Downtown Development & Transit

Report on RDA and City Council Work Sessions Thursday, 8.16.07

By Curmudgeon

Last night, the City Council held back to back work sessions, the first sitting as the RDA Board, and the second, as the Council. The RDA work session came first. All members of the Council were present within moments of the session’s beginning.

Mr. Harmer introduced Mr. Tom Christopolous [sp?] as Ogden’s new business development manager. He replaces Mr. Scott Brown in that position. Mr. Christopolous formerly held a similar job for the city of Layton. He left to go into business, succeeded, recently sold his business and so was available for the development post in Ogden, Mr. Harmer said.

The main topic of the meeting was the proposed RDA and other city funding for the Windsor Hotel rehab project on 25th Street. Mr. Harmer began by noting that Ms. D. Littrell had sent a letter to the City raising three questions about the three out of state investors in the Windsor Project and their Ogden company [Ogden Properties LLC]. Mr. Harmer passed the questions on to the OP LLC investors and they responded to all of them. First, Ms. Littrell wanted to know why someone other than the three investors was listed as the company’s registered agent in Utah. The three investors in OP LLC are all Californians and Utah law requires that an LLC in Utah have a Utah resident as registered agent, Mr. Harmer explained. Second, Ms. Littrell apparently alleged that one of the investors,[ a Mr. Nichols I think] had headed up a bicycle company [Ibis] that had gone bankrupt. Mr. Harmer explained that Mr. Nichols had sold his profitable company to others, who ran it into bankruptcy, at which point Mr. Nichols repurchased it, and made it profitable again. Finally, Ms. Littrell raised questions about Mr. Scott Brown’s involvement in the Windsor project investment group. Mr. Harmer said the OP LLC investors replied that Mr. Brown is “not an equity participant” in the project and that they have “no contractual arrangement” with Mr. Brown. Mr. Harmer did say Mr. Brown was providing some advice to the partners about organizing their company and projects in Ogden, but that it was being done as a favor, not as a participant in the investment.


That out of the way, Mr. Harmer explained that the City had been looking for someone to come in and rehab the historic structure for a long time. That the previous owner had, despite much urging from the city, shown no interest in rehabing the building. Mr. Harmer said the Administration was therefor delighted when three California business men [dba Ogden Properties LLC] became interested in doing the project. He explained that one of the three OP LLC investors knew Mike Dowse of Amer Sports, and when he learned Amer was coming to Ogden, he called Dowse to ask why. Dowse, said Mr. Harmer, gave an enthusiastic report of what was happening in Ogden, the three investors looked into it and began buying investment properties in the city. The OP LLC investors already own other properties in Ogden, including two on Washington Blvd just across from the Junction Development.

Mr. Harmer said the reason the project needed a city subsidy was because the city wanted the look and feel of the historic building preserved, and that that was what made the project economically not feasible without a city subsidy. That if the new owners could simply bulldoze the structure and build anew from the ground up, no subsidy would be necessary, but the cost of preserving the historic structure was very high. He said the city looked at approving adding a fourth storey to increase the number of condo units in hopes of making the numbers add up. Even with that approved [and he thought it very likely the Landmarks office would approve the forth floor since Mr. Montgomery was working closely with the investors], the project still would not be profitable for the investors without a subsidy. So, the only way to entice developers in who would commit to preserve the historic structure as such was to offer a subsidy.

Mr. Harmer apologized for having to come to the RDA to approve tax increment based subsidy, saying he’d hoped to arrange the whole thing under other, generally HUD, funding, but that that, it turned out, would have taken much longer than he’d anticipated and much longer than the investors were interested in waiting. He assured the Council that the tax increment benefit to the city from the project would be about $200,000, twice the amount of the grant from the RDA.

Much of the discussion by the Council centered on the portion of the grant money coming from funds from the city’s reserve account from HUD property re-sales in, I think, east central Ogden. There was some concern, expressed by Ms. Wicks and Mr. Stephenson and Ms. Hooser primarily, but by others as well, that the original intent of the Council in arranging the HUD projects was to plough the money generated from sales of city-owned HUD properties back into east central Ogden. Mr. Harmer explained in reply to a question by Mr. Safsten that the reserve fund money was unencumbered and could be used by the city for whatever it liked. But, he added, if the Council so choose, once the extra hundred thousand from the tax increment benefits of the project came in, the Council could put that money back into the east central neighborhood. Mr. Stephens indicated he’d be more comfortable supporting the subsidies if that happened.

Mr. Safsten said that while this downtown project was not precisely what had been envisioned in the HUD neighborhood residential rehabilitation program, it still did involve rehabing residential units with the end result of bringing back a run-down block of 25th Street, that using the HUD reserve generated funds for it served the spirt at least of the original program.

Mr. Harmer summed up by saying that this was a good project, that no one else was interested in doing it. Ms. Jeske asked specifically if there was another group interested in rehabing the property, and Harmer said “not to my knowledge.” Mr. Garcia asked if the previous owner had asked the city for funds to help with a rehab or applied in any way to undertake the project. Mr. Harmer said “no” and that the city had been “jawboning” the previous owner “for years” to improve the property, but that he had not been interested. Finally, Mr. Stephens asked when things would be going well enough in Ogden that the city would no longer have to pay businessmen to come to the downtown area. Mr. Harmer indicated that there were very few properties on 25th Street available for development. Once they were gone, that would be that.

[There was much additional discussion about the details of funding, impact on parking, etc. but I think the summary above includes the gist of the main points the Council discussed with Mr. Harmer.]

The Council then ended the RDA work session and moved on, as the Council, to discuss transit matters, and in particular the Alternatives Analysis — the necessary next step in the process for applying for federal funds for a street car [or any other] transit system over the downtown to WSU corridor, and the $200,000 the Council had allocated for that purpose. Chairman Garcia indicated he had meet with the Mayor a week or so ago to discuss the Mayor’s concerns and that he’d invite the Mayor now to explain those concerns to the Council. Mayor Godfrey joined the Council for this work session at this point, and made the major presentation to the Council on the matter.

[Please note: the discussion was lengthy, involved many questions. What follows does not pretend to be a complete account. I have tried to summarize the main concerns and arguments, to get the gist of them right. Corrections from the actual participants would be welcomed if I have gotten something significant wrong.]

Mayor Godfrey said he thought it would be unwise to spend the money on an alternatives analysis before the November vote on the transportation tax referendum. If the voters say “no,” then the money will have been expended for nothing. He said there is a sunset provision for such studies... that the numbers become invalid [for federal grant purposes] after five years, and that therefor if the tax fails, even if something else were approved later, the study would be so old by that point, it would have to be re-done.

Some Council members, particularly Mr. Garcia and Ms. Wicks, but others as well, suggested the tax referendum was more likely to succeed if voters saw the Council moving forward on the trolley and WSU-downtown alternatives analysis, it would convey the idea that the Council was serious about moving forward. And Ms. Hooser reiterated the UTA’s advice that the sooner Ogden acted on the Alternatives Analysis, the sooner it would “get in line” for federal funds, that delay meant, inevitably, the city would be further back in line for federal funding. Much discussion about the likelihood of federal funding, and its probable amount. Mayor Godfrey indicated only “private citizens” were talking about “quick start” project money being available, that nobody in the Federal government was saying so.

Much discussion about corridors. Mr. Stephenson insisted the Council had never actually decided that the downtown to WSU corridor was the best one for the city to support. Mr. Garcia indicated he thought the Council had. The Planning Commission had endorsed that corridor, or the WFRC study which looked at transit alternatives over that corridor, but had not, he said, endorsed a “mode” of transportation. The Mayor said that WFRC corridor study had been done, really, to see if Federal Funds would be available for a gondola over that route “and the answer was no.” But that it had not really been a study of what corridor would work best for transit development in Ogden.

The Mayor spoke of other possible corridors. Washington Blvd to Newgate Mall for example [a route Mr. Stephens seemed to favor]. Or a downtown loop streetcar tying the River Project and downtown destinations together. The Mayor indicated that might be done without federal funding at all, and so could be done a lot less expensively. Federal funded projects required cities to use American produced technology. But if the city funded a downtown loop streetcar line, without federal funds, it could buy South American transit technology, which the Mayor said was highly developed there and much less expensive than American-made transit technology.

The Mayor also argued that a street car line between downtown and WSU would be so expensive the voters would never stand for it. “We need to be honest with the voters. We’re not opting for a street car over that corridor.” He noted the original estimates of $100 million were no longer valid, that construction cost increases meant it would now cost out at $130 to $150 million. Not counting buying right of way from property owners along the proposed route. A 60 foot right of way would put, he said, the project “at the front porch steps” of homeowners along the route and the City wouldn’t do that to them, and so would have to buy their property. Finally, he said, there was no way WACOG would agree to put essentially all the transit-designated money in the new tax referendum in an Ogden-only project. That one that benefitted other communities would have a much better chance of WACOG funding.

The Mayor reiterated several times that it would be essential to “be honest with the voters” and to let them know that going ahead with a street car option would inevitably involve raising their taxes further down the line to fund the huge amounts necessary. He also warned against giving the public the idea that a the vote on the transit tax was “a trolley vote” since even if it passed, street car construction over the downtown WSU route was unlikely. He said the only realistic option for the downtown WSU corridor was Bus Rapid Transit [BRT], but he doubted voters could be gotten very excited about pouring millions into a bus route.

Mr. Stephenson spoke repeatedly arguing for the Council to look at all possible corridors before committing any substantial money to the downtown WSU corridor, which he did not think the best one for the city at this point. The Mayor added that doing a full Environmental Impact Study of the downtown-WSU route, and that would be the next step after the initial alternatives analysis, would cost a million dollars.

Mr. Stephens repeatedly suggested that nothing was going to happen on any route or any mode of transit unless the Council and the Mayor’s office were in agreement. That it was essential for the Council and the Administration to sit down and agree on a corridor priority and on a transit mode. Ms. Jeske concurred. That so long as no such agreement existed, nothing much was going to happen. Comments from the Mayor that Mr. Lee [city lobbyist?] agreed that the city had to present one face, one plan, to funding agencies if it expected to prevail. Comments from Council members, Ms. Van Hooser and others, to the effect that UTA had told the Council that “at this point” agreeing on a mode of transportation [street car, BIT] was not essential, but that agreeing on the priority corridor for development was essential. At the end of the discussion, there seemed to be a general consensus on the council that the council and administration had to agree on two key matters: corridor priority first, mode of transit second, before any project could succeed in getting funded and off the ground, that if division continued, there would be little likelihood of getting WACOG to recommend to UTA a substantial Ogden-based transit project. There was much discussion during which Mr. Safsten said that from the numbers he had seen, Ogden simply didn’t have the population density to make street car transit work, that minimal densities to support transit like that were multiples higher than densities in Ogden along the proposed route.

The Mayor supported Mr. Stephenson’s argument that the Council had never really endorsed a preferred transit-development corridor, and had never really examined alternatives to the downtown WSU. The Mayor suggested that he have city staff prepare a map and information on alternatives [corridors and modes of transit] for the Council’s consideration. That his staff could have it done in approximately three weeks and that then the Council could discuss the alternatives and agree on a priority corridor. Mr. Safsten recommended that one of the Council staff people, [identified only as “Sue”] be included on the team composing the map for discussion, since she was the Council staffer taking the lead on transit matters. The Mayor agreed.

In the course of the discussion, Council Staffer Sue told the council that in her opinion, it was important for the Council not to look at transit decisions purely as matters of moving people from point A to point B. That was how UTA and UDOT looked at things, but the Council should also look at transit matters... corridors selected, modes favored.... community development projects. As community building projects involving matters UTA and UDOT did not look at. Business development, for example, impact on housing development, and so on. That the Council had to consider much more than UTA or UDOT looked at in their analyses. Comments agreeing came from most members of the Council present.

Ms. Wicks asked if the recent quarter of a million dollar grant to the city, funneled through UTA could be used for the alternatives analysis, if that money had to be used in any specified way. The Mayor replied that the money was general UTA funds and could be used as UTA and the City agreed, with no prior restrictions on it. But he added it would not be wise to spend $200K or so on an alternatives analysis of the downtown WSU corridor until the Council and Administration had looked at all the alternatives and had agreed on a priority corridor. Then the money could be used for that. Doing a study on a corridor the Council and Administration might, after looking, agree was not the priority one would be wasting the money. Mr. Garcia kept pointing out that what the council had set money aside for was an alternatives analysis, and as such, it would provide information the Council could use to make the decision as to which alternative mode of transit was the best option to choose. The Mayor repeated his contention that mode could not be decided until corridor was decided, and that neither WACOG nor the Council had yet really looked at all the corridor alternatives and made a decision as to which should be a priority. The map and information his staff would generate and bring back to the Council an about three weeks, he said, would provide the basis for discussing corridor selection and for making a decision on it. Nothing else could or should be done until that matter was examined thoroughly and decided.

There seemed at the end to be a general consensus on the Council that the Mayor’s staff, assisted by Council staffer “Sue” should prepare the map of alternative transit corridors for the Council to discuss.

One other matter emerged during the discussion, triggered by Ms. Hooser who noted that one of the parking lots on 25th Street near Roosters was up for sale. Some concern that it might cease being a parking lot, exacerbating a growing parking problem in the downtown 25th Street area. The Mayor indicated merchants were complaining that their customers could not find places even in the big city-owned free parking lot to the north of 25th Street. After someone noted this was a nice problem to have.... too many people coming to 25th Street to do business for the available parking rather than nobody coming to 25th Street.... the Mayor indicated the city was considering going to some kind of controlled pay parking in that lot, with a voucher/validation system for merchants so their customers could park there without charge. Looking at it anyway. Ms. Wicks asked if a lot of employees who worked in the Federal Building were parking in that city lot during the work day. The answer was “yes.” Ms. Wicks thought the Feds should make some arrangements for their own employees parking, and not have them all, free of charge, take up city lot spaces for the whole work week. Mentioned here only because it seemed clear that parking issues are looming on the near horizon for the Administration and Council’s consideration.

As always, I would welcome corrections by any of the participants in the meeting if I’ve mis-characterized their comments or views.