Powder Mountain Bond: Bad Reporting From Our Ogden Home-town Newspaper?

Sodden Question: Will the Standard-Examiner publish a retraction?

Tastes good - Trust me

As regular Weber County Forum readers will recall, there was a big Standard-Examiner-provoked public relations storm dust-up, going into the three-day Labor Day weekend:

• $17M Powder Mountain project could hit taxpayers

And yeah, we admit it. We naively "took the bait" on this story too.

Within Ms. Beyer's story, she "cherry picked" these 'alleged" Weber County Comptroller Dan Olsen "quotes" (so-called) and conclusions among other things:

“We borrowed enough money so that Weber County can make the bond payments for the first two years”

“In other words, the county, not Summit, will be making payments of just over $1.5 million for the next few years.”

Entirely untrue, says Mr.Weber County Comptroller Dad Olsen in a "viral" email missive which we received from yet another sharp-eyed and alert reader later in the weekend, wherein Mr. Olsen responds thusly:

Specifically, your article quotes me as saying, “We borrowed enough money so that Weber County can make the bond payments for the first two years” (emphasis added). I would never say such a thing because it’s not true.

Again you write, “In other words, the county, not Summit, will be making payments of just over $1.5 million for the next few years.” This sentence is completely false. Weber County is NOT paying any portion of the bond, nor would we have ever agreed to do so. You seem to have misunderstood how “capitalized interest” and “special assessments” work, so let me try again.

Read the Dan Olsen full email here (published with Mr. Olson's explicit permission, after our morning telephone interview):

• Daniel Olsen August 29, 2013 Email

Yep, that's right. The terms of the Weber County Commission-approved $17 million water, sewer and road infrastrucure bonding apparently comports to these terms, as set forth in the link above, wherein we've highlighted the pertinent parts: 

The first two years of bond payments come from cash that was included in the bond amount. So, of the $17.6 million bond, we put approximately $3 million into an account where it will be drawn down as bond payments come due during the first two years. Summit is then responsible for approximately $1.5 million in bond payments for the next 18 years. If we had not utilized “capitalized interest,” the bond would have been smaller, approximately $14.5 million, and Summit’s annual debt payment would have been about $1.2 million over 20 years. Either way, Summit pays the whole thing, and the County doesn’t pay a dime on the bonds.
If we had not utilized “capitalized interest,” the bond would have been smaller, approximately $14.5 million, and Summit’s annual debt payment would have been about $1.2 million over 20 years. Either way, Summit pays the whole thing, and the County doesn’t pay a dime on the bonds. [Emphasis added].

Thus we see an interesting new local story angle popping up here, and therefore ask these questions of our home-town newspaper:

1. Will the Standard-Examiner publish a retraction?
2. If so, when and where, other than some dismal backpage, which nobody will ever see? 

The moral of this story?  Weber County Forum will spend far less time henceforth scrutinizing the actions of the Weber County Commission, and far more time examining the accuracy of Mikayla Beyer stories.

Comments anyone?

Just axin', LOL!

Standard-Examiner: $17M Powder Mountain Project Could Hit Taxpayers (For $Millions)

Our apologies to our Gentle Readers for "slipping up" on this

Kudos to the Standard-Examiner for putting the spotlight on this distressing news, which comes on the heels of the Weber County Commission's approval on Tuesday (8/20/13) of a $17 million bond that will enable Summit Mountain Holding Group to use loaned money for its planned road, water and sewer improvements to the Powder Mountain Ski Resort.  Although we'd been following this story here on Weber County Forum, we confess this "surprise" element does "throw us for a loop":

OGDEN — Weber County and the Summit Group have made a great show of solidarity about the Powder Mountain project, but all of the positive implications of a new-and-improved ski resort may be hiding the heavy financial implications of the county borrowing $17 million and giving Summit 20 years to pay it back.
According to Dan Olsen, comptroller of Weber County, Summit is supposed to pay back the bond over a 20-year period, but terms of the deal do not obligate Summit to even begin paying back any of that money until two years from now.
“We borrowed enough money so that Weber County can make the bond payments for the first two years. Summit is actually on the hook for 18 years of the 20, which is how it works with a capitalized interest investment,” Olsen said. [Emphasis added].

Read this morning's full Mikayla Beyer story here:

• $17M Powder Mountain project could hit taxpayers

That's right, folks. The very day we were obsessing over Ogden City water and sewer bonding, our Weber County Commission "quietly" slipped this shameless and grotesque exhibition of corporate welfare right past us. According to this morning''s story, "...the county, not Summit, will be making payments of just over $1.5 million for the next few years."

Weber County Comptroller Dan Wilson blithely assures Weber County taxpayers "[that's] how it works with a capitalized interest investment,” a statement which is flat-out untrue. In truth, every dime of bond payment obligation could have been, and ought to have been passed straight through to the ultimate beneficiaries of Weber County corporate largesse, the Summit Group. Gotta hand it to these "sharp" Summit Group "operators," however, for quietly engineering this unbelievable "sweetheart deal."

Our apologies to our Gentle Readers for slipping up on this. Henceforth we pledge to follow our heretofore financially-prudent Weber County Commission with a greatly renewed vigor.

Nobody's perfect, we guess.  Not even us.

Salt Lake Tribune: Powder Mountain Buyer Riles Eden Residents

Youthful think tank plants headquarters in rural town to some neighbors’ frustration

The Salt Lake Tribune's Cathy McKitrick provides an eye-opening WCF-topical story this morning on the latest dust-up in the never-dull Ogden Valley.  At center stage in this pending flap we find the Summit Series group, the youthful and internet wunderkind investor group, who arrived in the Valley last year with their acquisition of Powder Mountain Resort, amidst considerable public media fanfare. Unlike their Powder Mountain ownership predecessor, Western American Holdings, who'd put Ogden Valley residents through five years of legal grief, with battles raging from Utah Courts, coursing through the State Legislature and pouring into the Weber County Commission chambers, Summit Series had billed itself as environmentally and citizen-friendly, and were thus welcomed by Valley residents more or less with open arms. Despite the fact however that the Summit Series Group has in many ways put its best foot forward to win over the full support of sorely gun-shy Ogden Valley lumpencitizens, that still isn't happening, as Ms. McKitrick reports:

• Powder Mountain buyer riles Eden residents

And perhaps troublingly, we learn via a story provided by yet another sharp-eyed Weber County Forum reader, that "annoying-your-neighbor-wise," this ain't exactly Summit Series' "first rodeo":

• The Summit Series - By Harrison Barnes

So what about it folks?  Will Weber County code enforcement officials ultimately succeed in toning down Summit Series' "rock star-style" corporate culture and bring this unorthodox (shall we say?)  ski resort investor and management group's behavior into closer alignment with Ogden Valley's heretofore "udderly" bucolic lifestyle?

Or, in the alternative, will the forces of BIG MONEY and prospects of an increased Weber County property tax base lead our Weber County Commission and code enforcement authorities to turn a blind eye toward Summit Series' Eden Party Mansion, and treat Eden residents such as Eric Sontag as "nosy neighbors with a little too much time on their hands"?

Added bonus questions:

1) Ms. McKitrick reports that "Summit is poised to finalize its Powder Mountain transaction by the end of April and could pay up to $40 million in funds gathered from investors," raising the sodden question of what happens to Weber County's recently approved $22.5 million bonding application in the event that Summit somehow manages to fail in closing its property acquisition escrow?

2) Hello, people.  Are we the only ones who'd been previously led to believe that the Powder Mountain acquisition was already a done deal?

Standard-Examiner: Weber County to Back $22.5M Bond to Improve Powder Mountain

Keeping our fingers crossed that our Weber County Commissioners will yield to the highest principles of open government in the future

With reference to the discussion we've been having over the past couple of days concerning the County's proposal to issue an assessment bond to fund public road, water and sewer improvements within and around the Summit Group's Powder Mountain 1500 acre property, we'll shine the spotlight on this morning's Standard-Examiner story, reporting that the Weber County Commission "cranked up the throttle to full speed ahead" and voted yesterday morning to approve such bonding for a 20-year term, in an amount of $22.5 million :

• Weber County to back $22.5M bond to improve Powder Mountain

"The commission will also hold a public hearing during its regular April 9 meeting regarding a conditional-use permit for" [the related] "Summit at Powder Mountain Phase 1, which consists of a 154-unit residential development," the Standard-Examiner story also inexplicably reports, possibly in part to placate any irate Weber County citizens who might still feel miffed about being cut out of the discussion on the bonding matter.

As a whole however, the S-E's Jesus Lopez, Jr. hits all the major points and  provides his S-E readership with an efficient, informative and reassuring writeup, which also dovetails nicely with our own earlier WCF Nutshell Summary, wethinks.

We remain unhappy with the Commission's troubling lapses regarding a troubling lack of pre-vote public information and comment, which launched some Weber County citizens off in a tizzy over the past few days. Nevertheless,  as we've previously said, we regard this bond measure as benign to Weber County taxpayer interests. So at this late date we'll somewhat begrudgingly resolve to "chalk it all up," by invoking the old, tried-and-true sports axiom: "No harm; no foul," we suppose.

Having said that of course, we're still hoping that the Commissioners will yield to the highest principles of open government from this point on, and invite the lumpencitizens of Weber County into the information loop, well prior to putting its next multi-million dollar bonding deal on the table.

Hopefully Commissioners Bell, Gibson and Zogmaister will "write this latter advice down so they don't forget it," in the interest of avoiding any similar future bouts of painful Weber County taxpayer heartburn, if you know what we mean; and we think you do....

And what say YOU about all this, folks?

A Nutshell Summary of The Pending $17 Million Powder Mountain Bond Proposal

Weber County Forum gives the County Commission's new Powder Mountain bond proposal an unequivocal and unprecedented thumbs-up

In preparation for tomorrow's Weber County Commission session, about which we've had some discussion concerning the pending $17 million bonding issue which is item #8 on tomorrow's Commission agenda, we've done a little footwork today, interviewing Commissioner Jan Zogmaister and government finance wonk and County Assessor John Bond, each of whom, along with many other Weber County officials and staff, have expended substantial effort on this measure over the course of the past few months, to carefully help formulate a plan to achieve significant upgrades to existing Powder Mountain infrastructure.  All of the effort which has been expended, we've learned, was undertaken with an overriding goal of avoiding the imposition of additional burdens on the beleaguered Weber County taxpayer, through the use of  a special form of revenue source-funded bonding, a proposed municipal assessment bond. In the interest of shedding more light on this proposed project, we'll submit the brief nutshell summary below.

According to Commissioner Zogmaister and County Assessor Bond,  the funds derived from this bonding will be applied to three elements of Powder Mountain infrastructure improvements:

1. A new publicly-dedicated (county) road, designed, among other things, to serve a new 103-unit Planned Residential Unit Development (PRUD),
2. Culinary water improvements, including exploitation of a new water source and construction of additional storage tanks,
3. Sewage treatment improvements, also designed to serve the above-mentioned PRUD project.

 In short, and in order to facilitate the proposal, the County Commission and Summit Group will enter into a special "Memorandum of Agreement" setting forth a legal arrangement whereby Weber County will obtain these funds under currently favorable municipal bond interest rates (which are considerably better than commercial bank rates), and apply them to these public infrastructure improvements listed above.  On the other side of the contract equation, the Summit Group, owner of the 1500 acres of property adjoining property which will primarily enjoy the benefit of these improvements, will in exchange agree to bear the full obligation for bond repayment. In order to qualify for the issuance of the assessment bonds contemplated by this proposed arrangement, the County proposes to designate by ordinance a special assessment district to be described by the  boundaries comprising Summit's 1500 acres, imposing an additional assessment on these "revenue source" properties, in an amount equal to the cost of bond debt service, plus fees and commissions. Consequently, the plan, as conceived, will not impose any additional tax obligation on any Weber County taxpayer, other than Summit Group itself, (and those individuals who may later purchase lots in Summit's planned PRUD). In the event of default, Weber County will have the remedy to immediately take these assessment-burdened properties by foreclosure, as well as the option to exercise numerous other other expedited remedies, rather than being forced to defer enforcement for five years, as is the case for property tax payment defaults.

As Gentle Reader Drew commented in response to yesterday's WCF article on this subject, "I see this as just a standard county-developer bond issue, I have seen it with other developers when a public road is created, this really seems much adu (sic) about nothing," in which regard wethinks he gets it pretty much right. Aside from the fact that Tuesday's Commission proposal involves culinary water and sewage treatment elements which go beyond the mere public road construction aspect, we'll agree in substance with Drew that this project is for all intents and purposes identical to hundreds of other such "mundane" public infrastructure improvement projects which are carried out successfully and without fanfare all over the country every year.

Accordingly, and subject to any negative information which might emerge from tonight's Summit Group-sponsored Town Hall Meeting, we'll give the Commission's pending Powder Mountain bond proposal an unequivocal thumbs-up.  Just as Summit Group, like any other developer who'll build out their property under Weber County zoning constraints have a right to the kinds of infrastructure improvements which will provide the availability of suitable public road, water and sewer amenities to their properties, Weber County has a corresponding duty to help out with reasonable mechanisms to bring those features into place.

Regarding tomorrow morning's meeting however, we'll stick with our earlier recommendation that our County Commission voluntarily set this matter forward for hearing which would include a public information/comment segment at least a few weeks hence.  Despite their formidable behind-the-scenes preparation, the Commission seriously dropped the ball public information-wise in this matter, thus sparking a fear-driven public reaction which could have been easily avoided had the Commission issued even so much as an informational press release, something which the Standard would have no doubt eagerly gobbled up. Regardless of the legalities regarding public notice in the realm of revenue bond issuance, the Commission's "minimalist tactics" ham-handedly created an unnecessary crisis of public confidence which was entirely unnecessary... a crisis which sorely needs to be corrected, or at least mitigated to the greatest possible extent wethinks.

This one's a no-brainer folks.

That's it people.  So who wants to throw in their own 2¢?

Ogden Valley Forum: Weber County Commissioners Make Plans to Carry $17 Million Bond for Pow Mow Private Developers Summit Group - Updated

Serious public blowback could result if Weber County Lumpencitizens perceive this proposed exercise of corporate welfare as a measure being arrogantly shoved down their throats

Click to enlarge

Just to get things rolling this morning, we'll shine the spotlight on a "blockbuster scoop" coming from our sharp-eyed friends at Ogden Valley Forum, concerning an immediately upcoming (and so-far below the public radar) proposed Weber County Commission action, about which all Weber County taxpayers ought to be deeply concerned. According to yesterday's Shanna Francis OVF guest post, over the past few months our County Commissioners have been secretly meeting with principals and legal representatives of the Summit Group, the Powder Mountain Ski Resort investors who acquired that popular eastern Weber County ski venue in December of 2012. During the course of those closed door discussions, the Commission has worked out for these Summit investors what appears to be a truly sweetheart deal, namely a $17 million publicly bonded loan, to be quietly "floated" for the benefit of the new Powder Mountain developers by the ever-generous lumpencitizens of Weber County.

In that connection we'll cut straight to the chase, and incorporate Ms. Francis' eye-opening prefatory lead paragraphs. Read up, folks:

Please read the attached. I was troubled to learn yesterday that the Weber County Commissioners are wrapping up negotiations with Summit to float a $17 million bond to pay for water and road infrastructure for Summit. They have been proceeding with these plans during closed door meetings.
I would ask the county put these plans on hold until the details can be viewed and discussed publically, though, legally, from what Commissioner Zogmaister reported to me, there is no requirement for the county to consider public input.
Please help in stopping these plans until they can be adequately aired and analyzed.
I am hoping that adequate public calls and clamor for a hold on these plans would be effective in derailing the bond agreement between Summit and the County, again, at least until details can be publically scrutinized, since the tax payers are ultimately liable for the repayment of the $17 million.
- Shanna

You can dive into OVF's full expose' "attachment"  here:

• Weber County Commissioners Make Plans to Carry $17 Million Bond for Pow Mow Private Developers Summit Group

What the Summit people and our County Commissioners seem to have "quietly" cobbled together is a plan for the issuance of a revenue bond, (procedurally distinguishable from a general obligation [GO] bond ), in which former circumstance, and unlike a GO Bond transaction,  the County Commission would neither be legally obligated to hold any public hearings nor to put the question to a public vote, as Ms. Zogmaister less than skillfully tried to explain in Ms. Francis' article above.

While we don't yet know enough about this proposed action to reasonably conclude that this proposal would necessarily be a bad deal for Weber County taxpayers, we are concerned about the speed and stealth by which our elected Weber County Commission representatives are ushering this matter to the Commission front-burner, without even so much as a murmur of public input. Therefore we're going to go along with Ms. Francis' reasonable suggestion, and will strongly urge our Weber County Forum readers to contact our County Commissioners, to politely request that they voluntarily schedule at least one formal public information session in the Commission Chamber, and to accordingly put the ultimate decision on this matter over on the Commission calender for at least a few more weeks.

Bell, Zogmaister & Gibson

Whether they're awre of it or not, our Weber County Commission could experience serous public blowback if Weber County Lumpencitizens perceive this proposed exercise of apparent corporate welfare as a measure arrogantly shoved down their throats.  Thus, if they're smart, the Commission would ideally invite the general public into the information loop... although given the present Commission posture, the question "smartness" is a VERY BIG "IF," at this point, or so it would seem.

"Sunshine is the best disinfectant for the infection of secretive Big Government," as the old saying goes; so we strongly urge our readers to contact Commissioners Bell, Gibson and Zogmeister and ask that they peel back the commission cloak of secrecy and arrogance and do what in their hearts they have to know is right, i.e., "let the cleansing sunshine in."

In that connection, here's our handy-dandy County Commission contact link:

• Contact Weber County Elected Officials

Please don't dally on this, O Gentle Readers, as this matter comes up on the Commission agenda for 10:00 a.m. this coming Tuesday, March 26:

• NOTICE OF A REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WEBER COUNTY, UTAH

Why not click the link, compose a [polite] note and press "send," folks?  Can't hurt; might even help.

P.S.:  A Weber County Forum Tip O' The Hat to Ogden Valley Forum for flushing out and single-handedly bringing this story right out in the open.

Update 3/24/13 5:05 p.m.: There's more information breaking in this fast-developing story, whereby Ogden Vally Forum an hour ago provided some interesting new information about the exact nature of the proposed  new bonding, along with an announcement that the Summit owner/developer group has now scheduled a public Town Meeting, at Pineview Lodge for 7 p.m. tomorrow, Monday, March 25:

• Summit to host Town Hall meeting Monday regarding the proposed special assessment

By way of overview, it turns out that the proposed bonding will involve assessment bonds, a subset of the general term revenue bonds, which we discussed above.

We won't speculate as to whether the purpose of this meeting is to merely clarify bonding proposal details, apply a last-minute citizen sales pitch, something in-between, or "all of the above."  But one thing's for certain: we'd love to find out what does transpire at that meeting. So we'll accordingly offer our invitation to anyone who sits in on this public event, to visit WCF after adjournment, and chime in with the full lowdown.