative vote should be provided.

Here's the surprizing full editorial:

• OUR VIEW: Voters should decide field house

About passed out.