The city has no business in the free enterprise world of real estate. FOTD continues to take the position that government should stay focused on citizen safety and insuring efficiency in government.
Guess we are starting to see why she is not running for re election.
Come on FOTD, we are going to save TONS of mney by buying a $70,000,000 building and letting the old structure rot away. TONS. Not too mention people are lined up wanting to develop the old city hall into a prison, or hotel, or something. And on top of that, we will free up tons of other city properties for development.
http://mobile.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx?articleID=20090826_11_A1_Tulsas936591&subjectID=local
Either that or we are spending an extra $1,000,000 a year for the privilege of having a new city hall, plus the bond payment on the new city hall, and maybe no one in their right mind wants to touch the old building. And now that I think about it, I don't think any city properties have been freed for development and none are in the process of being developed or even have plans announced. Yeah, maybe that sounds more like it.
Additionally, strange that the building which hasn't been fully leased since it was opened still has empty space. Who would have seen that coming? I mean, other than everyone but the consulting firm paid to make stuff up.
What I can't figure out is how the consulting firm was off by as much as 50% on their cost estimates. You'd think giving a firm a bonus for telling you what you want to hear would produce more accurate results than that. Strange.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on August 26, 2009, 10:01:52 AM
Come on FOTD, we are going to save TONS of mney by buying a $70,000,000 building and letting the old structure rot away. TONS. Not too mention people are lined up wanting to develop the old city hall into a prison, or hotel, or something. And on top of that, we will free up tons of other city properties for development.
http://mobile.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx?articleID=20090826_11_A1_Tulsas936591&subjectID=local
Either that or we are spending an extra $1,000,000 a year for the privilege of having a new city hall, plus the bond payment on the new city hall, and maybe no one in their right mind wants to touch the old building. And now that I think about it, I don't think any city properties have been freed for development and none are in the process of being developed or even have plans announced. Yeah, maybe that sounds more like it.
Additionally, strange that the building which hasn't been fully leased since it was opened still has empty space. Who would have seen that coming? I mean, other than everyone but the consulting firm paid to make stuff up.
What I can't figure out is how the consulting firm was off by as much as 50% on their cost estimates. You'd think giving a firm a bonus for telling you what you want to hear would produce more accurate results than that. Strange.
Was not the consulting firm the broker too?
The old structure was rotting away just like the rest the city infrastructure due to pitiful public diswerks department management.
Differed maintenance planning by COT is pathetic. Why have not these properties been flipped to a developer yet?
Would $1 million a year fix the old city hall?
Quote from: FOTD on August 26, 2009, 07:22:00 AM
The city has no business in the free enterprise world of real estate. FOTD continues to take the position that government should stay focused on citizen safety and insuring efficiency in government.
You had me. You had me right up to the point of "insuring efficiency in government."
As your first line states government and the efficiency of the free market are worlds apart.
And like CF said, who could have seen this coming. Maybe we did but don't remember it because the new city hall ..."transformed our souls."
Quote from: FOTD on August 26, 2009, 12:09:02 PM
Was not the consulting firm the broker too?
Himelfarb had obtained the building for Dollar-Thrifty to relocate, and when they changed their minds there was a friend willing to bail him out and take the big glass monster off his hands.
Must admit that CF is right on the mark but he left out the lobbing effect and the old City hall was leaking rainwater on shined shoes propped up on the desk. Then also there was only one coffee shop where employee had to go down the 11 floors to get to it, making several trips a day.
Would believe that for someone to have a financial structure in place for reelection and withdrawing, this would be only the tip of the iceberg. Like the Titanic it was full speed ahead. I would assume there was a sea full of icebergs with maybe a Fed investigation with a hand full of red flags to stick on them.
The shadow knows....
Saw Himlefarb a few nights before he bailed to the east coast while eating next to his wife.
Contended the citizenry did not appreciate his efforts. Made me nauseous.
And for $5,000,000 city hall could have been refurbished in 2 years under a private contractor.
Let's not forget the possibility of luring jobs to downtown...
You don't think she'd run for an elected office again. And the idea of appointment to an Obama administrative role might prove to be sticky.
Back to the big house....only question is which one? She'll be a Floridian (again or still?) within 5 years.
You betcha.
So Patric...you're saying Dollar-Thrifty (under Himelfarb) was contracted to purchase OTC from Leucadia National, but City of Tulsa stepped in to purchase when Dollar-Thrifty wanted out?
Hmmmm the same Don Himelfarb who left Dollar-Thrifty in August 2006 for the Economic Development Director's position with Mayor Taylor's adminstration and immediately began pushing the OTC/COT deal?
I'm curious who held the mortgage on OTC prior to the City's purchase using tax-exempt revenue bonds? I'm also curious who purchased the revenue bonds from TPFA...anyone know where to get that information?
Makes the BOK handout look like chump change (allegedly, of course)
In my above post I forgot to add the tidbit that Taylor was vice president and general counsel of Thrifty when it acquired Dollar Car Rental and moved its headquarters to Tulsa. (Tulsa World - Econ. Dev. Hire is From Dollar-Thrifty 08/29/06)
By the way...anyone know why certain stories previously posted by the Tulsa World will sometimes show up with a 'modified' date sometimes years after the story first ran? Always makes me wonder what was modified.
All conspiracies aside, the numbers never seemed to work for the new City Hall. Even under the best assumptions it would only save the city money if we had the building near fully occupied with paying tenants and unloaded the now excess city property. Now given that there is a blank plot of land across from the BOk Center, few if any people would reasonably expect a developer to buy Old City Hall, tear it down in close proximity to operating structures, redo the parking structure, and rebuild. For that matter it was even doubtful that the city would give up the much less cumbersome land to developers. And, of course, history was willing to show us that the Dirty Ice Cube had trouble filling up with tenants.
I grant that I was surprised by the operation expense overruns. One would have thought realistic estimates from the previous owner(s) would have been readily available. Certainly would have thought that things like "window cleaning" on a glass building would have been included in the estimates. The estimates were apparently just horrible. If you're off my 50%, a flat-out guess had a good shot of being as accurate. Where do we go for our refund?
So here we are, with an Old City Hall that sits as it was. Other property undeveloped. And a building that isn't fully occupied. Just as anyone who looked at the situation would have predicted. Except, of course, the group paid to look at and approve the deal.
Something is inherently wrong when a study is commissioned that rewards a particular outcome. For $5 I'll tell you it was a bad idea, but for $10 I'll tell you it was a great one.
Quote from: DowntownNow on August 27, 2009, 07:35:53 AM
In my above post I forgot to add the tidbit that Taylor was vice president and general counsel of Thrifty when it acquired Dollar Car Rental and moved its headquarters to Tulsa. (Tulsa World - Econ. Dev. Hire is From Dollar-Thrifty 08/29/06)
By the way...anyone know why certain stories previously posted by the Tulsa World will sometimes show up with a 'modified' date sometimes years after the story first ran? Always makes me wonder what was modified.
Black helicopters man....
Usually, in older stories, formatting needs to be changed due to website modifications (The World has gone through several) and the webserver reads the date on the include file modification date. It's usually not some vast conspiracy to hide the truth from anyone, but simply a formatting change.
It needs to work more like a blog (Wordpress) that can actually know when someone is modifying the word content, and not just the code content. Can be tough to do.
I'm really starting (actually confirming) to see that the entire Taylor term was designed only to accomplish certain things wanted by the business community.
Once done, they're hard, if not impossible to redact.
btw, remember the Cube was to SAVE us $10 Million, not just "break even". That's another $1 Million per year not being accomplished. Kind of doubles the failure.
Appears I've erred, it's $15 Million SAVINGS over 10 years:
Tulsa World 2007-06-21
QuoteMayor enlists e-mail support for plan
by: P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writer
6/21/2007
A council vote on whether to move city offices could come as early as next week.
Mayor Kathy Taylor is seeking public support to help her convince City Councilors to move City Hall.
The council is expected to vote on the proposal to move city offices into the One Technology Center next week.
"Please help me move Tulsa forward by contacting the City Councilors prior to this vote," she writes in an e-mail sent to constituents.
"It will definitely be a major step closer as we work together to make life better in Tulsa."
Taylor has sent out e-mails outlining the benefits of the move and encouraging citizens to contact councilors by e-mail or telephone. She includes the councilors' e-mail addresses and phone numbers.
She even includes a sample letter in which only the councilor's name needs to be added.
On Wednesday Taylor said she has been approached by many citizens in support of the move, saying they "believe it is the key that unlocks the development downtown," and I told them to contact the councilors because it was their decision.
Taylor said the citizens asked how to get the information, "so that is what I have provided."
Taylor and her Economic Development Director Don Himelfarb announced in March that the city had entered into a purchase-option agreement with Leucadia National Corp. to buy the 15-story glass building at 100 S. Cincinnati Ave.
If the move is approved, the city would spend no more than $67.1 million for the project to consolidate many city offices. That includes the building purchase price, which sources knowledgeable about the deal say is $52.25 million.
The remaining $14.85 million would fund relocation costs, security, consultant work and other capital costs related to the move. A recent study indicated the city would save $15 million over 10 years by the move.
The consolidation would move nearly 1,000 employees representing 14 city departments into One Technology Center, freeing six prime real estate sites that the city could sell and put back on the tax rolls, Himelfarb has said.
The current City Hall site -- close to the construction site for the BOK Arena and the city's Convention Center -- is being eyed for a convention hotel.
Taylor's e-mail states that the city "is facing a critical decision . . . and I am writing to ask for your support."
"Our current City Hall building has become both a liability and an opportunity. It is a liability in that we have identified approximately $24 million in deferred maintenance needs," she writes.
She writes that after 90 days of comprehensive financial and engineering analysis, it is clear that the purchase of One Tech Center is a sound business move for the city.
"We will clearly save millions of dollars for taxpayers by consolidating multiple antiquated operations into a modern and efficient building," she writes.
Here's a more direct version, with red headlines, no less:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070607_238_A1_hRelo42652 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070607_238_A1_hRelo42652)
QuoteCity could save money with new home
by: P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writer
Thursday, June 07, 2007
6/7/2007 11:26:22 AM
Relocating to downtown tower projected to cut costs by $15 million over 10 years
Moving City Hall to One Technology Center would save the city about $15 million over the first 10 years, a study of a proposal to consolidate city offices shows.
Economic Development Director Don Himelfarb said the city was about 95 percent finished with the due diligence on its proposed purchase of the 15-story glass building at 100 S. Cincinnati Ave. from Leucadia National Corp.
"Because we have deadlines, what we're trying to do now is disclose to the City Council the information so they can start their process of asking questions," he said.
The council is expected to hear a presentation at its Tuesday committee meetings. Himelfarb also has been meeting with councilors this week.
Although the city will not disclose the purchase price, the study by The Staubach Co. indicates that the project to create a consolidated City Hall will cost about $67.1 million, which includes the building purchase, relocation, security, consulting work and other capital costs.
"The purchase price is obviously substantially less than $67 million, but we are unable to disclose it until the council approves it because Leucadia is concerned if for some reason the council doesn't approve it and they have to remarket the building, they don't want anyone to see how little we're paying for it," Himelfarb said.
Mayor Kathy Taylor announced in March that the city had entered into a purchase option with Leucadia, a New York company, on the tower, formerly the WilTel building.
When rumors began to circulate late last year that the city was looking at the center, a real estate broker for the building said the price was $75 million. The asking price was listed in November 2005 at $65 million.
The study did not take into account how much the city would make from the sale of city properties that would be vacated because of the consolidation of departments into the new building.
Himelfarb and Taylor have said the current City Hall site would be ideal for a convention hotel. City Hall is next to the Maxwell Convention Center and about one block from the BOK Center.
Other sites targeted for consolidation that are on prime real estate are the Hartford Building in the eastern part of downtown and the Public Works building at 23rd Street and Jackson Avenue, on the west bank of the Arkansas River.
Parking appears to be the only issue identified by the study. One Technology Center's parking garage has 1,012 spaces. The city needs about 973 spaces for employees and 478 for visitors.
Only 537 spaces in the garage are available, however, because the rest are contractually obligated.
The study indicates that the city has 2,000 spaces available within a two- to three-minute walk from the building.
The study says that the cost of operating One Technology Center would be about $26 million over 10 years, and the cost of staying in the current City Hall, which is 37 years old, would be about $41.3 million over the same period.
That includes $24 million for needed maintenance, half of which has been deferred.
If the city moved into a leased building at the market rate, the cost would be about $45.1 million over 10 years, and a newly constructed City Hall would cost $70.4 million over the same period, the study shows.
Himelfarb said taxes would not be raised to fund the building purchase or office relocation.
Taxes already pay for the costs of the current facilities targeted for consolidation, he said.
"The taxpayers need to just think of it as that money now going to pay the bonds," he said.
The administration hopes the council will vote on the proposal this month, "but that is their call," he said.
The mayor cannot enter into a purchase contract until the council approves it, he said.
If the move is approved, minor office design modifications will be needed for certain departments, such as a City Council chamber.
The actual moving would take place in phases, he said.
I'm somewhat confused by the math I guess:
Operating Old City Hall would cost: $17,000,000 over ten years. Or $1.7mil per year. That figure would be $4.1mil per year if we spent $24,000,000 on needed repairs for the structure.
Operating New City Hall cost: Estimated at $3,500,000 per year. It ended up being ~$4,900,000 per year.
Questions?
1) Does that include paying for the $76,000,000 in bonds we issued to purchase and move City Hall?
2) Does that include operating costs of maintaining the other properties the city has retained?
3) What happened to the $67,000,000 price we were told about?
My guess is no, kinda (but man do I hope so), and "we never really meant $67mil." So by various ways of looking at it we are spending whatever it costs to maintain the other properties (or the opportunity cost of the city occupying so much property) plus $800,000 or $3,200,000. But hey, the additional cost "can be attributed to a host of factors, including building operation, safety and security, elevator maintenance, washing the windows of the glass-encased building." Who would have thought you'd have to operate the new building, secure it, maintain elevators in a sky scrapper, or wash windows on a glass building. Never saw that coming.
Damn I hope someone is looking for answer on this.
/perfectly willing to stand corrected upon presentation of better information.
They slipped a sh!t burger past us, CF.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on August 27, 2009, 11:04:36 AM
I'm somewhat confused by the math I guess:
Operating Old City Hall would cost: $17,000,000 over ten years. Or $1.7mil per year. That figure would be $4.1mil per year if we spent $24,000,000 on needed repairs for the structure.
Operating New City Hall cost: Estimated at $3,500,000 per year. It ended up being ~$4,900,000 per year.
Questions?
1) Does that include paying for the $76,000,000 in bonds we issued to purchase and move City Hall?
2) Does that include operating costs of maintaining the other properties the city has retained?
3) What happened to the $67,000,000 price we were told about?
My guess is no, kinda (but man do I hope so), and "we never really meant $67mil." So by various ways of looking at it we are spending whatever it costs to maintain the other properties (or the opportunity cost of the city occupying so much property) plus $800,000 or $3,200,000. But hey, the additional cost "can be attributed to a host of factors, including building operation, safety and security, elevator maintenance, washing the windows of the glass-encased building." Who would have thought you'd have to operate the new building, secure it, maintain elevators in a sky scrapper, or wash windows on a glass building. Never saw that coming.
Damn I hope someone is looking for answer on this.
/perfectly willing to stand corrected upon presentation of better information.
Where'd you get that renovation expense of $17 million? And $24 million counting structure?
Don't believe everything you have been told. And don't look back. The time to raise Cain has long passed.
BTW, where is the original thread on this shenanigan?
The numbers you referred to came from an article posted just before my post:
QuoteThe study says that the cost of operating One Technology Center would be about $26 million over 10 years, and the cost of staying in the current City Hall, which is 37 years old, would be about $41.3 million over the same period.
That includes $24 million for needed maintenance, half of which has been deferred.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070607_238_A1_hRelo42652
I was using their numbers intentionally. Even using their numbers it still doesn't appear to make sense. At leas,t not to me.
Somebody sold them on the idea that the old city hall property would be snapped up and redeveloped.
Dangerous game to play...they did not forecast the lending freeze.
Quote from: FOTD on August 27, 2009, 04:52:06 PM
Somebody sold them on the idea that the old city hall property would be snapped up and redeveloped.
Dangerous game to play...they did not forecast the lending freeze.
Word was Lobeck had a friend who was interested...
Quote from: Conan71 on August 27, 2009, 04:57:11 PM
Word was Lobeck had a friend who was interested...
Great. The "friend" probably bought loads of DTG at 1$ instead.
Quote from: FOTD on August 27, 2009, 05:16:02 PM
Great. The "friend" probably bought loads of DTG at 1$ instead.
Much better investment, IMO
The city didn't deal with the issuing of bonds. They circumvented the issuing of the bonds that would have required a vote by the citizens by issuing them through a Trust as tax free bonds. Also there is a limitation attached to city issued bonds; limited by the total assessed value of all private owned property. The citizen just bought another "pig in the poke" like financing an airline through a trust of which they were not responsible for guaranteeing the bonds. Wonder who bought those tax free bonds bearing a premium interest rate for the glass cube purchase?
Can one expect the formation of another department under public works employing full time window washers?
Due to the fact that we have much dirty rainfall caused by western Oklahoma's dust storms, would it be possible to install windshield wipers on the windows with spray jets?
Stop thinking about the cost as we have industries that are recycling bathroom tissue and it would be very easy for them to add a few pieces of color threads and print some more stimulus money at very little cost to the citizens. Future generations will pick up the tab.
So what you are saying Shadows is, even though the City should be protected against claims made by the bond holder or its lender by the tax-exempt bonds being issued by a Trust or Authority (TAIT/Great Plains Airlines), based on the recent argument made by BOK attorney Fred Dorwart in that matter...if the BID assessment should be struck down and Dorwart's argument should prevail in the TAIT/City matter (wherein he claimed that the City being the beneficiary of the Trust/Authority and pursued the deal in hand with TAIT), the City could still be held liable for the payment of the bonds and interest if the BID assessment is ruled invalid?
Anyone know where to go to find out who purchased bonds like Shadow suggested?
The only bonds requiring a vote of the people are GO's....the authorites can and do issue bonds to fund their capital projects.
Not all of the bonds for One Tech are tax-exempt. A portion of them, roughly half, are taxable due to the leasing or potential leasing of a similar portion of the building to private entities.
Also, I know of no limit on the amount of GO's the City can issue as long as they are approved by the voters. No matter the amount, the City levies for the funds to pay the debt, whatever it may be.
I'm guessing you are referring to the limit of 5% of the valuation of taxable property in the city in Article 10, Section 26, however, that limit is exempted in Section 27:
SECTION X 27
Indebtedness for purchase, construction or repair of public utilities.
Any incorporated city or town in this state may, by a majority of the voters of such city or town, voting at an election to be held for that purpose, be allowed to become indebted in a larger amount than that specified in Section 26, for the purpose of purchasing or constructing public utilities, or for repairing the same, to be owned exclusively by such city or town, or for the purpose of constructing, reconstructing, improving or repairing streets or bridges.
That would be MY uneducated take on it anyway.
Even GO Bonds, once approved by voters, are still subject to market interest. The City's rating via Moody's et al is a factor in that. Once they feel the City has overextended itself, bonds become difficult to market.
But, as we'll recall, there was no vote on the Borg Cube.
It was Kitty's deal through and threw. For the World, who became nothing short of a marketing arm of the administration on this, to attempt to put it in the lap of Councilors is blatant blame shifting, revisionist history. The Council was pushed at every turn to do something quick, often without benefit of anything but the Mayor's words, backed up by a bought and paid for 'professional opinion' from Staubach, who reaped not only a fee for the 'study', but became the broker for the sale transaction.
...there's got to be something illegal about that.
That doesn't even address the insider deals on the Master Lease, BOK occupancy of the 15th floor (alongside the Mayor's office, instead of Councilors, who were moved down to 2), and the reasons behind this whole deal from the outset (which, imo, were to unload a dinasour from BOK/Williams in some way).
All while lying through their teeth at every turn, providing knowingly false information to make it look good.
Of course they're subject to market interest, but investors know that a municipal GO will be paid back because the municipality can and is required to levy for the taxes to pay them.
There was no vote because the bonds used to buy the building were not GO's and, therefore, a vote was not required. Just like it isn't required when TMUA issues bonds to improve the water system.
The City is fortunate that BOK stepped up with the Master Lease whether people believe it or not.
The "dinosaur" of Williams that was "unloaded" cost them, from what I know, in the n'hood of $250 million to build and the City bought the building for less than $60 million. Old City Hall would have required millions and millions of reinvestment and/or repair if the City didn't move so money was going to be spent one way or the other. And old City Hall can and will eventually be sold.
Quote from: TulsaSooner on August 28, 2009, 11:50:31 AM
Of course they're subject to market interest, but investors know that a municipal GO will be paid back because the municipality can and is required to levy for the taxes to pay them.
There was no vote because the bonds used to buy the building were not GO's and, therefore, a vote was not required. Just like it isn't required when TMUA issues bonds to improve the water system.
The City is fortunate that BOK stepped up with the Master Lease whether people believe it or not.
The "dinosaur" of Williams that was "unloaded" cost them, from what I know, in the n'hood of $250 million to build and the City bought the building for less than $60 million. Old City Hall would have required millions and millions of reinvestment and/or repair if the City didn't move so money was going to be spent one way or the other. And old City Hall can and will eventually be sold.
Speculation? Is government in the speculation business?
Would a capitalist landlord have committed to Tenant Improvements with a guarantee and collateral?
Deals like this make me sorry to agree with "we need less government in our lives."
Quote from: TulsaSooner on August 28, 2009, 09:43:18 AM
Also, I know of no limit on the amount of GO's the City can issue as long as they are approved by the voters. No matter the amount, the City levies for the funds to pay the debt, whatever it may be.
I'm guessing you are referring to the limit of 5% of the valuation of taxable property in the city in Article 10, Section 26, however, that limit is exempted in Section 27:
SECTION X 27
Indebtedness for purchase, construction or repair of public utilities.
Any incorporated city or town in this state may, by a majority of the voters of such city or town, voting at an election to be held for that purpose, be allowed to become indebted in a larger amount than that specified in Section 26, for the purpose of purchasing or constructing public utilities, or for repairing the same, to be owned exclusively by such city or town, or for the purpose of constructing, reconstructing, improving or repairing streets or bridges.
That would be MY uneducated take on it anyway.
In all due respect I cannot find were section 27 invalidates section 26 allowing the city to issue revenue bonds to enter into the real-estate marketing to be defined as a public utility. Even buying a building that the city cannot attach a sign to its exterior is beyond reasoning. But as passing a city ordinance with an emergency clause, without citing the emergency as interpreted by AG as need, which circumvents the voter's right to petition, is answered by legal with "We have always done it this way".
The issuing of revenue bonds have been questioned before when the attorney for the airport authority appearing before the city commission on issuing RB's in excess of 90M for a sweetheart deal for AA of which part of the money was to be used in their facilities in another state, informed the commissioners that the city would not be responsible for the bonds in case AA was to default but unless they assumed the liability their credit rating would be reduced.
All information on the sale of the bonds is available under the Freedom of Information Act. It should be available in the city clerks office but some information is hidden by search fee's unless one knows the exact date the information was recorded. If it is recorded on the main frame computer to get a record requires furnishing a blank tape ($20) and $80 dollars or more in search/setup fee's. The city exercise sovereignty powers over their subjects.
That is the road I have been down.
Quote from: Wrinkle on August 28, 2009, 11:22:28 AM
(which, imo, were to unload a dinasour from BOK/Williams in some way).
Wasn't One Tech built
after the WilTel IPO? Additionally, after the whole entity was bought out of bankruptcy by Leucadia, I fail to see what Williams or BOK has to do with any of it other than being the usual fodder for your conspiracy theories.
I cannot recall if the final figurer was ever made public of the sale and overselling of the stock that was authorized of which the company deleted the equity of the stockholders costing many hardships on citizens who intended it for their retirement. The company had only a need for two floors which they are using now and failed to get any interest in leasers for the addition floors.
The entire purchase of the glass cube is shrouded in a thick smoke screen with cost of repairing the old city hall being greatly blown out of reason IMHO.
The horse we are beating is dead but the smell will remain in the coming years as the maintenance cost increase on the poorly constructed glass shrouded building.
Quote from: shadows on August 29, 2009, 03:21:07 PM
The horse we are beating is dead but the smell will remain in the coming years as the maintenance cost increase on the poorly constructed glass shrouded building.
You think just because the building is glass it will demand higher maintenance costs?
At any time one of those degraded tropical storms can target Tulsa which in the past moved just west of town with the hail and winds of 100 MPH the building will not be a suitable storm shelter. As sheet glass ages it changes it careerists becoming more brittle. In the event of any approaching wind storm I sure would seek shelter elsewhere.
Quote from: shadows on August 29, 2009, 11:17:15 PM
At any time one of those degraded tropical storms can target Tulsa which in the past moved just west of town with the hail and winds of 100 MPH the building will not be a suitable storm shelter. As sheet glass ages it changes it careerists (characteristics?) becoming more brittle. In the event of any approaching wind storm I sure would seek shelter elsewhere.
Glass is brittle to begin with. I don't know that it becomes more brittle with age. Brittleness and strength are not the same material property. Brittleness defines a failure mode as compared to ductile.
The new City Hall at One Tech was supposed to save the City $15,000,000 over ten years. In order to keep that promise, it now needs to save $16,500,000 over the next nine years, since those 'savings' in the first year was actually a $1.5M loss.
Also, the Mayor recently sent out a note that the BOK Center has made a profit of $1,100,000 in the first year. Congratulations! Just 160.8 years to go until that place is paid off. Only politicians claim a profit without considering expenses in the equation.
No wonder this city is flat broke.
This brings up another question.
The City has a habit of "self-insuring" everything.
That means that if disaster happens, the City (we) pay it out
of cash reserves.
Such it is when a police car, firetruck or other city vehicle is involved in a collision, or they run into each other (as seems to happen fairly frequently here).
I would think, in a commercial enterprize such as a 'public' building being leased to private businesses, a self-insurance arrangement would bring an entirely new set of liability potential to the City. And, we also now know this building my be more sensitive to environmental occurances, such as high winds, which may cause damage.
Makes me want to ask what the insurance arrangement is on this building. Maybe our Council will bring it up soon.
Hope they also ask for an accounting of the $67 million purchase + move costs and the $76 million bond costs, and the difference.
It'd be interesting to see where all that money went, that is, to whom.
Quote from: TulsaSooner on August 28, 2009, 11:50:31 AM
Of course they're subject to market interest, but investors know that a municipal GO will be paid back because the municipality can and is required to levy for the taxes to pay them.
There was no vote because the bonds used to buy the building were not GO's and, therefore, a vote was not required. Just like it isn't required when TMUA issues bonds to improve the water system.
The City is fortunate that BOK stepped up with the Master Lease whether people believe it or not.
The "dinosaur" of Williams that was "unloaded" cost them, from what I know, in the n'hood of $250 million to build and the City bought the building for less than $60 million. Old City Hall would have required millions and millions of reinvestment and/or repair if the City didn't move so money was going to be spent one way or the other. And old City Hall can and will eventually be sold.
That's just it. Bonds issued with no vote. Is a government, shadow or otherwise, which has the ability to indebt us to the tune of $76 million (or, potentially, much more) what we want? Is that what we asked for?
As it is, bond packages are an economy to themselves. There's huge money involved in just the issuing. Since they're never bid here, it's a closed market. Could it be Tulsan's may want the opportunity to invest in their own city, too? They may want to purchase some of these bonds, since they're such a stable, reliable investment.
But, they're captive in a closed market, favorable to those in charge and offered only to select few.
Besides all that, they're marked up to make them attractive, then privately marketed. Once purchase, I feel certain they're often resold on open markets at a discount (and for which the open market still considers them market rate at that point).
Cities bond structure is consider safe and reliable, and, thus, are often sold at well below normal bond rates in the open market for just that reason. Here, they're sold at a premium.
IOW, someone's making money on the backs of taxpayers here. It doesn't matter what the project is, it's the bond financing which is the attraction.
btw, I did use "dinasour" inappropriately.
One Tech, as a building/architecture, is not considered a 'dinasour'.
Was trying to adjective something large and heavy, like a boat anchor.
In my experience with glass when it is new it is flexible and easy to cut. As it gets older quite often it becomes harder to cut and cannot stand the pressure, becoming fragmented very easy.
The bonds seem to be subscribed for before they are mentioned to the public. They, not being subject to income taxes caused a group of us to assemble several thousands in money. I call the finance commissioner under the old un-amended charter and ask him when the bonds would be available as we had a group that was interested in bidding on some of them. He said he would check and call me back. This he did and told me that the bonds were already subscribed for and considered sold before the project was finalized. Today when 10K CD are paying less than one percent, revenue bond paying six percent and not taxable would be a premium in anyone's retirement portfolio, don't you think?
Unless they are a negotiated sale, I'm pretty sure you are welcome to bid on the bonds assuming you make the good faith deposit and are able to buy the entire issue; the bonds must be purachased in their entirety by the bidder.
All GO's are sold at par or better and are competetively bid.
Quote from: TulsaSooner on August 31, 2009, 11:05:42 AM
Unless they are a negotiated sale, I'm pretty sure you are welcome to bid on the bonds assuming you make the good faith deposit and are able to buy the entire issue; the bonds must be purachased in their entirety by the bidder.
All GO's are sold at par or better and are competetively bid.
I am sorry I thought we were talking about R bonds being issued where G.O. bonds should have been required. If a sewer line fails and the raw sewerage is running down the street then emergency bonds can be issued being the sewer is public utility. The purchase of the new city hall does have a smell to it but I cannot see where it was a public utility.
The proper procedure in disposing public property, when there is such surplus as we are told exist, has been done by taking bids for the sale of the property. This procedure has been followed in housing by HUD.
One could very easily get the feeling that the disposal of this high valued city public property is limited to a closed group being very selective of how it is disposed. In this time of money crunch where the sales taxes that have become one of the major providers to the general fund, is being diverted to the suburbs, the rainy day fund needs a shot of disposal income.
Like so many things in the city the purchase of the bonds have been limited by having to take the entire amount. The city has never heard of Brokers. The working poor deposit their monies in the banks and receive one percent interest so the bank can loan the money to the city at a much higher interest rate to limit individual investments in their city's bond issues. No wonder the Tulsa schools are in trouble with teaching math or is it that this is what the working poor deserves for failing to exercise their voting power?
Quote from: nathanm on August 28, 2009, 08:37:56 PM
Wasn't One Tech built after the WilTel IPO? Additionally, after the whole entity was bought out of bankruptcy by Leucadia, I fail to see what Williams or BOK has to do with any of it other than being the usual fodder for your conspiracy theories.
Yeah, maybe, but Williams apparently owned the building throughout.
During the reorg, Williams stated on its' own website on 2002-07-26 that it would sell the building for $45 million cash and a $100 million note to WCG as part of the reorg. However, to my knowledge, that never occurred, at least until later, perhaps as late as the day prior to the City making contract on it, and quite possibly under different terms.
Read it yourself:
http://www.williams.com/newsmedia/2002/20020726_294.htm (http://www.williams.com/newsmedia/2002/20020726_294.htm)
That particular transaction was not ever mentioned again in any press releases after that, but a BIG deal was made of the $180 million Leucadia paid Williams to settle outstanding Williams claims against WilTel (WCG) in October of 2002 with the Federal approval of the reorg plan, and which does not appear to have included the building. In that transaction, Leucadia obtained only 44% of the Common Stock in WCG, with certain restrictions on its' ability to sell those shares, leaving 54% to bond holders and, depending on the source, 2% for remaining shareholders (i.e., next to nothing, if not nothing outright). Again, nothing mentioned as to the disposition of that building at that time, which appeared to remain in Williams domain.
Since WilTel's primary operations center became St. Louis, they had little need of a Tulsa facility to operate. Williams left holding the bag, at least, it appears, until taxpayers were committed to its' purchase. Problem solved.
Read it yourself:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/02/business/company-news-williams-communications-will-end-bankruptcy-soon.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/02/business/company-news-williams-communications-will-end-bankruptcy-soon.html)
I'm just presuming the building remained an asset of Williams right up to the time the City decided it needed it. And, there remained a good chance BOK held some of the related debt there until then as well. If the City purchased the building from Leucadia, it was a turn-around, likely with some profit motivation on their part for participation. I suspect if that occurred, it were within days of each other.
And, just for additional curiosity, who do you suppose is included in the makeup of the 54% Bond holders? Another question could be why it's considered a 'Leucadia' company when they own only 44% of it, all in common stock. Then, there's the question about Preferred and/or Convertable Stock as well.
Theory, perhaps, but well founded.
So, in comparison, what are your assumptions?
Good post Wrinkle. Do you suppose Williams and LUK sat down and decided who of the two could benefit most from the "loss?" That might be a reason for any shuffle of ownership of the asset. Those boys from LUK are brilliant and don't be surprised if they made Williams hold onto the asset for some other trade off.
It really doesn't matter much. It will be another old city hall in 20 years. The land lord is not very good at keeping up their properties.
Quote from: TulsaSooner on August 31, 2009, 11:05:42 AM
Unless they are a negotiated sale, I'm pretty sure you are welcome to bid on the bonds assuming you make the good faith deposit and are able to buy the entire issue; the bonds must be purachased in their entirety by the bidder.
All GO's are sold at par or better and are competetively bid.
I know of only one bid announcement in recent years and that was for the ballpark. Of course, under the terms of that offering, they received no bids. Thus, BOK's Foundation stepped in and saved the day. Oh, happy day.
All others were pre-negotiated, pre-sold and not open to any bid or public access. Again, even if they were, the terms you mention would eliminate all but those who would be considered in a private offering.
Regardless of what it specs out to be, it remains a closed market.
Quote from: FOTD on August 31, 2009, 09:14:28 PM
It really doesn't matter much. It will be another old city hall in 20 years. The land lord is not very good at keeping up their properties.
You got that right. Appears they didn't even include window washing in the current operating budget on an all glass building. Same for elevator maintenance, as reported. All things considered normal operating costs for a commercial lease property. Kind of like bullets are to guns and cops. (as an aside, did you know we pay for bullets and guns from Third Penny proceeds? Just another one of those operational cost abiguities.)
Kind of makes one wonder about the big stuff. But, you're right, the city has a horrible track record of maintenance. Even admitted defeat on the old City Hall due to their own negligence.
You should look up how much was spent to redo the the telephone system
Actually, via the most recent operating cost info provided by the City itself, it seems we're to decide between them being totally incompetent at building operations, or that they're just flat out lying.
I personally think it the latter, but it seems they've decided to promote the former.
Still trying to decide how good I should feel.
Quote from: Wrinkle on August 31, 2009, 09:21:23 PM
I know of only one bid announcement in recent years and that was for the ballpark. Of course, under the terms of that offering, they received no bids. Thus, BOK's Foundation stepped in and saved the day. Oh, happy day.
All others were pre-negotiated, pre-sold and not open to any bid or public access. Again, even if they were, the terms you mention would eliminate all but those who would be considered in a private offering.
Regardless of what it specs out to be, it remains a closed market.
All offerings are advertised in the Tulsa Daily Commerce and Legal News and always have been. As a matter of fact, I think there is two in there today.
Quote from: TulsaSooner on September 01, 2009, 08:36:45 AM
All offerings are advertised in the Tulsa Daily Commerce and Legal News and always have been. As a matter of fact, I think there is two in there today.
Isn't the advertising of the offering a requirement by statute but does not mean they are available as they could have been pre-subscribed for?
Quote from: shadows on September 01, 2009, 04:36:56 PM
Isn't the advertising of the offering a requirement by statute but does not mean they are available as they could have been pre-subscribed for?
Is that a rhetorical question? You go Shadows. And Wrinkle has been correct for two and a half years on this very questionable deal. FB wasn't far off, on this issue, either.
Next up to bat, the ballpark.
Quote from: shadows on September 01, 2009, 04:36:56 PM
Isn't the advertising of the offering a requirement by statute but does not mean they are available as they could have been pre-subscribed for?
I don't know what you mean by "presubscribed for". All I know is the City accepts bids for the bonds on the day of sale and low interest bidder wins. I think all of the bidders and the bids they submitted go to Council for approval shortly thereafter.
Quote from: TulsaSooner on September 01, 2009, 08:36:45 AM
All offerings are advertised in the Tulsa Daily Commerce and Legal News and always have been. As a matter of fact, I think there is two in there today.
O.K., just for fun...let's follow the two you say are posted today and see what happens.
Can you post links to the notices here?
Quote from: TulsaSooner on September 01, 2009, 05:08:43 PM
I don't know what you mean by "presubscribed for". All I know is the City accepts bids for the bonds on the day of sale and low interest bidder wins. I think all of the bidders and the bids they submitted go to Council for approval shortly thereafter.
Maybe I should have used pre-syndicate bid. Any way you look at it it is a closed transaction from the time these thing are conjured up. It seems like a conspiracy tracing back to the TPS delinquency in failing to teach math. The total cost of the project is in most cases twice or more the cost to the working poor that is not advertised as the bonds true value in the purchase but is added in the sale of the bonds.
The interest rate and its value is not known until after the bonds are sold unless a specific rate is established. Of course bonds are bundled where bidder takes all leaving out the public investmenting.
Quote from: Wrinkle on September 02, 2009, 09:46:52 AM
O.K., just for fun...let's follow the two you say are posted today and see what happens.
Can you post links to the notices here?
I'm not sure you can see their notices online unless you have a subscription to the site/newsletter which I do not.
Quote from: TulsaSooner on September 02, 2009, 03:27:18 PM
I'm not sure you can see their notices online unless you have a subscription to the site/newsletter which I do not.
It would be easily to assume that anytime a citizen opens a door to get information they find the door's entrance is bricked up. This is leading to more apathy and reluctance on the part of the voter to exercise their right to vote. In the past it has contributed to the failing of our system of government.
Quote from: TulsaSooner on September 02, 2009, 03:27:18 PM
I'm not sure you can see their notices online unless you have a subscription to the site/newsletter which I do not.
O.K.
So, just for the sake of argument, would you consider "public notices" which require a paid subscription to access "public"?
While I can't necessarily fault the publications themselves for wanting subscribers, I can question the validity of claiming it to be "public" posting of legal notices.
That would seem a fault in the regulation concerning legitimate postings of public notices. Could be that needs to be modified somewhat so access isn't limited to those who can afford a subscription, or even remember the names of the publications and where to get one?
ACLU would be screaming at the top of their lungs if a library required a paid subscription, or voter registration (just look at the fuss over showing an I.D.).
Public Notices should be public. Either that, or they're not.
Quote from: Wrinkle on September 02, 2009, 09:17:49 PM
O.K.
So, just for the sake of argument, would you consider "public notices" which require a paid subscription to access "public"?
While I can't necessarily fault the publications themselves for wanting subscribers, I can question the validity of claiming it to be "public" posting of legal notices.
That would seem a fault in the regulation concerning legitimate postings of public notices. Could be that needs to be modified somewhat so access isn't limited to those who can afford a subscription, or even remember the names of the publications and where to get one?
ACLU would be screaming at the top of their lungs if a library required a paid subscription, or voter registration (just look at the fuss over showing an I.D.).
Public Notices should be public. Either that, or they're not.
I would consider it public notice, yes. It has to be published somewhere and most every publication requires a subscription. The information is also posted on the Council agendas which are free to view, as are the meetings to attend.
Quote from: TulsaSooner on September 03, 2009, 09:19:16 AM
I would consider it public notice, yes. It has to be published somewhere and most every publication requires a subscription. The information is also posted on the Council agendas which are free to view, as are the meetings to attend.
So yes, the notices are public. But no, no one here can manage to post a link to them? That notice wouldn't suffice as "public notice" for any other purpose, including by the definition of common sense.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on September 03, 2009, 12:05:52 PM
So yes, the notices are public. But no, no one here can manage to post a link to them? That notice wouldn't suffice as "public notice" for any other purpose, including by the definition of common sense.
What does providing a link have to do with a public notice? They probably issued bonds in the 1970's....I wonder if they posted a link the notice in the paper then?
Quote from: TulsaSooner on September 03, 2009, 01:36:29 PM
What does providing a link have to do with a public notice? They probably issued bonds in the 1970's....I wonder if they posted a link the notice in the paper then?
You're quite right.
Back then, Public Notices were posted, literally, to the wall in a certain place, like they did at old City Hall outside the parking level doors. That, and also published in the paper(s). I forget the exact regulation, something like "two widely circulated publications" within [timeframe].
While, I'm sure, whatever is being done conforms to current specification, it's the specification which needs updating. That is, unless Ms. Dexter wrote the opinion, then I'd wonder if there's actual conformance. I haven't seen the latest incarnation of the spec, but the Mayor did install a new 'posting' process at One Tech whereby 'public notices' were to be posted on LED displays in the lobby. Think I have some questions about that from a legitimatcy standpoint.
At the very least, I personally believe it's time to bring all this into the Electronics Age of at least the late 1990's. If it can be posted to an LED display in the lobby of One Tech, it can also be posted anywhere on the net.
There's no good reason why all this should not be publicly available to anyone with a PC and an inet connection.
Frankly, I think we need a wholesale re-write of Title 3 - City of Tulsa Ordinance (PDF File link below):
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/31825/title%203%20-%20public%20property,%20records,%20flag,%20seal%20s19.pdf (http://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/31825/title%203%20-%20public%20property,%20records,%20flag,%20seal%20s19.pdf)
We need a Council/Councilor to push this, but in addition, perhaps a good Forum like TulsaNow could take the re-write upon themselves and submit/coordinate with the Council.
This is the kind of activity one might expect to be accomplished on a forum such as this.
Quote from: TulsaSooner on September 03, 2009, 01:36:29 PM
What does providing a link have to do with a public notice? They probably issued bonds in the 1970's....I wonder if they posted a link the notice in the paper then?
You are correct, in the 1970's no notices were published on the "internet". So it would be safe to assume they didn't post any links. But today, in 2009, many people use the internets. If a notice is "public" it would be widely available and likely on the internet. If it wasn't on the internet, it would be very easy to scan such a document into a "computer" and post it on the "internet". Or were you just being obtuse?
Today, 2009, other required notices that are published are done so in periodicals and journals of general circulation. They are easy to get your hands on. Furthermore, those publications generally have notices available online. For the most part, if something is given as "public notice" it is available online.
Having them readily available online is even MORE important if one seeks transparency or advertisement. Transparency because crazies out there will always allege the government is doing something nafarious unless they can prove otherwise. And good for them.
Advertisement because selling bonds requires marketing. If you can get people that WANT your bond you may be able to command a better rate or other terms. The more people available to bid on it, the more likely that is to happen. If you fail to do so you may only end up with a small group of interested persons making offers and not get the best terms.
So the City probably is meeting minimum requirements. Would one HOPE that our City does more than is minimally required to give public notices. Posting it online wouldn't be difficult or costly. It would take 5 minutes and essentially be free.
As it stands, we have an interested group of citizens on this board who are unable to follow millions of dollars flowing to and from our City. On my part it is due to sloth, but apparently others on here have tried to track them actively and failed. So it would appear something isn't as it should be.
City legal's answer to the posting of notices would be "this is the way we have always done it".
Same with Public Works scandal "this the way we have always done it" (it was the Fed's that questioned it)
Quote from: shadows on September 11, 2009, 10:39:50 PM
City legal's answer to the posting of notices would be "this is the way we have always done it".
Same with Public Works scandal "this the way we have always done it" (it was the Fed's that questioned it)
Years of tradition unhampered by progress.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/895-KWGS-Public-Radio-Tulsa/137239999832?ref=mf&v=wall (http://www.facebook.com/pages/895-KWGS-Public-Radio-Tulsa/137239999832?ref=mf&v=wall)
89.5 KWGS Public Radio Tulsa - Report on Old City Hall finds too many problems and code violations to lease or sell. Advised to implode building. It's costing Tulsans more than 1/2million$ to maintain.
*Gasp*
Who saw that coming?
I mean, other than me and most everyone on this forum. I said when the plan was announced that the City would have to pay to sit on the building for years and ultimately would have to pay for or at least chip in on the demolition of that eye sore. Frankly, if I thought of that (and many others) then one has to imagine the planners who actually studied the issue either thought of it and didn't care or didn't do their damn job.
Step 1: Commission study that pays the researchers more if they advise moving
Step 2: Move City Hall
Step 3: Reveal that the move cost more money than it should have, the subleasing isn't happening as predicted, the maintenance is higher than expected (who thought we would have to wash windows?), the extra city property would sit vacant, and the old city hall will never be developed.
I'm some jerkoff blowhard on the internet, why did I see this coming and people paid to give a damn didn't? Bull crap, they saw it coming but didn't care. They wanted to move city hall and did. The rest is just crap made up to placate the people paying the damn bill.
Call me when this transaction ends up being a good deal for the citizens of Tulsa.
What's new here is the code violation claims.
Imagine, the City operating all those years in a non-compliant building.
I'll call whitewash. The code claims are nothing more than basis for taxpayer funded demolition (as previously planned).
Personally, it'd be a perfect place for a law office. Lease it up with court-bound legal aids, remote news field offices, etc.
It'd work even if it took a couple million to get there.
But, that's not the plan. Someone wants us to pay to demolish it so they have a nice clean site to develop. Also note there'll be added emphasis to get this done before our Mayor times out.
What a waste.
If someone in planning wanted to do something worthwhile, they'd start working on a new location for the US Post Office.
Not only is that THE prime development area adjacent to the BOInc Arena, it inhibits any development of the plaza area in a deathly way.
That's been someone's ace in the hole throughout this entire deal.
It'll take 5 years to develop that site, during which time the old City Hall could be generating not only revenue, but provide a real service.
Awesome! Instant epitaph!
I think they should have a raffle for the person who gets to turn the switch to blow up the old city hall. I would buy a chance....
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 16, 2009, 02:07:53 PM
I think they should have a raffle for the person who gets to turn the switch to blow up the old city hall. I would buy a chance....
No can do RM. Too many nearby props and that leaky garage to blast away.
Put Himelfarb out there with a pick and shovel....
"If I had my way
If I had my way
In this wicked world
If I had my way
I would tear this old building down"
Rev. Gary Davis
Quote from: FOTD on September 16, 2009, 02:19:39 PM
No can do RM. Too many nearby props and that leaky garage to blast away.
You believe their propaganda?
I think a blasting company could be contacted for a different opinion...
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 16, 2009, 04:10:34 PM
You believe their propaganda?
I think a blasting company could be contacted for a different opinion...
Seriously? What about the adjoining properties?
Blast away the devil say...
Relocate the Feds to other vacancies....absorb those empty spaces.
There is at least 150 feet to any other structure. They are only connected by a concrete plaza. Tear it down first, then have the building fall in it's footprint.
I've seen a bunch of buildings brought down by precision demolition on the TV. It would be awesome to see one come down in person.
Quote from: Townsend on September 16, 2009, 10:02:19 AM
http://www.facebook.com/pages/895-KWGS-Public-Radio-Tulsa/137239999832?ref=mf&v=wall (http://www.facebook.com/pages/895-KWGS-Public-Radio-Tulsa/137239999832?ref=mf&v=wall)
89.5 KWGS Public Radio Tulsa - Report on Old City Hall finds too many problems and code violations to lease or sell. Advised to implode building. It's costing Tulsans more than 1/2million$ to maintain.
The gift that keeps on giving... er, taking. (and it's more like 3/4 million per year for all of the properties that were abandoned.)
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 16, 2009, 04:30:11 PM
There is at least 150 feet to any other structure. They are only connected by a concrete plaza. Tear it down first, then have the building fall in it's footprint.
The old city hall should be listed in the halls of fame as a monument to all the misconceptions of what was wrong with it.
Then also it should disappear from the landscape as the generations in the future will only recall how foolish the council was to exchange it for the off campus glass monstrosity, creating more debt. If the fed's are through with PW's they could look into the CI in that transaction before the old city hall is taken down. Taking it down would be a good cover up.
Quote from: shadows on September 17, 2009, 09:23:45 AM
Taking it down would be a good cover up.
I think your morning prunes have fermented.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 17, 2009, 09:33:43 AM
I think your morning prunes have fermented.
Any one that would buy all those tales condemning the building would need to distill the fermented prunes or they would have to drink some of that Kick-apoo-juice. Save money and put a flag pole on top and call it a memorial. I remember when it was in the planning stage. That was before it was being converted to "Branson at Tulsa".
Now, leasing city hall is a MAJOR challenge.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20091002_11_A7_Thecit626217
Angela, why don't you donate some of that comish for TI work....if only you could find a tenant.
The government should stay out of real estate development...they seem to be failing away.
Of course it is. If it wasn't a major challenge do you think the City would have been able to by the building at fire-sale price? Nope. No one else was willing to take on the financial risk. I don't mean to beat this horse even more, but sheesh!
Why weren't our elected officials smart enough to know leasing space in that building was going to be next to impossible? The layout is not what companies are looking for. Most of the city employees hate the building for the same reason no body wants to rent the space... NO PRIVACY. The floors are totally open.
Sorry, but our Mayor and fiscal responsibility don't go together.
But, hey.... my furloughs days are great!
Quote from: Wilbur on October 02, 2009, 01:15:53 PM
Why weren't our elected officials smart enough to know leasing space in that building was going to be next to impossible? The layout is not what companies are looking for. Most of the city employees hate the building for the same reason no body wants to rent the space... NO PRIVACY. The floors are totally open.
Sorry, but our Mayor and fiscal responsibility don't go together.
But, hey.... my furloughs days are great!
Study a bit more history. The reason realtors have been saying for years that downtown had such a high vacancy rate is that it was all Class B and C space. They said tenants won't lease unless it's Class A like OTC. However, what those realtors back then and the people tied to this move didn't realize is that it's the big tech companies who wanted open floorplans and those are harder to find these days. Realtors also failed to target markets who could use smaller space like startups, non-profits, and residential.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on October 02, 2009, 12:31:57 PM
Of course it is. If it wasn't a major challenge do you think the City would have been able to by the building at fire-sale price? Nope. No one else was willing to take on the financial risk. I don't mean to beat this horse even more, but sheesh!
Now the 76 million dollars in tax free bonds gave the citizens a few extra dollars to be included in tips of the transaction. This tip money between the purchase price and the bond issue would seem to be where we can sustain the total loss in operations of the building through 2012. With the non-voting on revenue bonds, (totaling over 100 Million dollars for building and ball park when including tax free interest is near a ½ billion dollars) we are told it is such a good deal. There seem to be a difficulty in the average citizen understanding the restrictions on issuing the revenue bonds.
Now we understand that the Mayor is going back to the state bureaucracies and fix the school system. They claim they already have a shortage in funding.
Quote from: shadows on October 02, 2009, 03:51:48 PM
Now the 76 million dollars in tax free bonds gave the citizens a few extra dollars to be included in tips of the transaction. This tip money between the purchase price and the bond issue would seem to be where we can sustain the total loss in operations of the building through 2012. With the non-voting on revenue bonds, (totaling over 100 Million dollars for building and ball park when including tax free interest is near a ½ billion dollars) we are told it is such a good deal. There seem to be a difficulty in the average citizen understanding the restrictions on issuing the revenue bonds.
Now we understand that the Mayor is going back to the state bureaucracies and fix the school system. They claim they already have a shortage in funding.
The bonds to buy OneTech were not tax free bonds, they were about half and half, presumably, because about half of the space was for tax free purposes (City space) and half was to be leased (private space).
Quote from: shadows on October 02, 2009, 03:51:48 PM
Now the 76 million dollars in tax free bonds gave the citizens a few extra dollars to be included in tips of the transaction. This tip money between the purchase price and the bond issue would seem to be where we can sustain the total loss in operations of the building through 2012. With the non-voting on revenue bonds, (totaling over 100 Million dollars for building and ball park when including tax free interest is near a ½ billion dollars) we are told it is such a good deal. There seem to be a difficulty in the average citizen understanding the restrictions on issuing the revenue bonds.
Now we understand that the Mayor is going back to the state bureaucracies and fix the school system. They claim they already have a shortage in funding.
The history may very well be correct. But the current market is what the City has to deal with. That building was sitting there empty for a reason... nobody wants that type of space. But our councilors did nothing to look into the feasibility of filling the space. They took the Mayor's word, who wanted that space no matter how much it cost.
Quote from: Wilbur on October 03, 2009, 07:59:40 AM
The history may very well be correct. But the current market is what the City has to deal with. That building was sitting there empty for a reason... nobody wants that type of space. But our councilors did nothing to look into the feasibility of filling the space. They took the Mayor's word, who wanted that space no matter how much it cost.
You know what happens when Council doesn't take the Mayor's word on something, the World starts in with their "uncivilized, confrontational Council" articles.
Every time.
But, to some degree, you're right. Council could've commission their own study, at considerably less than was paid Staubach & Co, who could've made short work of it. Virtually everyone knew from the outset this was a bad economic decision being forced upon the citizens of Tulsa, including the Mayor.
Quote from: TulsaSooner on October 02, 2009, 08:35:26 PM
The bonds to buy OneTech were not tax free bonds, they were about half and half, presumably, because about half of the space was for tax free purposes (City space) and half was to be leased (private space).
According to my 4th grade civics class the revenue bond interest is tax free. This was passed under the cloak that it would encourage the selling of the bonds at a reduced interest rate saving the taxpayers money. They are being used to circumvent the general obligation bonds which are attached to the property taxes. The interest on such bonds are non-taxable as income although the total is listed as assets by the banks that purchase the bonds. In the instant case the interest amounts to much more than the principal of the bond.
There seems to be some confusion as when RB can be issued for capital improvements instead of GO bonds.
The part of city usage on all property is exempted from all taxes.
It would be a interest to the citizen to know how many dollars are involved in the issuing of revenue bonds by the city and all their trusts which the citizen is obligated to pay. Remember the airlines?
Dude, relax. The bonds on the building are about half and half because that is the ratio of private to public (thus taxable/non-taxable) occupancy of the building and garage.
Quote from: TulsaSooner on October 04, 2009, 02:19:32 AM
Dude, relax. The bonds on the building are about half and half because that is the ratio of private to public (thus taxable/non-taxable) occupancy of the building and garage.
Dude, check your facts: According to the City of Tulsa's website http://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/32918/otc_factsheet_09-09.pdf (http://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/32918/otc_factsheet_09-09.pdf):
"The purchase of the building was financed through the sale of
$67 million in tax-exempt revenue bonds."
Quote from: Oil Capital on October 04, 2009, 09:35:14 AM
According to the City of Tulsa's website http://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/32918/otc_factsheet_09-09.pdf (http://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/32918/otc_factsheet_09-09.pdf):
"The purchase of the building was financed through the sale of $67 million in tax-exempt revenue bonds."
It is reassuring to read where the old cliché of the fox explaining the conditions within the hen house which equates to Wil-Tel, builder of the building, deleting the stockholder's equity, thus sold the building at a profit, now using the technology installed under the name of "Level 3", with the original employees of Wil-Tel. It is assuring to know that the bank is lending the 67 million dollars to buy the building without interest for years to come.
For such a energy efficient building there seems to be quite a discrepancy in the cost of heating and cooling projected where it seems the Williams Brothers maintain control.
In the issuing of revenue bonds one would believe that they were to be paid back by revenue derived from the capital gains from which the bonds were issued. City governments may not have authority to enter into the real-estate market.
The referral to the explanation of the issuing of the financing the purchase equals the posting of OK City for the Tulsa sky line. The blundering into a transaction described by the sly fox may have long repercussions'
Since this is space owned by the residents of Tulsa and paid for by the residents of Tulsa . . . can we think of a creative interim use for it?
98,000 square feet available in two open 48,000 square foot floors.
Maybe use it as "development space" and lease it on the cheap to lure companies to Tulsa ($10 sq/ft for the first 2 years . . . then full or move to another Tulsa location)?
Maybe TU/OSU/OU could utilize the space for cheap for some temporary project or to run a business start up enterprise (which could include office space/cubicles)?
Some city services that need extra room for temporary projects?
Hell, I don't know. We own the space, let's use it.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on October 05, 2009, 09:55:40 AM
Since this is space owned by the residents of Tulsa and paid for by the residents of Tulsa . . . can we think of a creative interim use for it?
98,000 square feet available in two open 48,000 square foot floors.
Indoor bocce ball pitches
Quote from: cannon_fodder on October 05, 2009, 09:55:40 AM
Since this is space owned by the residents of Tulsa and paid for by the residents of Tulsa . . . can we think of a creative interim use for it?
98,000 square feet available in two open 48,000 square foot floors.
Paint Ball
Four-sided billboard.
Quote from: Oil Capital on October 04, 2009, 09:35:14 AM
Dude, check your facts: According to the City of Tulsa's website http://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/32918/otc_factsheet_09-09.pdf (http://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/32918/otc_factsheet_09-09.pdf):
"The purchase of the building was financed through the sale of $67 million in tax-exempt revenue bonds."
Then that statement is incorrect....unless you do not believe audited financials.
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/COTlegacy/documents/2007CityofTulsa-ComprehensiveAnnualFinancialReport_000.pdf
See page 70 of the document, Note 14, 3rd paragraph.
QuoteOn November 20, 2007 the TPFA issued its Lease Payment Revenue Bonds, Series 2007A in the amount of $34,620 and Taxable Series 2007B in the amount of $33,130 for the purposes of retiring the promissory note and making certain improvements to the One Technology Center building.
Quote from: TulsaSooner on October 05, 2009, 12:41:11 PM
Then that statement is incorrect....unless you do not believe audited financials.
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/COTlegacy/documents/2007CityofTulsa-ComprehensiveAnnualFinancialReport_000.pdf
See page 70 of the document, Note 14, 3rd paragraph.
Well, it's certainly not the first time Kathy Taylor's administration has lied to us. ;-) I stand corrected.
All I've ever wanted was to be right on the innerwebs. ;D
Quote from: TulsaSooner on October 05, 2009, 02:13:58 PM
All I've ever wanted was to be right on the innerwebs. ;D
Full of WIN!
(http://www.gwoltal.myfastmail.com/files/Trophy%20Cup)
I guess this really goes to how unaware/mislead people are. Even when reviewing the documents it is difficult to get to the exact details of the transaction.
I apologize as the page reflects the assumed mentality of those in control within the IDL (God's little acreage) The reading of the report makes one wonder if it was subscribed for on the price per page basis. This would account to the endurance of ones ability to stay awake while determining what all the paper shuffling is about. Instead of fixing the roads we should spend that money on building a wall with a gate which would allow only those who rule to have their little kingdom and shut out the working poor except collecting taxes and fees from them.