The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

As reported in the Tulsa World:

Some councilors concerned about consequences of stadium district

by: P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
4/8/2009 8:15:11 PM

Some city councilors are concerned about what they say might be the unintended consequences of being rushed to approve the Tulsa Stadium Improvement District.

“I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so,” Councilor Bill Martinson said during a Tuesday committee meeting.

He said due to the push to create the district, he never got to ask questions and now “the chickens are finally coming home to roost.”

The City Council is set to hold a public hearing Thursday on the assessment roll for the district but will not vote.

The roll establishes annual assessment fees on downtown properties for 30 years with $25 million from the fees helping to pay for the construction of a downtown baseball stadium.

The district, which will be activated July 1, includes all properties that lie within the downtown Inner Dispersal Loop. A current assessment district covering the area expires at the end of June.

The new assessment rate will increase to 6.5 cents per square foot on land and structures. Of that, 4.3 cents will help fund the ballpark, and 2.2 cents will continue to provide downtown services such as street cleaning.

Due to changing the assessment calculation so that everyone pays the same rate, some annual fees will increase significantly.

The public hearing is required by law to give property owners an opportunity to voice any objections. At least 30 objections have been filed.

Last summer, the council approved the assessment district and several exemptions, including federally owned properties, those owned by religious organizations with primary religious uses, and residential property with a homestead exemption.

The council was told it must adhere to those exemptions.

Some of the objections are from nonprofits, one of which claims that exempting religious organizations from the assessment fee, but not other nonprofits, violates the mandates of separation of church and state.

Other objections involve square footage calculations that involve property and structure, which will determine total fees to be paid.

In addition to the nonprofits that are objecting, Tulsa County, the state and the Tulsa Housing Authority are challenging the fees. Numerous private property owners also either disagree with the assessment in general, or contest the calculations of their square footage.

Martinson said using the square footage on land and structure may end up backfiring.

“I hope we didn’t create a monster” with property owners demolishing vacant buildings to save money, he said.

Councilor Bill Christiansen said it “seems like there may be a lot of unintended consequences,” pointing to the nonprofits, county and OSU Medical Center, which is now under the control of a public trust.

Councilor G.T. Bynum said he was told the county was on board with the assessment district. But the county has publicly protested the assessment.

“At some point you have to assume you can believe what you’re told,” he said.

The Council at this past week's U&EDC meeting may have realized the folly in passing this assessment without proper due diligence after it was declared an "emergency" for passage by the Mayor and her forcing a rushed vote on the matter, saying it had to happen right then to keep the Drillers from leaving to Jenks.  Only thing is, the Drillers didn't sign for quite some time after the vote - this could have allowed the Council more time to inquire and not be questioning itself now.

Property owners are now questioning the legitimacy of the assessment as well as the means by which it is being calculated, namely the doubling of first floor square footage that includes land and also first level improvement.  Business and property owners are being impacted significantly as a result.  As an example, the Council cited OSU Medical center, which has now gone into public trust and was endangered due to lack of funding.  The facility will see an increase from approximately $550/year under the old and soon to be expired Main Mall assessment to $84,000/year for the ballpark assessment according to Council.  This creates a significant burden on an already struggling entity that is much needed in downtown and this same thing is being repeated among other IDL property owners.  Many landowners, like those in the Brady District where one and two story structures cover the entire parcel are common, could conceivably reduce their assessment fees by up to a half if the Council heeds their argument.

Councilor David Patrick also questioned what he and many others had understood to be a total IDL property owner contribution to the ballpark of $25 million over 30 years now being approximately $64.5 million.  Linda Rediman and Donna Richey of the City stated an approximate figure approaching 50 million square feet (for easy figuring) of assessed square footage.  At 4.3 cents/square foot that's $64.5 million over the course of 30 years, not the $25 million that was touted.  This figure includes the debt service fees covering the interest of the bonds.  BOK lent the $25 million at 6.5% interest for purchase of the construction bonds through Kaiser's other interest, the Tulsa Community Foundation.

George Kaiser may be donating $5 or $10 million but BOK will be earning $48 million+/- in interest over 30 years for the $25 million lent to buy the ballpark bonds. Small investment, heck of a return.

Tulsa World left out of the article that the Council now questions the Mayor's and donor's statements supporting this assessment (before the vote was put to Council) that no property owner outside the IDL would pay one cent for the ballpark and they are now realizing that everyone will in fact be paying through increased property taxes to cover the City's and County's portion of the yearly assessment fees on their respective IDL located properties, including the ballpark and its surrounding development.  This throws into question the constitutional element of taxation without representation as stated in the recent TW article regarding the County's and Assessor's objections to the assessment.

It would also stand to reason that the substantial portion of the monies being donated are more for the procurement and development of the surrounding properties since bonds had to be issued for the actual construction of the ballpark rather than first utilizing the pledged $30 million in donations.  This seems to make the argument more sound that the ballpark itself will not be a catalyst for further development, as it was billed to the public, but the surrounding development will be.  If thats the case, where then is the direct benefit as required under state statute for the property owners within the IDL from the creation of a ballpark?  Let's not forget the argument making its way through the courts already questioning the legitimacy of the assessment, the basis of which is that state statutes allow for the creation of an assessment district to "improve" municipal facilities, not create them.  That argument is still alive and well in district court with no call for summary judgement on the part of the City or Donors/Trust, lending credibility to the argument since it hasnt been dismissed.  

Among the arguments also being made in the letters sent to Council appealing the assessments, or portions thereof, is the potential decrease in property values within the IDL as a result of the increased assessment.  Purchasers may not be so inclined to purchase and develop property that will carry a significant assessment  fee for 30 years.  This would then go against what I thought was the entire reason for doing this, encouraging economic growth and investment.  Add to that the adminstration saying that an increase in property values in the future will be the direct benefit to IDL property owners.  Under the state's Real Estate commission guidelines, one can not use what ifs and predictions as a viable argument for potential increased property value given the ever changing nature of the market and its influences.  

Also bear in mind, these monies are separate from the additional 2.2 cents/square foot that are being assessed to pay for IDL services that are estimated at $1.1 million/year.  The annual assessment payments will cover the IDL services portion without need to borrow.  If the investment had truly been just for a ballpark to encourage further economic growth and development as has been stated is the need, the pledged $30 million in donations would have necessitated only a bond for the remaining $9.2 million, $5 million of which would have been repaid using the lease revenues expected from the Drillers and necessitating 63% less public investment.

Will be interesting to see how all of it plays out...court case, Council, County & State Vs. City and all the other interests out there.  I'm just hoping the fears of the Council dont come to light that property owners tear down existing buildings, particularly those of architectural significance but no current use, to decrease their exposure to this assessment.  A surface parking lot could make much more sense to some now.

A. "George Kaiser may be donating $5 or $10 million but BOK will be earning $48 million+/- in interest over 30 years for the $25 million lent to buy the ballpark bonds. Small investment, heck of a return. "

No better return than if he had lent it out to residential home owners. Mortgage lending has a heck of a return.

B."Among the arguments also being made in the letters sent to Council appealing the assessments, or portions thereof, is the potential decrease in property values within the IDL as a result of the increased assessment.  Purchasers may not be so inclined to purchase and develop property that will carry a significant assessment  fee for 30 years.  This would then go against what I thought was the entire reason for doing this, encouraging economic growth and investment.  Add to that the adminstration saying that an increase in property values in the future will be the direct benefit to IDL property owners.  Under the state's Real Estate commission guidelines, one can not use what ifs and predictions as a viable argument for potential increased property value given the ever changing nature of the market and its influences.  

You seem to want it both ways here. You give credence to letter writers who are predicting decreased value as an argument to lower their assessments, but you won't allow the administration to predict increased value.  

C."It would also stand to reason that the substantial portion of the monies being donated are more for the procurement and development of the surrounding properties since bonds had to be issued for the actual construction of the ballpark rather than first utilizing the pledged $30 million in donations.  This seems to make the argument more sound that the ballpark itself will not be a catalyst for further development, as it was billed to the public, but the surrounding development will be.  If thats the case, where then is the direct benefit as required under state statute for the property owners within the IDL from the creation of a ballpark?  Let's not forget the argument making its way through the courts already questioning the legitimacy of the assessment, the basis of which is that state statutes allow for the creation of an assessment district to "improve" municipal facilities, not create them.  That argument is still alive and well in district court with no call for summary judgement on the part of the City or Donors/Trust, lending credibility to the argument since it hasnt been dismissed. "

Its amazing how many inferences you can make in a paragraph so constructed as to infer that you are not only a property owner within the IDL, but likely a lawyer representing other owners within the IDL. Another inference might be that you are a member of staff of the council, a councilor yourself, or a bureaucrat laying the groundwork for candidacy for local office. How about a banker who didn't get a chance to make a great investment like Kaiser's? Or are you one of the landowners who has boarded up his properties in the area surrounding the new stadium, choking off development during the last decade waiting for the really big score, only to be frozen out when the big boys came to play?  Lastly, one might infer from other posts on this forum that your interests are less than altruistic towards the mayor in general. Okay, my inferences aren't as scholarly, but just as defensible.

D. This is ugly stuff. Maybe there is cronyism, maybe even illegal insider activity. If so it will surface. But your remarks are a pretty good description of why Tulsa is so slow to grow. Consider that had Jenks procured the team, it would have no qualms about indebting its citizens in provocative and creative ways, because the investment is leverage for even more development. You then would have been ruminating on how inept the administration was for letting it happen. The buildings downtown would still be in danger of demolition and you could still blame Taylor.

Wha? He earns about $31M in interest.

They make mortgage calculators, try one. That means they have a "possible" $6M overage over 30 years, or $200k per year. Pretty close for using "Ballpark estimates."

So people are going to tear down buildings to save 4 cents a square foot on the ballpark assessment?  That's the basic argument if I read the article correctly (it seems somewhat like one of my rambles). 

Downtown office space rents for $16 sq/ft per month.  The assessment on that same space breaks down to    $0.003 per month on each square foot.  Warehouse/industrial space is cheaper, residential space more expensive, but my guess is you could raise the rent by $0.003/ft^2 and no one would complain too much. 

For perspective, the assessment on the ONEOK Building would be $1551.60 a month (517,000 square feet).  The note payment on the $48,000,0000 building would be around $320,000 a month.   Estimated rents at 80% capacity would be $7.5 million (assuming high end of the "average" at $18 and 80% paid occupancy - for arguments sake). 

While I am not scoffing at any new tax and myself make the argument that nickel and dime taxes never go away, to argue that $1551.60 a month would put pressure on people to leave the lot empty instead of building a sky scrapper is ridiculous.   I just doubt that is the determining factor.

Anybody who says the ballpark won't spur new downtown development and activity is a fool.

Those same naysayers said the same thing about the BoKcenter, yet Tuesday night we had a nice selection of restaurants open at night to choose from and my wife even got some shopping in before the show.

The best thing about the ballpark is that it will bring in lots of kids who don't normally go downtown. They will want to work and play downtown as a result when they grow up.

Only time enough for Grizzles right now since I actually can use a mortgage interest calulculator, but since you can't, let me give you the lengthy explaination...btw, its called calculating simple interest, you can find the calculator at webmath.com:

You want to calculate the interest on $25000000 at 6.5% interest per year after 30 year(s).
The formula we'll use for this is the simple interest formula, or:

Where:

P is the principal amount, $25000000.00.

r is the interest rate, 6.5% per year, or in decimal form, 6.5/100=0.065.

t is the time involved, 30....year(s) time periods.

So, t is 30....year time periods.

To find the simple interest, we multiply 2.5e+07 × 0.065 × 30 to get that:

The interest is: $48750000.00

Usually now, the interest is added onto the principal to figure some new amount after 30 year(s),
or 25000000.00 + 48750000.00 = 73750000.00. For example:

If you borrowed the $25000000.00, you would now owe $73750000.00

If you loaned someone $25000000.00, you would now be due $73750000.00

If owned something, like a $25000000.00 bond, it would be worth $73750000.00 now.

For a better example Grizzle, you might want to look at your home mortgage, careful though, could be a shocker.  Calculate your monthly payment times the total months you will be paying and see how much of a difference that will be, prolly somewhere along the lines of 3X+/- your home's purchase price.

+1

Downtownnow, before you get all sharp-shooty on us you need to consider the principle of the time-value of money.  The present value of your lump sum 30 years from now is not equal to the face value.  If we use your numbers and assumptions (on which I withhold any meritorious judgment, including the flaw that the payments on the note [essentially an annuity] is determinable as a lump sum . . . but I digress) we will proceed as follows:

Future Value: 73,750,000.00
Time: 30 years
Discount Rate: 6.5%  (or, as you so helpfully put it .065)

Formula: PV   =   FV / (1 + r)^Y
PV = $73,750,000 / (1+.065)^30
Which reduces to PV = $11,149,972.38

So technically, under the facts you gave, the present value of a future lump sum 30 years out of $73,750,000 is $11,149.972.38 "NOW".   That number is of course totally worthless as your underlying assumptions are now entirely correct. 

A more accurate description would be that a $25mil bond at 6.25% payable over 30 years will incur interest expense of $48,750,000.00 (your number) over the life of the bond.  When paid in full the total cash outlays on principle and maintenance of the bond will be $73,750,000 (your number) over the life of the instrument.  It has nothing to do with a future lump sum or the present value ("NOW") of such a payment.

[EDIT]

More research on the proposal, BOK is offering to essentially fund $25mil in muni bonds at 6.25%, so there would be a $25mil lump sum.  However, interest payments would be made over the course of the loan.  The accurate numbers based on a 30 year $25mil loan with interest only payments at 6.25% are:

   Loan Amount   $25,000,000
   Annual Interest Rate   6.50%
   Amortization Period   360
   # of Regular Payments   360
   Begin Date   5/1/2009
      
Summary      
      
   Monthly Payment   $135,416.67
   Balloon Payment    $25,135,416.67
   Balloon Payment w/Rounding    $25,135,416.67
      
   Total Payments    $73,885,417.87
   Total Interest Paid    $48,885,417.87

So the numbers were correct, but the statement ignores the time value of money.  The value of all payments is not worth $73,885,417 "now" as indicated.  I'll look up the discount rate appropriate for Tulsa's bond rating and post below.

[/edit]

Still a pretty fine return on a low-risk loan.

Waterboy, mortgage rates are currently running below 5% compared to the 6.5% on this one, and on the whole I would venture to guess are more risky than this one.

Looks like the district also includes Moss Jail.
Good luck collecting on that.

Really?  We're paying 11-ish in one of downtown's very best buildings.

I know spaces renting for $25

Just depends on the space.

1) I'm not sure the bank gets to take a security interest in the stadium (muni's usually are not secured) and if they did, it is not as liquid as a home.  If they had to "repo" it they would likely be stuck operating a ballpark or selling it at a great loss.  The risks are really hard to compare.

2) Tulsa has been downgraded to a debt score of "AA-"  .  Which is pretty just OK (OKC is one of a handful to be AAA).  I'm not a bond expert and the markets are all messed up at the moment, but it appears a 20 year bond at AA- is selling for a 5.3% yield to the investor.  Generally this would mean a somewhat lower Coupon rate in light of the tax free status, but what the hell do I know.  But 6.5% seems high. 

Other AA- issues are going with a coupon rate of 3.5 - 4.5% on 5 - 10 year bonds.  So maybe out that far it's a good rate. Maybe this keeps the debt "off the books" since they are not general obligation bonds so the city rating stays higher?  I really don't know.   Again, I need to be very clear that I am not a bond expert - anyone with more insight on the 6.5% rate is welcome to fill us in on what a fair coupon rate for a 30 year AA Muni bond is. 

http://fixedincome.fidelity.com/fi/FICorpNotesDisplay?name=MUNIBD

US$72.965 mil cap imp rev bnds (Tulsa) ser 2006A dtd 06/01/2006 due 06/01/2007-2012         2006A         Jun 01, 2009         AA-/Stable, AA-/
Stable(SPUR)       Nov 19, 2008        (last issuance, Moody's)

For office space?  wow.  That seems a bit foolish.

IIRC, the bank is not loaning any money to the city of Tulsa or to the Stadium Trust.  I believe the bank is loaning the money to the infinitely wealthy community foundation, controlled by . . . .well, you know the story.  The bank's actual risk of not getting re-paid?  I think you can do the math.

Michael, where are the new buildings downtown? The location of the BOK Center was established five years ago. Where is the new construction?

I had a similar question.  I am wondering which of the "nice selection of restaurants" he thinks are there because of the arena.  (for the record, I am NOT one who thinks the ballpark will not spur any downtown development.  I think it probably will, because it is relatively well-located)

Wow.  Holy strawman.

Economic development doesn't always demand new construction.  That's not what he said.   In the last five years (and going back a little further), there has been a serious improvement of nightlife in downtown.  Before events, a lot of the businesses are hopping.  I went out for St. Patrick's Day, same night as the Elton John/Billy Joel show, and downtown was packed.  There was some serious cash made that night.

There is a lot more going on downtown than five years ago.  Two new hotels (Mayo and the Atlas Building) on the way.  Massive renovation of the Crowne Plaza.  Bars/clubs: McNellie's, Dirty's, Soundpony, Temple, Flytrap.  Restaurants: McNellie's, El Guapo, Joe Momma's, Dilly Deli, Boston Grill, Casa Laredo, Kokoa, Elote, the place in the basement of the Wright building (name escapes me), Lola's, Blue dome Diner.  Businesses: Dwelling Spaces.  Major music festival: D-fest.  Condos/lofts: Mayo lofts, Mayo Building Lofts, Philtower lofts, 1st Street lofts.   Cain's was refurbished and has become a major music venue.  There is more, but why pile on any further.

The irony here is that over the years, I've read you frequently attack the powers that be for tearing down old buildings.  Pretty much everything mentioned above involved redeveloping older properties.  Yet, you don't count that as economic development.  Unbelievable.  You have zero credibility, dood.

The ballpark will most certainly spur further development.  It's a hop, skip, and a jump from McNellie's.  It's going to be great to see. Too bad you have no civic pride.

Wow!  Speaking of strawmen and attacks on anybody expressing slight doubt...

MB never said there had been no improvements to downtown.  I agree his implication that only new construction counts was unfortunate, but, other than the general feeling of improvements being on the way, I think it's a bit of a stretch to credit the arena for many of those recent and upcoming improvements, especially those that long preceded the arena.

I'm pretty sure a lot of those investments had a lot to do with the arena.  Bates contends that the only fair indicator of economic development is new construction and my post was about economic development in the past several years that used existing buildings.  It's not a strawman argument at all; it directly contradicts his assertion that there must be new construction for economic development to occur.

While I agree with your point Gold, Bates does have a point in-so-much as the arena was sold with a vision of "cranes over downtown."  That can be blamed on an old administration, I grant you.  But nonetheless, the illusion was we build a new arena and the empty spaces downtown start to fill in.

Particularly the one right next to it where they tore down the crap hole tower apartments so a developer could put in a hotel.  Which sits empty.

Also, we abandoned the old city hall in part so a developer could move in.  The old city hall, which sits empty.  And that can't be at all blamed on the former administration and, for the record, no way the City ever really thought someone was looking at the property in the near future.  In which case the deal never did make any sense (adding property to the inventory, no matter how good a deal we got on it, still adds expense).

The common thread between the BOK Center, the BOk master lease on the New City Hall and the BOk financing for the new ballpark?  Don't want to put on a tinfoil hat, but certainly the influence is unmistakable.  Which is why I'm happy Bates at least keeps his eye on things.  This transaction is starting to concern me a bit more as I struggle to understand the ins and outs (accounting, finance, and law degrees.  Still not sure on what trust has authority over what, what money is given, who funds what, who the loans are actually from or to, what land they will take and what will be through zoning . . .).   Transparency of finances and influence is all I ask for.   

and I still support the ballpark,  fwiw.

/tangent

BAH!

I agree.  Downtown in my short time here has started to come to life.  If Bates is arguing that downtown hasn't picked up in the last 5 years he is wrong and really needs to go downtown on a Saturday.  And while I agree with you, gold, that development in old buildings should come first I must state that development around the arena was oversold. 

I hope our improvement continues and accelerates.  More and more downtown is becoming a destination to go do things, not just to work.  Add some more people living downtown and we could hit the much fabled critical mass.

So... let me get this straight.  It's not a strawman argument to attack an assertion that the other side never made?     Interesting theory.  Or is it that in your mind an argument that would otherwise be a strawman argument ceases to be one if it is used against a strawman argument?  ;-)

And by the way, this board only respects irrefutable facts  ;-)   Do you have anything, anything at all, to support your assumption that those developments were related to, let alone caused by, the arena?

I've seen that "cranes" quote come up on places of such renowned credibility as the Tulsa World comments section.  I went to a lot of V2025 stuff and I can't recall anyone ever saying anything like that.  Is there a source for that, or is that urban myth?

The old Towerview site and the old City Hall site are legitimate points.  But that doesn't mean economic development hasn't occurred, isn't occuring now, and/or won't occur in the future.  

The Towerview deal, to me at least, sounds like the powers that be are being very careful with what proposals they take.  I wish it would move along faster, but part of that has to be the financial mess and part is that right people are doing their jobs (which they are accused of not doing whenever a certain sest of folks in town doesn't like what they did).

The City Hall building is a whole other ball of wax.  I've thought that was a goofy idea all along.  Who would want to put a hotel between two courthouses?   That's going to take some creativity.

Bottom line, it was a cheapshot at RM.

You aren't worth the time.  Go back and look at Bates' cheapshot at RM.  It assumes you have to have new buildings for economic development.  My point was in direct contradiction.

The arena is most certainly part of a downtown development plan and I doubt most of these investors would have stayed away if they thought downtown was some sort of hovel that so many of the tinfoil hate crowd pretend it to be.   Many of these places do serious business when there are events at the BOK; all benefit from increased traffic and interest downtown. 

You really don't have a point, but if you want to keep posting to make yourself feel important or that you have one, go ahead.

Oh but I do have a point.  My point is that MB did NOT say there had been no economic development downtown.  Certainly by the standards employed by you, Hoss, RM, and many others of the old guard on this board, Bates' post was far from a cheap shot.  In fact, I fail to see how it was a cheap shot by anyone's standards.  It was a clear, challenging question.  You now want to ascribe it solely to some "tin foil hat" crowd, but we were very definitely and clearly told at the time of the arena campaign that it would spur new construction downtown.  While it was under construction we were told repeatedly that there was great interest in developing a hotel on the TowerView block by many developers... etc etc etc.

I have no doubt whatsoever that these businesses benefit from events at the arena. But that is quite a different thing from saying they exist BECAUSE of the arena.  Yes, the arena is part of a downtown development plan that is overall making some good progress.  But it's a bit difficult to give the arena itself very much credit when almost none of the developments that have occurred are even in the "arena district."

Downtown has definitely picked up in the two blocks near city hall known as "The Blue Dome" area during lunch. The ice cube will need maintenance up keep beyond the pale.

Have not traveled over to the old city hall to see what effect the churning has had there.

Rooting for the Drillers. Have doubts.

BOK Arena is first class. Terrific structure. No legs.

Slow go....area is too taxing on the property owners.

Yes, I'm sure removing hundreds of employees has done a lot to boost the vibrancy of the area near the arena.  ;-)   That should help them attract restaurants, clubs, and hotels to the neighborhood... 

I know the night time downtown restaurant business improves greatly on BokCenter event nights. I also know that the local restaurants that have concessions inside the center are very happy at these new sales as well.

I have been hearing rumors about the Towerview lot and the one to the north about to be announced as well.

I think the credit market problems have been a major factor in the failure to see (cranes) in the air to date.

Quick google search shows that it was a lie frequently used by Bill LaFortune.  A reacquiring theme in the run up to and to tout the success of V2025, as exemplified in the bracketing State of the City addresses:

Mayor Bill LaFortune,  State of the City Address, 2005.  Available at:
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/News/Archives/StateoftheCity2005.asp

Mayor Bill LaFortune,  State of the City Address, 2004.  Available at:
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/OurCity/Mayor/documents/StateofCity2004.pdf

I can also attest to doing lunches and other events (I was working for a big Lafortunte Booster at the time) in which the phrase was used by both he and his press secretary (I think that's who it was).   Karen Keith also used the line several times in her support.  Might not have been part of an official campaign, but it was around prominently. 

I read those quotes as referring to the actual V2025 projects, like the arena.  And I didn't get into this conversation knowing I'd have to defend Mr. LaFortune's statements, so I'll pass and hope you don't mind.  ;D

I think we both agree that economic development doesn't require new buildings.  There is a lot of under-utilized space in downtown and it would be a shame to let it go to waste.  What I think will really set downtown Tulsa's entertainment district apart is that it will be fairly spread out to allow a decent amount of infill; it will also be convenient for big events that need to utilize multiple venues (D-fest).

One of the things I've really liked about watching the progress downtown is the creativity in some of these investers, whether it be the set-up at McNellie's to fact the guys at Soundpony had to get a new address from the post office.  There's something pretty neat going on down here.  If some of you folks haven't check it out yet (or refuse to because you're too high and mighty), you really should, especially if you have written a bunch of columns about why it's important to re-use older buildings. ;)

No doubt.  But again, saying that the restaurants benefit on event-nights is not the same as saying that the restaurants are there because of the arena.  

I voted for the arena and think it is a great addition to Tulsa, but I see scant evidence that it is the cause of much, if any of the recent and current downtown development.  FWIW, I also don't think the lack of development or re-development in the immediate vicinity of the arena makes the arena a failed project (although I think it was a horrible choice of location and there would likely have been more spin-off development from it already had it been in a better location.)

And keep in mind that there was a pretty good night life while the row of clubs was opperating.  Granted, those clubs cause more trouble then they were worth, but it shows that other things have brought about buisness during the evenings downtown

I'm not arguing that downtown hasn't picked up. I think that has more to do with a critical mass of places to see and be seen around the Blue Dome and in Brady than on an arena on the far side of downtown, and the trend began before the arena was even voted on. (Which would explain the talk on this board right after the V2025 vote about whether or not the arena should go near the Blue Dome District.) What happened in Blue Dome and Brady in the early '00s is the same dynamic that revived Brookside and Cherry Street in the late '80s and early '90s, helped along by the telecom boom.

Gold, I've been downtown at least one evening a week for nearly twenty years; over the last three years it's been four nights a week. I've spent plenty of time and money in these new businesses in renovated old buildings, and I've watched as the Blue Dome and Brady began to take off. It bothers me when someone seems to give all the credit to a massive public works project and by implication denigrates the hard work and individual initiative represented by these small businesses.

Great, I'd glad you come down.  I've been several BOK events now and every time, the restaurants and business are doing some serious business.  They certainly have benefited from the project and many no doubt made their investment in part on the thought downtown might grow, in part as a result of the BOK.  So, I'm not sure how you can't say there hasn't been economic development since.

 Whether or not anyone, unfortunately, exaggerated or not... I still think it VERY important to downtowns revitalization that we built a new arena and are building the ballpark.

Both will help greatly, and our downtown needed a great amount of help. We still have a ways to go and my next concern is for more and more living to open up downtown and in the immediate downtown areas.

Our downtown has a long ways to go before its that vibrant, urban district and urban village, we hope it will become. There is still not a critical mass of things to do and see around the Blue Dome and Brady arts and even years from now there arent likely to be. Sure the trend would have been for redevelopment without either the arena or ballpark. But at an even slower and more unsure rate, (while we watch Jenks boom) for even with these big things helping, progress is slow and every day, week, month, year that we arent where we need to be "critical mass",,, is lost opportunity and growth. (another lost or torn down building because of lack of interest). We are still behind and not to the place we need to be.

One could say our "interest rate"  would have been lower and thus compounding more slowly. Each thing is adding to our "interest rate" and thus the compounding is happening faster. Though still painfully slow imo lol. But I can only imagine how slow it would be otherwise.

Did they exaggerate? Perhaps, but perhaps they needed to, to get things passed and done. For I still think it was and is critically important even if the rate of return wasnt as fast as promised, its still a faster return than we would be getting otherwise.  Without them we would definitely still be teetering on the edge of eternal mediocrity and small businesses struggling to survive. Some would argue we still are. But these things have at least given us a much needed spark of "hope for grander things".  


Its not gonna be long before Jenks starts looking really nice. Its sad to consider the possiblility of a suburb beating us out on having a more urban/happening thing. But thats the way it is. Each of these BIG things we have will still keep us the big dog while we play catch up with the downtown demographics and rooftops. Jenks has the demographics and rooftops, and is pulling in urban type developments. We are working from the other vantage point of getting the big urban, destinations while also trying to get more rooftops then retail.  We poo poo the suburbs and how unpedestrian friendly and unurban they are. I rue the day when Jenks could possibly be more urban, lively, and pedestrian friendly than downtown Tulsa. I dont think that will happen, BUT it would have been a more likely possibility without the Arena and the Ballpark speeding things up for us.

Btw, I think that the Atlas Life hotel was likely a direct result of the Arena. And I still think we will see a new hotel by the arena, and the ballpark.

The latest Tulsa World article:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090410_16_A1_TulsaC773149

My prediction......  It's going to get thrown out in court.  The whole thing.  Then the city will come back and claim 'we' are obligated to pay since 'we' are under contract to build the stadium.  Then, everyone's property taxes go up to pay.

My other extreme displeasure.....  don't you love how this was sold as a $25M assessment, but according to the Tulsa World, will generate more then $64M is fees over the life of the assessment?  A mere 157% more then advertised!  Who is lying to who?  Where was the city council who passed this thing?  A sham all the way around. 

The assessments (fees) are $25 million for the Ballpark and the remainder for the downtown improvement (replacing the unfair and underfunded current method).

From the Tulsa World.  I underlined and bolded the ballpark fee:

About the assessment district

    * A 30-year annual fee on property within the downtown Inner Dispersal Loop

    * Current total square footage in land and building— 49,744,309

    * Fee per square footage —6.5 cents

    * Total annual assessment at 100 percent collection —$3,233,380

    * Of the fee, 4.3 cents will fund principal and interest on $25 million bond for ballpark—$2,139,005

    * The remaining 2.2 cents will fund current downtown services and other expenses — $1,094,375

    * The ballpark portion of the assessment over 30 years is $64,170,150

    * The 2.2 cent portion is subject to annual hikes based on inflation to a maximum 4 percent cap

Source: City Finance Department

My attorney is one of many who are filing suit against the city over the raising of property taxes to pay for the new park.  And I agree with the suit, because the taxes are being raised on property to pay for something that they knew the city would vote against a tax increase to pay for.  Sorry, but something is a bit shadey here if you ask me, but you didn't so I guess it's neither here nor there.

The mayor and others were pressured to come up with an alternative funding strategy.  They did.  And now because it's different and some cantankerous wingnuts allege it is illegal, some assume it to be.   :-[

Pressured by who (other then the Drillers who are only looking out for themselves)?

Different?  157% different is more then just a couple bucks off.  That simply gives fuel to the folks who will contest this. 

I think you're dead on. I agree totally.
However, how it transitions to a city-wide Ad Valorem increase is key. I don't know, but wonder if the Sinking Fund can be used this way. Doubt it. And, if true, represents another un-voted tax increase. I'm thinking if it comes to that, it's going to require a vote.

As usual, it's never so much what's being done as much as it is how it's being done.

If downtown demographics and demand were there then we would see cranes in the air. Interest rates are the best ever.

Build it and they will come was so hollywood.

Pressured by voters, the City Council, and other commentators.  Don't pretend you didn't hear people complain about another sales tax initiative.  KT talked about this numerous times and delivered a proposal that the City Council thought was appropriate.

Still, it's important to acknowledge that some property owners in the IDL are being subjected to a massive new levy because of Stadium District.  Frankly I'm not sure how I feel about TRMC owing so much while OSU-Tulsa gets off completely even though it's just across the highway. 

It had to get funded somehow, and it was good to avoid a vote.  But there's no reason to turn a blind eye to the shortcomings in the revenue plan or the obvious, transparent benefits to BOK.

Recycle, you're facts are incorrect.  The $25 million bond and the resulting $64 million total assessment over the 30 years is derived from the 4.3 cents/sf solely for the construction of the ballpark. 

The 2.2 cent/sf remainder is for the services portion which encompasses the $1.1 million/year estimated to provide those services.  THIS IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE $64 MILLION. 

As stated in my previous post, the generation of the $64 million is to retire the debt service of funding the $25 million bond for construction.  Including the $30 million pledged in 'donations', that leaves approximately $26.5 million for purchase and re-development of surrounding lands and operations expenses of the public portion of the facility.

Pretty sure I addressed all this in my last post.

And to clarify, NO..I am not a supporter of Mayor Kathy Taylor, I did vote for her in the last election hoping for change from the status quo but I will not vote for her again and will encourage anyone I know not to either.  But that is my right just as your support of her is yours.

Now would be a good time for all of the supporters in this blog to alleviate the burden of the downtown IDL small business and property owners and pledge an annual contribution for the next 30 years.  Perhaps if the members that are so adamant that this is fair and constitutional begin that effort to show their unwavering support of this, everyone else will fall in line and do the same.

Massive? Really?

You need to go back and look at some of the calculations in this thread.

It's 4.4 cents per square foot, per year. Cents, a year.

Swake...I'm not sure what your definition of massive is but if going from $100/year in BID assessment to well over $6,000/year is not a massive increase, then I don't know what is.  That is a 6000% increase.  Many of the businesses within the IDL are small.  Many have owned their properties for years (in some cases from last night's meeting its been over 30 years), some free and clear and some not.  In some cases the assessment is greater than the assessed 'property' tax imposed annually.  Many small business can not simply absorb the cost of this assessment.  Many may be forced to close. 

By placing this undue burden on the small business, the City and Stadium Trust are essentially kicking the little guy that has kept downtown alive all these years when no one else was.

And to clarify for all those that are mistaking it...the BID Assessment is not the same as the Assessed Property Tax.

Thanks for correcting my math. I was confused and readily admit it.

I still don't think it is a lot of money. $64 million over 30 years and spread out over the largest buildings and some of the most valuable land makes it palatable to me. To others, one penny more is a crime.

The business improvement district funding is also a better and fairer formula for assessment. If the guy who paid $100 a year ever saw his street swept, I would be surprised. Now, since he is paying more, he will receive better service.

I am willing to pay a little more for a better community. It sounds like most of the people ( by size, not number)who are paying this new assessment agree with me. There are always those who will grumble and complain and think life is unfair. I hope to tell them all I told you so when downtown springs back to life.

So do you.  (btw it's 6.5 cents.)

I don't think anyone is served by pretending it's a minimal burden.  Certain property owners in the IDL are being subject to, in some cases, a great big new tax.  I'm not accusing anybody of anything, nor even saying it's unfair, but to act like the assessment is not a burden on some is to ignore certain realities.

Still fired up about the ballpark. 

By all means, don't allow tax payers to vote on a tax increase.  It would be a disaster!

Well Michael, it may not be a crime but unconstitutional perhaps to say the least, but thats for a court soon to decide.  The fact that this has been created and will put a burden not on just the IDL property owners for one cent or more but also every taxpaying resident of the state that will not receive a direct and proportional benefit from the assessment is (as far as my understanding of the statute reads) unconstitutional.  This is the very basis of the case before the District Court.  The failure or lack of the proponents of this assessment to request summary judgement or dismissal in the matter lends credibility to the argument.  You would have to be naive to reason differently.

Remember this assessment was billed by donors, proponents and the Mayor not to cost property owners outside the IDL one cent...that is simply false.  Exactly how much street sweeping can $6,000/year buy?  How about some of the property owners that have several properties within the same small area, say a square block or two and now have to pony up $84,000/year?  Thats a lot of street sweeping.  Those property owners may not have cared if their streets ever got swept, just like the rest of Tulsa hasn't since they haven't deemed a need to vote and tax themselves for the service.

Michael, there was just an article in the Tulsa World regarding the budget shortfall for the M.E.T. as a result of the economy...if you are a downtown property owner through the M.E.T. how does this impact your bottom line?  Will you be struggling to make ends meet?  As an entity do you have that extra $6,000 or $84,000/year?  If you had to pay that could you hire another employee?  Could you get that new truck you need?  Could you pass on those costs to your customers?  Can you demand your buyers pay you more?  If you are already struggling under a budget, I can't imagine this helps does it?  Now, you are an employee of the M.E.T., so maybe this doesnt impact you out of your pocket per se...but put yourself in the shoes of other small IDL business owners in the same predicament when it comes to budget, revenue and expenses.

We are trying to encourage investment and redevelopment of the downtown area and have now saddled a burdensome assessment on any property within that area.  We should be encouraging them through tax and financial incentives, not penalizing them before they even purchase or open the doors.  What sense at all does that make?

The assessment is not being only applied to the largest buildings and most valuable lands Michael.  This assessment is being applied to all lands within the IDL, some of which haven't seen services or investment in decades, others are home to small businesses that probably can not pass on the assessments and remain competitive, many have been marketed for years with no takers (case in point the Fields building at 8th & IDL overpass)...think that is going to move any faster with a burdensome assessment attached to it?

Michael, you further state that most of the people (by size and not number) agree with you in spending money on making a better community, I don't argue the merits of that desire but will argue that in terms of using the ballpark assessment to do it, you could be wrong - but then again neither you nor I know for certain.  Thats the great thing about a vote, its concrete, its defined - but there was no vote.  The largest property owners downtown are the City, County, State, Williams Cos, religious organizations and Kanbar properties given the size of its portfolio.  I may have left out a few but the smaller property owners (many of whom voiced their disproval last night) together make up a considerable amount of square footage.  I'm note sure you can count Williams without conflict arising since they are a donor.  Kanbar is sizable but that is one entity that can write off more than his assessment expense in any given year over the multitude of interests he has.  The County and State, both, do not agree with you on the ballpark assessment, the services assessment yes, but not the ballpark.  Religious organizations are exempt.  

By your rationale (and again please correct me if Im wrong), only the few are needed to make decisions for the whole?  Thats why the local electorate isnt based on land ownership and its size but by the person so as to make it where the wealthy and powerful have no more voice than the average citizens, but this bypassed that.

Again, I would applaud the donors for their desire to help invigorate downtown and its future if they'd have donated the $30 million, built a $30 million ballpark with lands provided by TDA at little or no cost for the ballpark only and given it a tax abatement to the sales generated from it for 30 years instead.  The cost of such an abatement may (since no one can tell the future) have been far outweighed by the sales and ad valorem taxes generated by surrounding development that was desired to take place around the ballpark by private developers without the burdensome cost to taxpayers, isnt that the whole reason behind this?  Not to provide you all with a seat to watch a game, but encourage other growth and development in the area.  

This ballpark lies just outside the Brady TIF, why not have encompassed it and used TIF financing to build the ballpark if in fact its development does what the City and donors have promised which is to encourage further redevelopment?

Where is the altruistic and truly philanthropic donations from these donors that doesn't put a burden on the taxpayer?  Why are the public taxpayer generated funds being utilized at interest expense to construct the ballpark and not the donor's funds first til exhaustion?  

You just think that the assessment is burdensome and I think the improvements will outweigh them in revitalizing downtown. I think changes will also increase the4 value of many downtown properties.

Yes, there will be new charges. I hope they also will lead to better services for those being charged.

I saw concert-goers a mile away from the event center tonight. The ballpark will have a similar effect on bringing people downtown.

Well in that case Michael, its a shame the law isn't defined by "thoughts" and "hopes" or we might all be happy.  We could all hope the cranes go up tomorrow for immense new construction, we could hope property values increase well beyond what they did in California, hope that every empty building space gets flooded with tenants and waiting lists are the norm, hope that every restaurant is filled to capacity and a line out the door with a 4 hour wait and that would satisy the law entirely for the portion that each and every assessment payer be provided a direct benefit.  Oh wait, sadly thats not the case.

Forget addressing any of the points or arguments I made above. 

But just to prove the law doesnt allow for "thoughts" and hopes," I'll list it for you here.  Please show me where in here it lists "hopes" and "thoughts" as criteria for an assessment.

Section 39 101.  This act may be cited as the Improvement District Act.
 Laws 1978, c. 233, § 1, emerg. eff. April 25, 1978. 
§11-39-102.  Definitions.
As used in the Improvement District Act, the singular includes the plural and:
1.  “Acquired” means the acquisition of property or interests in property by purchase, gift, condemnation or other lawful means;
2.  “City” means any city or town incorporated pursuant to the laws of Oklahoma;
3.  “Engineer” means a city engineer, city official, employee or other person competent to advise and assist the governing body in planning and making an improvement;
4.  “Cost” means any cost necessarily or reasonably incurred in making the improvement, including but not limited to cost of:
a.   preparation of preliminary reports,
b.   preparation of plans and specifications,
c.   preparation and publication of notices of hearings, resolutions, ordinances and other proceedings,
d.   fees and expenses for engineers, attorneys, laborers and other personal services,
e.   rights-of-way, materials and other lawful expenses incurred in making any improvement, and
f.   capitalized interest, funding of reserves, premiums for reserve surety bonds, and obtaining bond insurance, letters of credit or other credit enhancements or liquidity instruments;
5.  “District” means an area designated by the governing body to be benefited by an improvement and subjected to payment of special assessments for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement;
6.  “Governing body” means the city council, city commission or board of trustees of an incorporated city or town;
7.  “Improve” means to construct, reconstruct, maintain, restore, replace, renew, repair, install, equip, extend, purchase, alter or otherwise perform any work which provides a new facility, or enhances, extends or restores the value or usefulness of an existing facility;
8.  “Improvement” means any type of improvement made by authority of this Improvement District Act and includes reimprovement of any prior improvement made pursuant to any other act;
9.  “Mail” means by first-class mail;
10.  “Trustee” means a city acting pursuant to this act;
11.  “Street” means any highway, street, alley, boulevard, avenue, right-of-way, public ground, or other public facility, or any part thereof; and
12.  “Publish” or “publication” means printing in a newspaper which maintains an office in the city or town and is of general circulation within the city or town, or, if there is no newspaper which maintains an office in the city or town, a newspaper of general circulation within the city or town and in two (2) separate issues thereof, at least seven (7) days apart.
 Laws 1978, c. 233, § 2, emerg. eff. April 25, 1978.  Amended by Laws 2007, c. 362, § 4, eff. Nov. 1, 2007.
 
§11-39-103.  Creation of improvement districts - Purpose - Contents.
The governing body of any city may create one or more districts for the purpose of making or causing to be made any improvement or combination of improvements that confer special benefit upon property within the district.  Such improvement or combination of improvements may include the following, without limitation because of enumeration:
1.  Acquisition of property or interest in property when necessary for any of the purposes authorized by the Improvement District Act;
2.  Opening, creating, widening and extending or altering of streets to improve paving, and surfacing, constructing and reconstructing gutters, curbs, sidewalks, crosswalks, driveway entrances and structures, drainage facilities, and service connections from sewers, water, gas, electricity and other utility mains, conduits or pipes;
3.  Constructing or improving main and lateral storm water drains and sanitary sewer systems and facilities;
4.  Installation or improvement of street lights and street lighting systems;
5.  Construction or improvement of water mains and waterworks systems;
6.  Improvement (See Definition above) of parks, playgrounds and recreational facilities;
7.  Improvement of any street, parking or other facility by landscaping, or planting of trees, shrubs and other plants;
8.  Constructing or improving dikes, levees and other flood control works, gates, lift stations, bridges and streets appurtenant thereto;
9.  Constructing or improving vehicle and pedestrian bridges, overpasses and tunnels;
10.  Constructing or improving retaining walls and area walls on public ways or land abutting thereon;
11.  Constructing or improving property for off-street parking facilities, including construction and equipment of buildings thereon;
12.  Constructing or improving pedestrian malls; or
13.  Constructing or improving offsite facilities or infrastructure serving all or a portion of land within a district; notwithstanding that, such facilities or infrastructure may also serve areas outside a district, but subject to cost apportionment requirements of subsection A of Section 39-110 of this title.
 Added by Laws 1978, c. 233, § 3, emerg. eff. April 25, 1978.  Amended by Laws 2007, c. 362, § 5, eff. Nov. 1, 2007.
 
§11-39-103.1.  Additional improvement districts - Assessments - Objections - Termination.
A.  In addition to those purposes set out in Section 39-103 of this title, the governing body of any municipality having a population of more than one thousand five hundred (1,500) may create one or more districts and levy assessments for the purpose of providing or causing to be provided any maintenance, cleaning, security, shuttle service, upkeep, marketing, management or other services which confer special benefits upon property within the district by preserving, enhancing or extending the value or usefulness of any improvement described in Section 39-103 of this title, whether or not the improvement was financed or constructed pursuant to this act and such governing body may exclude or modify such assessments according to benefits received on properties which are exempt from ad valorem taxation, except those assessments provided for by Section 39-103 of this title.  In addition, such districts may also be used to fund maintenance, management, marketing and other services being provided through an active Main Street Program recognized as such by the Oklahoma Department of Commerce.  General street repair and maintenance on any street used by vehicular traffic shall not be made a part of any assessments provided for hereunder.
B.  If the governing body determines that it is desirable to continue to provide or cause to be provided the improvements and services authorized by this section, the governing body shall annually prepare and cause to be filed in the office of the municipal clerk an assessment roll containing, among other things:
1.  The name and address of the last-known owner of each tract or parcel of land to be assessed, or if the name of the owner is unknown, state "unknown".  The name and address of the owner of each tract of land shall be obtained from the records of the county treasurer;
2.  A description of the tract or parcel of land to be assessed; and
3.  The amount of the assessment against each tract or parcel of land.
If after filing the assessment roll, it appears that the amount of the assessment against any tract or parcel of land shall be increased, the governing body shall by resolution set a time and place for the assessment hearing at which an owner may object to the amount of the assessment.
C.  Not more than thirty (30) days nor less than ten (10) days before the day of the hearing, the municipal clerk, the deputy municipal clerk or the engineer shall mail the notice of the hearing on the assessment roll to the owner of the tract or parcel of land on which the amount of assessment is increased.  Proof of the mailing is to be made by affidavit by the municipal clerk, the deputy municipal clerk or the engineer, which shall be filed in the office of the municipal clerk.  Failure of the owner to receive any notice shall not invalidate any of the proceedings authorized in the Improvement District Act.  Notice of the hearing shall also be published.  The last publication shall be at least seven (7) days prior to the day of the hearing.  Such service by publication shall be verified by an affidavit of the publisher which is to be filed in the office of the municipal clerk.
D.  No district created under this section shall continue beyond the date that final payment of all principal, interest and other amounts due in connection with bonds issued by that district has been made, or if no bonds have been issued by the district, beyond the date that is thirty (30) years after the adoption of the resolution creating the district, unless re-created as provided in Section 39-101 et seq. of this title for creation of districts.  Provided that, at any time after its creation, and provided further that, no bonds or other financial obligations of a district are then outstanding, the district shall cease to exist if:
1.  The governing body by resolution terminates the district; or
2.  The owners of a majority in area of the tracts or parcels of land within the district and a majority of the owners of record of property within the district petition in writing to terminate the district.
Such termination shall take effect at the end of the fiscal year in which the governing body adopts such resolution or determines the validity of such petition.  Nothing herein shall excuse a tract or parcel of land from its liability for deferred payments or any assessment.
 Added by Laws 1981, c. 139, § 1, emerg. eff. May 5, 1981.  Amended by Laws 1983, c. 154, § 1, emerg. eff. May 26, 1983; Laws 1988, c. 152, § 4, eff. Nov. 1, 1988; Laws 1998, c. 30, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 1998; Laws 2007, c. 362, § 6, eff. Nov. 1, 2007.

The law allows for the "Improvement" of parks, playgrounds and recreational facilities...not their creation.  There was no established or existing park, playground or recreational facility to be found on the parcel under development. 

Furthermore, any improvement or combination of improvements must confer special benefit upon property within the district.

What special benefit is confered upon the County and State owned lands?  What special benefit is confered to the property owners that is quantifiable and not speculative?  And sorry to disappoint but increased property value is speculative.

In lieu of finding a similar OK AG opinion (perhaps there is one out there) I offer the following:
Florida AGO 98-57
In evaluating whether a "special benefit" is conferred to property by the services (or one could argue Improvement) for which the assessment is imposed, the test is not whether the services confer a "unique" benefit or are different in type or degree from the benefit provided to the community as a whole; rather, the test is whether there is a "logical relationship" between the services (or Improvement) provided and the benefit to real property (within the district). 

An example of which is:  A lot parcel derives a "special benefit" from the construction of a sewer and its ability to connect to it.

The law does however allow for the creation of the improvement district for the services portion and allows the levy of assessments for the purpose of providing or causing to be provided any maintenance, cleaning, security, shuttle service, upkeep, marketing, management or other services which confer special benefits upon property within the district by preserving, enhancing or extending the value or usefulness of any improvement.

More simply put Michael, its not what you or I "think."  It is what is legally allowable under the law and here it seems very, very stretched and weighing more and more to the side that has brought the action.  Never know, you might get your chance to pony up bigger bucks for that seat yet.

Do you really expect me to answer each and every one of the questions you ask?

Take this barrage..."if you are a downtown property owner through the M.E.T. how does this impact your bottom line?  Will you be struggling to make ends meet?  As an entity do you have that extra $6,000 or $84,000/year?  If you had to pay that could you hire another employee?  Could you get that new truck you need?  Could you pass on those costs to your customers?  Can you demand your buyers pay you more?"

Do you really expect me to answer each of these?

This forum is a conversation. You don't win anything by trying to ask me barely related questions and then berating me for not answering.

 Waaaaa  :'(

If I didnt believe that the ballpark would help downtown and the city, I would be right there with you smelling out any rat. Do I think this whole mess could have been done better. Yes. Who knows what their thinking was. I think they were a little frantic and so focused on just getting this ballpark going and probably isolated in their clique, that they lost the opportunity to see other options. We have watched so many times as previous things have fallen through and not happened. Hindsight is 20/20, but I think they were probably worried that getting the ballpark in downtown would be another opportunity that fell through if they didnt, push hard, keep focused on it and make it happen in whatever creative manner they could. Its that "creativity" and searching out any possible avenue that can get you into trouble. Especially if your in a limited circle of people saying, "yes, it can be done" and others crossing their fingers and not questioning too hard.

I wish the city could have made zoning changes around the ballpark that would have in effect ensured the creation of  the right kind of pedestrian friendly development around it. Then let the donors give to build most of the ballpark and added a much much smaller amount to any downtown tax so it wasnt completely a donated thing and the public did have some responsible share of input. But here we are.

Btw, have read what you posted above about the Improvement District Act and dont see where you see that something has been violated. Especially with the things you have highlighted. Seems to prove that what they are doing is ok?

Really?

Is there like a scorecard for the judge to show how your side is winning?

Michael, I'm not here to win points or karma.  That is all irrelevant much like your tired dissertation of "I think its good" which neither defends nor counters any points I have made here. 

You can’t counter a single point effectively can you?  Therefore you have to attack who I am or what my intentions may be...funny.  I am an individual with an interest in seeing downtown/all of Tulsa grow and become what so many on here seem to think it can be.  But I am also someone who believes in the system the way it was intended, not the way it’s being utilized - open, transparent and responsible for the representation of the community as a whole, not just the elite few and their plans and opinions.  I am a person that spends my time researching and reading what is behind the information being fed to me so that I can be independently informed and able to form my own thought and opinion and express them.  I refuse to accept the status quo…I refuse to be blindly led like a sheep.  Can you say the same? 

If so, attempt to counter the points and arguments made here with thought provoking rhetoric.  Attempt to get me to see your side with new information…but just dismissing it out of hand without an attempt to counter lends little to your ability to effectively demonstrate a point of your own that hasn’t been created and fed to you to regurgitate.

Discussion involves much more than using that same tired rhetoric over and over...it involves engaging the topic and countering with opinion and thoughts of your own as related to the material at hand, in this case my posting of the Oklahoma statute governing the assessment and its creation and my opinions as to such.  Try formulating an informed opinion of your own and using it in discussion to counter mine.  Anything short of that is simple regurgitation of what you have been fed and beleive to be gospel by those that support this.  Counter how under the law you believe it is valid. 

Above all, stand up and counter even one point I have made in my post above.  You seem to be very effective at deflecting the points, now try to answer them.

Artist, I'm surprised with you...I believed you to be the more level headed, ask all questions, get the answers kinda guy.  I've never said I dont think the ballpark is a great idea for downtown...but I do question the means and the legal validity by which the ballpark is being funded and the burden it is putting on downtown small business and property owners.  Just because you think its a good idea, along with Michael, doesn't mean its legal and valid.  I think we can all agree its a good idea, but we dont agree on the process or means.

Law is of course open to interpretation, but the language of this law seems pretty straight forward and specific.  If you can't see that then we have an agreement to fundamentally disagree.  If and when the courts decide on the action before them, I suppose we will know which of us is right.

BTW Michael, my questions that you reposted were anything but barely related.  They point to the heart of the matter and ask you to put yourself in the same position of the downtown property owners..but good attempt at deflecting yet again and not providing any further insight into your stance on the issue.

But let me fill it in for you.  Based on the story posted in the Tulsa World (and that you were interviewed for) the M.E.T. will not have the financial capability, based on today's budgetary figures to pay for its share of the downtown assessment without significantly altering its operational model; making cuts in personnel and services.  Of course thats unless a philanthropic entity steps in, the municipalties up their subsidies or the economy rebounds and brings pricing levels back to last year's figures...all remedies that may not be available to the downtown IDL small business/property owner.

According to that same story you stated: "We're still not out of the woods yet. The prices are starting to go back up, but if they plummet again, we'll be in danger."   You don't think the increased assessment at the levels being indicated could put other businesses and property owners "in danger?"

Let's stay on the topic of the downtown business improvement district and not my business. It is unfair for you to discuss me when you refuse to let us know who you are.

You say it is ..."weighing more and more to the side that has brought the action." 

How? Have the arguments been heard?

If you base "winning" on the total number of words written, you are going to go undefeated.

Danger? Hyperbole much?

I can't speak for all the properties. The assessment on my downtown warehouse is going up $20 a month.

Again, since I dont see where your coming from with your saying something was done illegally, we indeed will have to wait or argue on those points.

Is this an additional burden on property owners downtown? Sure. Would I rather it have not been? Sure. But I also see how it can be a benefit to a great number of people there as well. Speculative that benefit may be, but come on....?  After all you also say the ballpark is a great idea for downtown and presumably its because of the benefits it will bring to downtown.

Questioning the means of how we got this ballpark can essentially be divided into 2 different categories. Was it legal? Was this the best and most appropriate way? (and then there may be a fuzzy line in between)

The first question we have already talked about.

The second question is where I have my doubts and didnt like the way things were done. Again, would rather have had the donors pay the greater sum of just building the ballpark and a much smaller tax (assuming again the tax is legal), and zone to assure proper development around it, not purchase the property to assure proper development. Were things played fast and crudely to get this ballpark done? Looks that way on many fronts. I railed loudly against them pushing out the people who wanted to build the lofts/retail and hotel by the ballpark. But, I can also see where they were coming from.

This whole "game" has shifted and morphed so many times I have lost track of the details lol. From my perspective, as you can see, I dont feel the fire on these issues as you do. Certainly not going to hamper your opinions and actually encourage you to find out what you can and push for what you think is right. Let the law resolve the legal issues, and on the other concerns,,,, I just dont feel the way you do right now. Facts may arise which may reinforce either of our positions in the future. Time will tell as they say.

If it becomes a question of law, I think Downtnr makes very good points and probably prevails. This is not the improvement of a district, this is creation of a district. If it is a case of pragamatism he would lose. The administration and the downtown movers saw us possibly losing our local team to the suburbs. They would be criticized either way so they went with the dubious method of funding as Artist points out. The case will be judged on law though.

Artist, the reason it wasn't funded the way you preferred is that it would have been a risk with little reward for the donors. Sports venues are not very good investments for communities and serve primarily as an advertising/PR benefit for businesses. Unfortunately the economy doesn't favor that type of private investment right now. The way it ended up, the risk is low for the donors and government backs the investment....all without a vote of the people...but presumably for the good of the people. So, credit them with good intentions and making the best choice out of a lot of poor choices.

The whole process sucks but if it goes to court they have a good case, imo of course. My preference, good socialist that I am,  is that it be put to a vote of the people and the cost spread among us all. If the Tulsa citizens want baseball and the owners can't make it on their own, then we decide their fate. Not a small group of sports enthusiasts and local insiders.

Artist and Waterboy, thank you for making very good arguments, particularly you Waterboy.  That's the point of all this, make points and argue them for discussions sake to account for many views.  I'm glad to see Waterboy address the legal issue of the matter and not just what is good, best and desired becuase I would say all of us in here want that to some degree.  My comments and issues are not that a ballpark is being built, never has been...but has always been about how and the resulting issues that could stem from it.


Again Artist, the law does not allow for "speculation" as a defined special benefit to the property owners of the assessed district.  If you wanted to argue speculation: while one camp says property values will increase, another camp can argue they they will decrease as a result of a higher tax/assessment burden placed on that parcel of property, thus making it harder to sell and perhaps not within the range of fair market value to produce a sale.

RecycleMichael:

Me, hyperbole much?  Not at all, but your comment is funny...those were your own words from the Tulsa World article.

M.E.T. faces a revenue gap

Patton said he's working hard to come up with the money needed so that he doesn't have to cut back on the 11 recycling drop-off sites — five of which are in Tulsa — special events, public education programs or employees. A 12th collection site is set to open later this month in Coweta.

"Now that Tulsa has stepped forward, there's a sigh of relief," he said. "We're still not out of the woods yet. The prices are starting to go back up, but if they plummet again, we'll be in danger."

Michael,

I am staying on topic, you have yet to find or counter one point I've made in the topic.

My utilizing the MET as an example serves many purposes.  The MET is a downtown property owner, non-exempt from the BID assessment.  And I'm sorry to say, as a Public Trust, the MET is fair game to public scrutiny just as the city government.  As a Public body, the MET is all the more entitled to public scrutiny and in this case, questions, since you seem to wear both hats in this forum. 

There's nothing wrong with using the MET and its current financial situation to demonstrate a point effectively and that you could/should be able to relate to.  There should be no reason not to address my points using the MET, unless of course you feel they invalidate your argument here?


The petition was filed before the Courts several months ago.  To date, and after entering on the proponents behalf, neither the City nor Fred Dorwart (proponent lawyer that stepped in) have moved to ask the judge for summary dismissal of the case on the grounds that it has no merit before the court. 

In fact, since you are a man about downtown, find Kent Morlan, the property owner's attorney...he has stated that he pushed the City and Dorwart for enter for summary judgement on the merits but they refused. 

Its not rocket science to deduce that if the case brought before the courts did not have some legal standing, the proponents would have moved to get it tossed out already, so backlash such as this would not be happening.  But thats not the case here, the matter is still moving forward...in my mind, thats a winning edge.

How would you counter that claim?

Here's just some of the properties:

Brix Furniture - From $100/year to $6,346/year or $528.83/mo (Thats a nice car payment on a very nice car)

Oklahoma State Complex - From $5,700/year to $50,000/year or $4166.66/mo (great salary for another downtown employee)

OSU Medical - From $550/year to $84,000/year or $7,000/mo (two additional staff, expanded facilities, new equipment, etc)

Tulsa County - From $14,811/year to $154,660/year or $12,888.33/mo (three good salaries or improved infrastructure, vehicles, property tax decrease, etc)

The County also makes a very good argument against the assessment, outside of the services, in this article:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=65&articleid=20090326_65_A13_Forthe476693&archive=yes

I asked you to not use my company when arguing with me while you stay anonymous.

Tell us who you are or please refrain from using the M.e.t. to make your points.

I don't think that is too much to ask.

 :D

I agree.   ("+1" seems too much like "dittos" on Rush's radio show.)

Why is anonymity an issue? Michael chose to make his identity public from the outset and knew it opened the door to criticizm and praise. He has received both. When he was interviewed as part of the downtown assessment district it made his views even more important and open to questions. Were he not located downtown it might be different. I have faith he can handle himself adequately.

Not knowing who Downtnr is becomes a matter of curiosity but it doesn't affect his arguments.

After reading all these figures on the final cost of having a ball park down town and the projection of how it will increase the viability of enlarging the value of downtown property I recall an address to the old commission by the attorney for the airport authority on issuing revenue bonds for improvements of the AA facility.  He informed the commissioners that the city would not be responsible for the bonds but if the bonds were to default, if the city did not pay them off then their credit rating would be reduced.

My question is “Why has the city’s credit rating been lowered?”  Is it because in the background there is a rumor that the city is overextending its capability to pay off all these revenue bonds, that are being issued?

The TW has an article that the stimulus money allotted Tulsa will be used on the inter loop bypass that was built to take the through traffic out of the downtown.   Will those people loosing their job and houses be pleased with this usage of the monies appropriated for stabilization of the local  economy when most of the jobs will go to out of town or out of country workers?

A little more than a decade ago the down town was converted to an office complex at which time much of the retail market left.   Those who moved their offices to the downtown section now face a new taxing structure.  If the current plans are to turn the downtown into a recreational area how will this justify their use of downtown office space?    Will the Texas coast get more office workers?

Does any of the downtown elite have the answers? 

Please forgive for coming late to this dance - too many posts in this thread to read every word but is the BOK mentioned previously the same BOK that received seven million dollars from the city to settle a lawsuit to which the city was not a party at the time? And wasn't the city council rushed into that approval also? Would this also be the BOK whose name adorns the rust-stained duct-tape arena? And the same BOK who had Kathy Taylor as a board member just prior to her promotion to Queen of Tulsa?
Just wonderin'...

Are you talking about that same arena that has been booked over half the time since opening in September?  The 'duct tape' reference is so six-months ago.  Get current.

Just wonderin'...

Also, not rust.  Silicon.    The streaks on the BOk center are dirt collected on silicon seeping from the window seems.  It is fairly normal for new construction but highlighted on the Bok Center by the stainless steel and exacerbated by the slope of the walls.

But you raise a good point.  We need to be thankful for the rich and powerful in our community for what they do (ie. George Kaiser:  jobs, development, donations) but keep an out out for undue influence.    I stand by my assessment that this project needs to be watched closely:

Donations by BOk
Land owned by BOk
Financing by BOk

and who's on the oversight board?  Mostly people associated with BOk. 

I'm not calling shenanigans, but we need people to keep an eye open and to ensure the system is transparent.  As much of a pain in the donkey as that might be, it's better than more corruption and waste.

Thank you Waterboy for, IMO, a good comment.  But what is funny in all this is it would seem Michael has chosen to re-address this very same topic within another thread on this board.  I can't help but think it was to distance himself from the arguments, points and claims made in here since he wasn't able to counter.  Shame...that is what makes for good discussion.

In that other thread (and since I dont see the reason to clutter this forum with the same topic in another thread) I think something needs to be addressed that Sgrizzle stated.


Aside from missing the arguement entire on the legal basis and addressing that...The $64 million that has been discussed in here is not derived from the 2.2cents/square foot of assessment appportioned for IDL services.  It comes strictly from the 4.3cents/square foot apportioned for ballpark construction.  The 2.2 cents/square foot portion of the assessment does provide a "special benefit" to the IDL property owners.  But the 4.3cent/square foot does not.  They seem to mistake the two components being one and the same, they are not, IMO - court to decide. 

Regarding the BID Assessment and its coverage of the $25 million bond for the stadium that will incure 6.5% interest to the extent of tens of millions over the 30 years, I found the following funny.  It was posted in this last week's Urban Tulsa article by Mike Easterling:

Making Sausage - April 8, 2009
Woods' report at the April 3 Stadium Trust meeting indicated construction of the ballpark remains on schedule for completion by Feb. 28, 2010. A total of $4 million has been spent on construction so far, he said, and the $39 million project is about 2 percent, or $600,000, over budget. But Woods said several construction packages still need to be put out for bid, and he expects that difference to be made up easily.

"We fully expect to be able to achieve our budget," he said.

In the event construction costs are less than expected (apparently a very real possibility, given the state of the economy and the corresponding lack of activity in many building trades0, trust chairman Stanley Lybarger asked Woods to submit a list of possible ballpark enhancements to the group for discussion.

Why would the Trust not seek to limit the taxpayer liability and decrease the interest expense on a budget savings, reduce the debt earlier, simply save money if it comes under budget?  It seems they are happy and content to pay every last dime afforded under the proposed budget.  Don't the taxpayers deserve some fiduciary responsibility in the slightest to limit liability?

While that may be the facts of the matter, that is not how it's being reported. People are complaining because their tax is going from $1,000 to $13,000 which means they are including the 2.2c and 4.3c portions.


The design has had things added/removed repeatedly. If they can squeeze in automatic flushing toilets instead of manual, then do it.

Because I and many others would expect them to build as nice a ballpark as they can for the amount of money they have to spend. We want a ballpark. We want it done as best it can be within the budget.

Is there a smell of “Conflict of Interest” in issuing revenue bonds to circumvent the people right to vote on what once was know as “General Obligation Bonds” or has all this become the Tulsan way of life?  Is not the 30 year bonds to be passed on to the grandchildren that are not even conceived? 

No DirtClodNow...I am able to counter your bad arguments, but you have no clue how to make your point. You just ask dozens of inane questions, then expect any that are not addressed to be victories for you. You also claim you are winning the legal argument because the city didn't immediately try to dismiss the suit you filed. I am not a lawyer, but know that a  number of local attorneys disagree with you and trust the judge will as well.

I asked you to not use my business to make your points since we don't know who you are, yet you feel attacking me while remaining anonymous is OK. I am just no longer willing to engage you. I tried being polite and civil, you did not.

This forum ain't a court of law and your brow-beating style makes you not worthy of the discussion. I also noticed when others disagree with you, you claim that they "miss" the argument, as if they can't comprehend it.

You are a pompous fool. There...I have stooped to your level.

And it gets more interesting...

Tulsa city council seeks more info surrounding fee for stadium
by: P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
4/14/2009 2:41:53 PM

A majority of city councilors said on Tuesday that they want an attorney general’s opinion on several issues before they approve the assessment roll for the Tulsa Stadium Improvement District.

The roll will determine how much each property within the district will be charged yearly for downtown services and to help fund the construction of the downtown ballpark.

The council has asked that a resolution seeking the legal opinion be considered at its Thursday meeting.

Last summer, the council approved a new improvement district with a higher assessment rate to replace the current improvement district that is set to expire June 30.

The district includes properties within the Inner Dispersal Loop.

The higher assessment rate - 6.5 cents per square foot of land and structures - would last for 30 years. Of that amount, 2.2 cents will pay for services and 4.3 cents will fund a $25 million bond going toward the $39.2 million cost of the stadium.

Among the protesters who appeared before the council last week, Tulsa County and a state agency raised legal issues over the ballpark portion of the assessment.

One argument was whether the properties were receiving a benefit from the assessment that was proportionate to the rate.

“What would be wrong with the city of Tulsa, Tulsa County and the state going to the Oklahoma attorney general and asking for an opinion on whether this thing works or not,” Councilor Bill Martinson said about the assessment.

Councilor Rick Westcott said the council is facing conflicting legal opinions from the city, county and state on what the council can and cannot do.

“If the council moves forward and approves the assessment roll, there will be lawsuits filed and nobody can predict the outcome of the lawsuits but I think they have merit,” he said.

Westcott said it might be beneficial to resolve the issues as much as possible with an attorney general’s opinion “and hopefully head off a lot of the cost of litigation.”

Senior Assistant Attorney Linda Redemann said she doesn’t think an attorney general’s opinion would head off any lawsuits.

Charlie Price, spokesman for the Attorney General’s Office said an opinion can only be requested by statewide elected officials, state legislators, directors of state agencies, boards or commissions, and district attorneys.

Just to answer one if Michael's false assumptions, comments, accusations, etc...I am not a party to the lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of several downtown property owners.    I believe I already answered this before it was even asked in one of my recent posts.  I just happen to be informed and not a stranger to the District Court files that I take an interest in.

I am not a lawyer but merely put forth the legal argument being used by those parties to the lawsuit for discussion and debate...two things I thought this "forum" was created to provide on a variety of topics and issues.

It would now seem that the Council, perhaps due to hindsight being what it is, is wanting to scrutinize this further to avoid legal ramifications based on the same arguments.

Darn...Maybe I should have gone to law school.

This, newly posted article, in the "World" would make this matter appear to be, in baseball lingo, at a full count...

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=298&articleid=20090416_298_0_OLHMIY78876

While this newest development will likely settle the County and State's issues with the ballpark portion of the assessment (if the Governor signs it)...it does not address the indivdual property owner's issues challenging the ballpark portion of the assessment.  That, I'm sure, will still move through the court...

The one thing this bill will do, however, is also make it so that even the 2.2cent/square foot portion of the assessment may not have to be paid by the County and State, which will put the services component into jeopardy as well.  The County and State are among the largest land owners in the IDL.

This "do it fast, push it on them, damn the consequences" fashion for financing and developing this ballpark is now taking on more serious tones at the state level it seems.

If the bill is signed, this will effectively take any future ability to assess and pay for downtown services and put it on its ear - other downtown property owners will be asked to foot a much larger bill for services which they will prolly say 'no' to in force. 

Before being pushed to pay for a ballpark that will not directly and proportionally benefit them, the State and County were happy to pay any assessment that provided services (under the old Main Mall assessment) within the IDL...now they wont even have to help pay that as a result of this bums rush effort.

Is this a good expample of cutting one's nose off to spite their face?

This latest development couldn't have happened to a better group of people...

Sales tax to make up shortfall in 3....2....

Am I daft or does 2009 HB-1424 not address this issue at all?


Engrossed copy can be found here:
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2009-10bills/HB/hb1424_engr.rtf

I see no mention of exempting any structures from any taxes.  I admit to not taking the time to read it critically, but one with think the general idea would come through.  If I overlooked something or there was a type (SB 1424?) left me know.  No time to really look into it at the moment, but prelim research leaves me confused.

I think I'll move to Owasso so I can vote against Brogdon.

The state complains about the feds messing in their world and then they try to pass a bill to mess with city matters.

That's the house version, which passed earlier.  The senate today (probably not online yet) added the language about the tax assesment.  I assume (I'm not up on the legislative process at the state level) that it will go to a joint committee for some compromise.

Why do you believe the government is responsible to provide you with entertainment?

What is the difference between government dollars building the arena or the performing arts center and government dollars building a baseball park?

Do you think arts supporters are more important than sports supporters?

They don't need to provide me with those entertainment venues either.  If it's such a sure money maker, let private business build it, pay for it, and reap the rewards for it.

We have much higher priorities in this city (or should).

We also were provided the right to vote for funding the Performing Arts Center and the Arena, not so with ballpark.

Not to mention the very narrow use of a baseball stadium vs the expansive uses of the Arena. I don't believe there was as big a problem with the Arena as V2025 was put to a public vote. Imagine if it had been funded the way the stadium is.

The baseball stadium will also be used for concerts and other events.

Let me know when they have a basketball tournament there, followed by a ice hockey game, then Bruce Springsteen and Celine Dion.

Seriously, there's not much they can do in the new stadium that they couldn't, and didn't do in the old one. Don't misunderstand me, I am glad we are keeping the Drillers. I am not happy with the way it happened. If you read my old posts I was willing to lose the Drillers if the general population did not support keeping them here. Jenks will swallow anything they think Tulsa wants and break rules to do so. That's just the nature of a small aggressive bedroom community. I believe if put to a vote with a small assessment fee from downtown owners, some donation money thrown in and matched to a small property tax, we would have voted to keep them here.

I like Taylor and how she has gotten stuff done, but this might not have been a very good fair idea. Nonetheless, it is what it is. At least the method of apportioning costs needs to be adjusted. I would also include the church property owners to be fair.

Let me know when the BOK Center has a soccer game, baseball, fireworks, or picks up one of the outdoor only tours that comes through (or should I say flies over).

Touche'. What is an outdoor only tour?

Many artists do summer tours at outdoor venues. Dave Matthews had an outdoor tour and stopped at bricktown ballpark a few years ago. Some artists do only ballpark/ampitheater tours (I believe Jimmy Buffett is one of them)

H2O.. you have to admit this keeps Ms Dexter and her colleagues busy and may very well be the best demonstration to date for the Mayor supporting so many in the legal profession.

For the curious (didn't see links to these):

Saturday 10/18 - Tulsa World Editors eviscerating (http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=61&articleid=20090418_61_A14_Mkomsa239403&archive=yes) Brogdon over the stadium.

Saturday 10/18 - Brogdon announces (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=298&articleid=20090418_298_0_ARepub194063&archive=yes) he's running for Governor

A mosaic.
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2009/Thumbs/20090418_web0418brogdon_package.jpg)(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2009/Thumbs/20090418_web0418brogdon_package.jpg)(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2009/Thumbs/20090418_web0418brogdon_package.jpg)
Caution: avoid prolonged eye contact.

Birds of a feather, eh?