The Peterson Proposal: A Chronicle of Deception

As many observers have noted, proponents of the gondola/foothill development/Malan's Basin project (we'll call them gondolists) have not always been completely honest when making their sales pitches to the public. Now that the Ogden City Council is being asked to "take the next step" toward investing 175 acres of public park land in this project, we think it's about time someone documented the many untruths, exaggerations, and broken promises.

Disclaimer: This list is not comprehensive! We've limited our attention to what we consider significant and documented factual deceptions committed by the principal gondolists: the Ogden City administration, Lift Ogden and its leaders, and Chris Peterson himself. Plenty of additional misinformation can be traced only to less authoritative sources. Several other deceptions have been of less consequence. Numerous statements from gondolists have been misleading but not literally false. And of course, given the technical challenges and complexity of the Peterson proposal, the biggest opportunities for broken promises are still ahead of us.

Some people might argue that with a proposal as complex as this, occasional errors in communication are bound to occur. We agree. But the pattern of deception documented here is far too extensive to be a result of mere negligence. On the other hand, it's certainly possible that we've made a few errors ourselves in this document. We would welcome any corrections that readers would care to submit. (Please send corrections and other comments to .)

The Snowbasin connection

According to a Standard-Examiner article published January 12, 2005, the purpose of the Lift Ogden Committee (organized about a month earlier) was to promote "a tram from Ogden to Snowbasin ski resort." Then, in February, Chris Peterson purchased the Malan's Basin property; by mid-spring the idea of a new resort in Malan's Basin was being publicly discussed, and people were getting confused about whether Snowbasin or Malan's Basin was the proposed gondola destination.

The confusion simmered until fall 2005, when at least two documents from Mayor Godfrey's office stated that the gondola would go to "resorts" (plural), implying a Snowbasin connection in addition to a new resort in Malan's Basin. Then on October 16, the Standard-Examiner reported that Snowbasin had no plans for a gondola connection from the west.

In mid-April of 2006, the mayor's office released its Gondola FAQ document. Question 6 of the document addresses the Snowbasin connection directly: "Do the plans include the gondola going to the top of the mountain?" The answer given was: "Yes, the plans do involve a leg of the gondola that would go to the top of the mountain, which would allow skiers with a Snowbasin lift ticket to enter Snowbasin." Also, in the answer to Question 24, the document states that the gondola "provides the ability for Snowbasin patrons to use the gondola and not drive to the resort."

On April 28, however, the Standard-Examiner reported that it had received a phone call from Clint Ensign, senior vice president of Sinclair Oil Company (parent company of Snowbasin), reaffirming that no such connection was in Snowbasin's plans. "The real answer to that is 'no,' and that is something I made plain to the mayor last year," Ensign said. In response, Mayor Godfrey tried to imply that no cooperation from Snowbasin would be needed to make the connection, which was simply "a matter of geography." A revised version of the answer to Question 6 accompanied the Standard-Examiner article, but the only change made to the city's web site was the removal of the initial "yes" in the answer to Question 6.

Meanwhile, a shortened version of the question-answer document was printed by Ogden City as part of an insert mailed along with the city's water bills. This version didn't include Question 6, but did include Question 24 (renumbered) and its answer referring to Snowbasin patrons using the gondola. In response, Clint Ensign wrote a letter to Mayor Godfrey on May 18, again explaining that "the two projects will not connect," as quoted in a June 2 article in the Salt Lake Tribune.

Nevertheless, the FAQ document remains on the city's web site as of this writing (August 21), with only the word "yes" deleted from the answer to Question 6, and no revision to the answer to Question 24.

What about Mayor Godfrey's implication that the connection could be made without Snowbasin's cooperation? Although an expert skier could descend into Snowbasin from the proposed mountaintop terminal, there is currently no lift service back up to this point from the east. (The terminal would be at the top of the double-black-diamond "Something" run; click here to view Snowbasin's trail map.) Without lift service, a skier would have to climb 600 vertical feet, or attempt a long ridgetop traverse, to return to Malan's Basin on the west side of the mountain. Furthermore, the descent into Snowbasin would cross avalanche-prone slopes that are frequently closed to skiing. Even when this area is open, there is no safe descent route for non-expert skiers. There does exist a service road that switchbacks to a nearby saddle, but this road is not wide enough for use by snowcats or beginning skiers. In summary, Snowbasin would have to make major investments and changes in its operating procedures to accommodate a gondola connection from the west. Without this level of commitment from Snowbasin, the Forest Service would be negligent to approve the construction of a gondola up to the ridgetop.

Urban gondola cost

The pro-gondola "Hub" brochure states that the urban leg of the gondola "will cost around $20 million." This figure has since been repeated in numerous Standard-Examiner articles (for example, on September 7, October 1, and November 4, 2005), usually attributed to Mayor Godfrey. The mayor's Gondola FAQ document states that compared to a $100 million streetcar system, the urban gondola "costs about one-fourth as much to build."

These cost estimates are apparently based on the gondola feasibility study conducted for the city in 2004 by RG Consultants. This study assumed that the gondola would have only three stations (Intermodal Hub, mall site, and WSU). Of the four gondola versions considered in the study, the least expensive was estimated to cost $23.15 million in then-current dollars, with no contingency margin. The consultant then added a 10% contingency margin to obtain a final cost estimate of $25.5 million. This was for a gondola along 23rd Street and Harrison Blvd., ending in front of WSU.

However, the currently proposed version of the urban gondola (as depicted in the Lift Ogden brochure) has five stations, with an additional leg across WSU to the foothills. No qualified professional that we know of has provided a price for this version, but the UTA/WFRC Transit Corridor Study, completed in mid-2005, put the cost of a five-station gondola of about the same length, along a mostly identical route, at $45.3 million. This figure (like the $100.6 million figure for a six-station streetcar) includes a 30% contingency margin. It also includes extra expenses for slightly larger gondola cabins, air conditioning, and elevated stations and bends to interfere less with traffic on Harrison Blvd. Even if we take out these extras, the study's methodology would put the cost of the currently proposed version of the gondola at about $30 million with no contingency, or about $40 million with a 30% contingency.

Of course, it's possible that gondolists have since obtained more accurate cost information that they have not disclosed to the public. It's also possible that some economy of scale can be achieved through the combination of the urban and mountain gondolas. Still, based on publicly available information, it would seem hard to justify a cost estimate under $30 million. As a fraction of the streetcar's cost, if the same contingency margin is assumed for both, the gondola's cost falls in the range of one-third to one-half.

Urban gondola funding sources

After the UTA/WFRC Transit Corridor Study killed the idea of gondola funding from the Federal Transit Administration, gondolists began hinting that the urban gondola could be built entirely with private funds. For example, the "Hub" brochure says that fully private funding "certainly . . . is our goal." More importantly, a Standard-Examiner editorial published on September 18, 2005 stated that Mayor Godfrey had promised that "the city portion of the gondola . . . would be financed entirely with private funds." Based on this promise, the editorial endorsed the gondola concept.

Less than two weeks later, however, on October 1, the Standard-Examiner reported that Mayor Godfrey had just traveled to Washington, DC, to lobby Utah's Congressional delegation for gondola funding. He then denied having promised that the gondola would be privately funded, saying that he hadn't ruled out any source of funding. Much later, on June 17, 2006, the Standard-Examiner reported that Godfrey had also asked UTA for $8 million to help fund the urban gondola--but that this request had since been dropped.

Meanwhile, on March 11, 2006, the Standard-Examiner reported that much of the funding for the urban gondola would actually come from Ogden City, through sale of the Mt. Ogden Golf Course. While Mayor Godfrey has indicated that the rest of the funding for the gondola would come from private sources (as reported in the Standard-Examiner on April 14, 2006), no formal offers of private funding have yet been disclosed.

The streetcar

The results of the UTA/WFRC Transit Corridor Study were announced at a meeting on June 23, 2005, and reported in the Standard-Examiner the next day. The study's recommendation was an electric streetcar system along 26th Street and Harrison, with bus rapid-transit as an alternative option. Gondolists were not happy with this recommendation, and immediately began spreading misinformation about the streetcar proposal and about the study itself.

The most serious piece of misinformation was the claim that half of the streetcar's construction cost, or approximately $50 million, would have to be paid by Ogden City. This claim was uttered by Mayor Godfrey at the June 23 meeting and reported in the Standard-Examiner article. It was repeated two months later in the "Hub" brochure. It also appears in the mayor's Gondola FAQ document: "The people of Ogden would have to come up with $50 million for a streetcar..."

The truth is that nearly all of the the "local match" on UTA transit projects is paid by UTA itself--not by the affected cities. The most likely funding scenario for the streetcar, therefore, is roughly 50% from the Federal Transit Administration, 45% from UTA, and only about 5%, or $5 million, from Ogden City. Furthermore, most of the city's contribution could come not as cash but as right-of-way donations and infrastructure improvements done by city employees. The Standard-Examiner mentioned UTA's expected contribution in a deeply buried article on June 25, 2006. The situation is explained more fully (though very cautiously) in a December, 2005 letter from UTA to the Ogden City Council.

The mayor's FAQ document contains several other false and misleading statements about the streetcar--that it would be slower than the gondola, that it would take 15-20 years to approve and build, and that it could "easily coexist" with the urban gondola. In fact the gondola would be quite a bit slower (only 13 mph on average), and this slow speed would be offset by the shorter interval between vehicles only for passengers making very short trips. The December 2005 UTA letter states that the time to approve and build the streetcar would be 7-15 years, and that "neither the travel demand nor the financial resources can support two competing investments in the corridor."

Foothill lands for sale

Early announcements of the proposed sale of city land to Chris Peterson mentioned only the Mt. Ogden Golf Course, with no mention of the additional city-owned park lands (identified as such in Ogden's General Plan) proposed for sale. The mayor's FAQ document even stated that "The parks will be preserved and improved." Yet when a draft map of the proposed development was first presented to the public at WSU on April 19, it confirmed the suspicion of many: the development area would also include all of the city-owned park land to the east and south of the golf course. This park land includes the Mt. Ogden Exercise Trail to the east, Strong's Canyon to the south, and a sizable chunk of real estate to the southeast, extending up to the Bonneville shoreline.

When asked by the press about these additional park lands proposed for sale, Mayor Godfrey stated that the amount was only "several acres" (Standard-Examiner, May 26; a phone call to the reporter confirmed that this statement should have been attributed in the article to Godfrey rather than being reported as fact). City staff later calculated the area to be 59.8 acres, and presented this figure at public meetings held on June 13 and 14 (as part of the Mt. Ogden neighborhood planning process), but this figure has not been reported by the press. On June 15, at the request of the Ogden Trails Network Committee, the city administration finally updated the FAQ document on its web site, adding the following sentence: "There is some City-owned land east of the golf course that will be included in the golf course sale." This was the first mention of this additional land in that document, which still does not specify the amount of land in question or admit that the land is currently part of the city's park system.

Slope angle requirements

During his 2003 re-election campaign, Mayor Godfrey told the Sierra Club that few opportunities remained for development on Ogden's east bench, and that he would not support relaxing zoning provisions that restrict building on steep slopes. (Most of Ogden's east bench is in the Sensitive Area Overlay Zone, which prohibits building on slopes steeper than 30% and specifies large minimum lots sizes on slopes steeper than 10%. To read the applicable code, click here and select Title 15, Chapter 27.) Yet the Peterson proposal calls for the construction of approximately 400 luxury houses, as well as a new commercial area, in the foothills. Approximately 1/3 of the foothill project area is steeper than 30%, and nearly all of it is steeper than 10%, so a development of this density is almost certainly impossible without relaxing the slope angle restrictions. On August 8, 2006, Peterson's attorney confirmed that they are proposing the creation of what amounts to a no-zoning zone for the project, which would replace all prior zoning including overlay zones.

Impacts to trails

The very first question in the Gondola FAQ document asks, What will happen to our trails and access? The original version of this document (which was the most widely distributed) answered categorically, "Trails will remain open to the public." But in fact, the plan is to eliminate two of the most popular foothill trails, the parallel foot and bike trails that run along the east side of the golf course. Several other foothill trails and trailheads would also have to be eliminated or relocated to make room for the foothill development. (No realistic site plan for the development yet exists; an unrealistic preliminary plan has been displayed at Peterson's public presentations and is included as page 12 of this pdf document on the city's web site. However, Mr. Peterson told the Ogden Trails Network Committee on July 20 that some foothill trails will have to be eliminated, and his letter to Mayor Godfrey dated July 21 confirms that he will ask for "the vacation of public rights in certain existing trails to be used for private development.")

On June 15, at the request of the Ogden Trails Network Committee, the city administration added the following sentence to the answer to the trails question on its web site: "Some foothill trails would be relocated on a dedicated trail through the redesigned golf course." This sentence goes a long way toward correcting the information, but is still somewhat misleading. The "dedicated trail" that is referred to is presumably a proposed trail along the underground Pineview Canal through the current golf course site. This proposed trail is shorter than either of the two trails that it is apparently intended to replace, and its southern end would be in a completely different location. It can hardly be called a "relocated" version of those trails.

Environmental impacts

Mayor Godfrey has promised that he will support a gondola on Mt. Ogden only if it is "positive for the environment." His argument that the mountain gondola actually will be good for the environment (for instance, in the final question of the Gondola FAQ) is based entirely on the premise that Snowbasin patrons can ride the gondola rather than driving. As currently proposed, the Peterson project not only lacks a Snowbasin connection, but also generates a great deal of additional traffic and pollution on Ogden's east bench from the 400 new homes to be built there. Other environmental costs would include loss of wildlife habitat in the foothills and in Malan's Basin, and stream pollution from runoff and wastewater treatment in Malan's Basin. Any environmental benefit from use of the urban gondola as mass transit would be more than offset by the gondola's preclusion of a much more effective streetcar system.

A promotional video ("Ogden: It's All Within Reach" by Bizazz Media) released in February, 2006 includes the following quote from Mayor Godfrey: "Thankfully we have people like Chris Peterson who are great stewards over spectacular tracts of land." Peterson's public presentations have been accompanied by a poster promising that the Malan's Basin resort will employ the "Best 'green' Resort design practices" (see page 4 of this pdf document on the city's web site). In his presentations, Peterson has promised more specifically to follow the "best management practices" for ski area construction that were developed when he worked at Snowbasin.

In fact, Peterson's ownership of the "vast" Malan's Basin property dates back only to February, 2005, and his record of stewardship during his first year of ownership speaks for itself: an extensive clearcut through a riparian area, obstructed stream channels to facilitate skiing, illegal ATV use on a Forest Service trail, and installation of new climbing routes without regard for two species of rare plants known to inhabit rock outcrops in the area.

Missed deadlines

At a City Council work session on September 6, 2005, both Mr. Peterson and Mayor Godfrey promised that plans for the Malan's Basin resort would be released in approximately 60 days (see Standard-Examiner, September 7). In fact, no further information was released to the public for over seven months, and even then, the "plans" that were displayed consisted only of an artist's drawing and a couple of photographs with the gondola and chairlift alignments drawn in. On August 8, 2006, Peterson's attorney told the City Council that even concept-level plans for the resort would be made available no sooner than the coming fall.

In a KLO radio interview on June 13, 2006, Mayor Godfrey stated that unlike the streetcar, the urban gondola could be built "now." Obviously this was an exaggeration; the engineering and construction alone would take at least two years (as stated, for example, by Peterson at the Ogden Trails Network Committee meeting on July 20, 2006). But Mayor Godfrey had already told the City Council, on April 13, that all components of the Peterson project would have to be built at once. This means that gondola construction would not begin until detailed plans for the foothill development and the Malan's Basin resort are already complete. Peterson has not yet even suggested a timeline for completion of these detailed plans. His attorney, however, stated on August 8 that a likely time frame for completion of the entire project would be ten to twenty years. He also contradicted Mayor Godfrey by stating that the project would be phased, with the initial phase including a day lodge in Malan's Basin but (by implication) no accommodations.

Use of city funds

At a City Council work session on April 13, 2006, Councilwoman Amy Wicks asked Mayor Godfrey how much money the city had already spent on the gondola project. Godfrey's response was "single-digit thousands." Shortly thereafter, Wicks submitted a formal request to the administration for a report on such expenditures. After a delay of approximately two months, the administration provided a list of expenditures totaling approximately $6000. According to a July 14 Standard-Examiner article, these expenditures included travel by the mayor, consultants' fees, and preparation of maps and other documents.

Apparently the administration had forgotten the urban gondola feasibility study commissioned by the city in 2004, which cost $62,000 (as reported in the Standard-Examiner on February 18, 2005). Presumably, the city also contributed to the gondola-related portion of the cost of the subsequent UTA/WFRC Transit Corridor Study. Another major expense is time spent by the mayor, his senior staff (Patterson, Harmer, Brown), and other city employees who have helped develop and promote the Peterson proposal as well as earlier gondola concepts. It is easy to estimate that these staff costs must be on the order of $100,000. Other expenses not mentioned in the administration's response to Wicks would include the cost of distributing the Gondola FAQ document through a newspaper ad and utility bill inserts, the cost of gondola promotion on the city-sponsored TV station, and the cost of Mayor Godfrey's lobbying trip to Washington, DC, in September, 2005.

Risk to taxpayers

The Lift Ogden brochure contains numerous false and misleading statements, but one stands out above all the rest: "Q. What's the risk to taxpayers? A. None. Investors will bear all the risk."

In fact, the Peterson proposal requires taxpayers to be the first investors in this project, and to assume the highest level of risk. The major public investment would be 175 acres of public park land (consisting of Mt. Ogden Golf Course and the adjacent 60 acres of undeveloped park lands). The city's proposed ownership of the urban gondola could easily entail ongoing subsidies to cover a portion of its projected $4 million annual operating cost. (Mayor Godfrey told the City Council on April 13, 2006 that Peterson's contract to operate the gondola would be renewable at Peterson's option.) Taxpayers would also have to pay for various utility and emergency services to the proposed developments. As described above, the city has already invested well over $100,000 of taxpayer funds in developing and promoting this proposal. The necessary studies and public processes to approve the project would cost much more.

Furthermore, Peterson is asking the city to make a significant commitment toward this project (namely, approving a pre-development agreement and creating a no-zoning zone) before he provides any site plans or technical studies to demonstrate that the project is even feasible. At a City Council work session on August 8, 2006, Peterson's attorney even stated that Peterson will be unable to provide any proof that he has private financial backing until after the city has already "entitled" the project.

Attempts to discredit nonbelievers

The Ogden City administration has twice accused Smart Growth Ogden of spreading misinformation: once over its use of the term "park" to describe the Mt. Ogden Golf Course and adjacent lands proposed for sale, and again over its cosmetic alterations to a city-produced map of the proposed foothill development. In both cases these accusations proved groundless, as documented on the Smart Growth Ogden web site.

When the Board of Weber Pathways issued a statement opposing the sale of city-owned park lands for the Peterson project, Mayor Godfrey tried to trivialize the group's position with two pieces of misinformation, both reported by the Standard-Examiner on July 4, 2006. He stated that the Board's motion had "passed by one vote" when in fact it passed with at least 17 votes in favor and only one opposed. He also claimed that the Weber Pathways Board is the "same group" as Smart Growth Ogden, when in fact only a few the 22 Board members have been involved with Smart Growth Ogden in any way.

Major published sources of information and misinformation

Standard-Examiner. Microfilm archives of the Standard-Examiner are available at the Weber County Library. Library card holders can also access a database of articles through the library's web site. Click on Premium Databases, enter your library card number, click on NewsBank, then Standard-Examiner. Articles from other major Utah newspapers are also available.

Gondola FAQ. This "frequently asked questions" document was posted on Ogden City's web site in mid-April. It was also posted on the Lift Ogden web site for some time, and printed as a large city-sponsored newspaper ad in the Standard-Examiner on April 27, 2006. A news article the next day specifically stated that the information in the ad came from the mayor's office. An abridged version of the document was mailed to Ogden City utility customers as a bill insert in April and May. As described above, the version of the document on the city's web site has undergone minor revisions since it was first posted. Ironically, the FAQ document opens by saying that "a lot of misinformation is being circulated" about the Peterson proposal.

Hub brochure. This 16-page color brochure was printed in late August, 2005, and distributed as an advertising insert with Weber County editions of the August 31 Standard-Examiner. According to a news article that appeared the same day, it was funded by Curt Geiger and "other local business leaders who want to see Ogden become a hub for the ski industry". Although the brochure does not mention the Lift Ogden Committee, it includes testimonials from most of the principal gondolists (Ed and Bernie Allen, Curt and Bob Geiger, Chris Peterson), and an electronic version of it was posted on the Lift Ogden web site for some time. It is still posted here on the Descente web site. A modified version of the brochure's cover art (which includes the Ogden City logo) appears on the city-owned skithehub web site.

Lift Ogden brochure. This full-color, four-panel brochure was distributed by Lift Ogden at its events in late spring, 2006. It was also distributed to doorsteps in Ogden neighborhoods, and as an advertising insert in the Standard-Examiner. The brochure's content is currently (as of August 21, 2006) posted on the Lift Ogden web site.

Back to Peterson proposal index page

Back to Ogden Sierra Club home page

Last updated 21 August 2006