Full text: Ogden CAO responds to Standard-Examiner editorial, 'Asking for trouble'
Text 
Wednesday, August 8, 2007 | 
No comments [ Add Comment ]
No comments [ Add Comment ]By John Patterson
Ogden city chief administrative officer
Home » News 
» Story View
By John Patterson
Ogden city chief administrative officer
» Story View
By John Patterson
Ogden city chief administrative officer
I appreciate the invitation found in the Aug. 4 editorial, "Asking for trouble," to provide the "simple explanation" to concerns raised in the editorial regarding a UTA-funded fiscal impact analysis. In so doing, I hope to address the question about why go to "such lengths" on an "insignificant expenditure." The order of their article will be followed.
FIRST, RIDERSHIP NUMBERS:
Please understand all of the numbers we have used were calculated by consultants not hired by this administration. The Fehr and Peers study that calculated mountain ridership was conducted in 1998 before Matthew Godfrey became m ayor. The city gondola ridership numbers were calculated by a 2005 study (Baker Study) funded by UTA and Wasatch Front Regional Council. We used the data provided by their experts. Now, for the "simple explanation." Chris Peterson's July 27, 2006 e-mail to me concerned "resort riders' and only "resort riders," as the aditorial stated. These riders are only one component of the total ridership numbers. They are not the total. As you can see from the Lewis, Young Study's "Estimate of Gondola Ridership" chart (provided to the Standard-Examiner and shown below), Chris Peterson's suggested changes have little or no effect on the mountain gondola (100,000 vs. 120,000) and only a marginal impact (a little over 7 percent) on the total city gondola (805,000 to 745,000). Both of these numbers came as comforting confirmation from an industry source that the "expected" numbers were very good estimates.
SECOND, UTA PAYING THE BILLS:
First, a little history and a lot of context: On Jan. 31, 2004, Ogden City Council and Administration held an historic strategic planning retreat. Numerous goals were defined. One of the goals concerned the gondola project. The city council discussed this goal and others on at least six occasions before adopting them on Dec. 7, 2004. The major point of contention was how to pay for the gondola study. At the Oct. 14, 2004 meeting, a compromise was reached; the majority would support the compromise with the understanding that "no City money would be used to do the study." Please remember this point. The Adopted Strategic Plan stated GOAL 9.0: Evaluate the feasibility and merits of a gondola from Ogden to Snowbasin. Objective: Update the gondola feasibility study from Ogden to Snowbasin with noncity funding unless otherwise approved by the city council.
The Administration had to find "nonCity funding" to pay for this study. A $247,500 O6USDOT Bus and Bus Facilities appropriation was earmarked for Ogden city. In an April 4, 2006 letter from John Inglish, General Manager of UTA, he suggested exchanging the federal money for local funding. He states the earmarked funds could be used by UTA to purchase equipment for the Ogden area bus system.
In meetings with UTA officials, they confirmed this exchange and their willingness to participate in the gondola study. They agreed to pay the costs of the study and to act as paying agent so no one would be confused. ...This is not city funds. The following e-mails and letter (provided to the Standard Examiner) indicate our understanding that UTA was to directly pay the bills for the study. The City Council did not want to spend city money. No appropriations or allocations would be considered by them. UTA received the $247,500 directly from the federal government and in turn would provide the same amount from their local funds.
July 17, 2006 John Patterson's e-mail: "UTA to actually make payment out of local study money"
July 20, 2006 letter from UTA "We are comfortable paying costs based on Ogden City procurement..."
Transit Funding Re-allocation Agreement Dec. 19, 2006 allowing the $247,400 to go directly to UTA
Sept. 7, 2006 Scott Brown's e-mail: "finalizing the billing with UTA"
Sept. 8, 2006 John Patterson's e-mail "UTA needed a budget and contracts with them and bills could be submitted"
Nov. 14, 2006 John Patterson's e-mail: "Any word on dollars from UTA?"
Dec. 14, 2006 John Patterson's e-mail: "UTA has the final agreement ...They know we want them to pay several of our vendors by year end."
Dec. 18, 2006 Mick Crandall's (UTA) e-mail: One thing that could be done to "expedite payment is for the city to request payment and provide a description of the work completed"
Dec. 22, 2006 John Patterson's e-mail: "UTA is to make payments, not us."
Dec. 22, 2006 John Patterson's e-mail: "UTA needs to pay all of these. This is why this process has taken so many months. It would have been nothing for them to have just given us the money."
Dec. 22, 2006 John Patterson's e-mail: "It is part of the $247,500 which UTA is to pay from their coffers. Remember the discussion about allocations and appropriations???"
Feb 1, 2007 John Patterson's e-mail: "Do you know if UTA has made payments to any of our vendors?"
March 5, 2007 John Arrington's e-mail: "It was concerning an invoice for their services concerning expenses UTA is going to pay."
March 6, 2007 John Arrington's e-mail: "I delivered the invoice to Scott around 5:00 and he is going to certify to UTA that the work was done and forward to them for payment."
March 8, 2007 John Patterson's e-mail: "Mick Crandall asked me about these requests tonight at this meeting I am still in because NO money has been requested."
March 23, 2007 John Patterson's e-mail: "Mick, we had previously agreed for you to pay these bills directly, as it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to do so."
April 2, 2007 John Patterson's e-mail to Mick Crandall (UTA): "For months we have been working under the belief that you would pay the bills directly. From the beginning this arrangement of sharing our appropriation was predicated on your ability to make direct payments. We have complied with all of your requirements in order for you to do so. We chose UTA to be the disbursement agent. It would not have been necessary to jump through months of hoops if we simply needed you to make payments to Ogden City."
On April 12, 2007, it finally became evident that UTA would be making payments directly to vendors.
Now to the points at hand; UTA PAYING THE BILLS
UTA was always going to pay directly for the gondola study and is now doing so. A complete reading of the 300-plus pages of e-mails and letters prove this to be the case. The sampling above shows that.
On May 16, 2007, John Arrington sent me the e-mail quoted under two bullet points in the Aug. 4 editorial. There is nothing sinister about John's comments, especially when placed in proper context. During a lengthy Council work session the night before (May 15, 2007), a brief discussion about the UTA-funded study occurred. I assured Council that the work done was to be paid directly by UTA from exchanged funds. John's statement regarding it being done without "trackable involvement" was only referring to our commitment going all the way back to the Strategic Plan adopted on Dec. 7, 2004 stating this work would be done "without City funds."
The second bullet point spawned in the Aug. 4 editorial by the Arrington e-mail states "Arrington advises having a UTA official work with developer Peterson in order to get $231,250 of Peterson's expenses covered." The e-mail actually says "I think he (the UTA official) would be the one to have Chris work through also in getting his vendors qualified as direct pay providers." We have not acted as Chris Peterson's agent. We have never paid, nor has UTA ever paid any of Chris' bills. If Chris feels his expenses fit into the transportation mission of UTA, he now has a contact person at UTA to work through.
THIRD, PAYMENTS TO VENDORS
John Arrington's April 2, 2007 e-mail is a credit to himself and to the financial control system he manages. He knew the City could not pay any bills related to this study because there had been no "appropriation and allocation" of funds as previously stated. He was working hard to get UTA to pay the vendor.
CLOSING COMMENT
There has not been any attempt by the administration to "keep the public and the City Council out of the loop as they studied the gondola-resort proposal." There is not a single e-mail in more than 300 pages provided to the Standard-Examiner that intimates this; no there is not a single thread of evidence to suggest it. But just the opposite exists. The City Council adopted the Strategic Plan calling for a gondola study. They received notice of the $247,500 federal grant. They were told of the fiscal impact study and assured it was paid for by UTA.
Reader Comments
There are no comments for this page.
