Can Sally Bell...

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I have a problem with her saying "Let's throw open the books..." about Big Splash and the fairgrounds operations while refusing to let us see her books.

Why does she refuse to let us see the business plan that she submitted to the Expo Square board? It is one of the only documents that she ever had with a public authority and she refuses to let us see it. Is she embarassed by her business plan? Is the amusement park business so top secret that hundreds of us will take it and open up our own amusement parks?

How can she be the candidate for openness if she won't be open about her own documents?

I don't blame them for not wanting to disclose this before they are able to relocate their business. I bet after they get their business back up and running you'll see this made public. You fools sound like Randi Miller. How'd that business plan crap work out for her? Is this the best smear campaign talking points that the Karen Keith Kampaign staff can come up with? What a bunch of slackers, they can't even create their own smear campaign, so they just plagiarize Randi Millers.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Excellent points, Conan.

It appears there are two Sally Bells.

One is a businesswoman wants public subsidy and one is a candidate who is against them.

I understand the difference. She now has a different point of view.

First of all, what public subsidy? That's smear & Spin, you can't and won't back up. The voters already debunked this B.S. in the primary, anyway. Keep up the good work, cause this strategy worked so well for Randi Miller. Since, Karen Keith Kampaigners are using Randi Millers playbook, it just looks more and more like KK and Randi Miller are like I've said they are all along, two sides of the same coin.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Excellent points, Conan.

It appears there are two Sally Bells.

One is a businesswoman wants public subsidy and one is a candidate who is against them.

I understand the difference. She now has a different point of view.

First of all, what public subsidy? That's smear & Spin, you can't and won't back up. The voters already debunked this B.S. in the primary, anyway. Keep up the good work, cause this strategy worked so well for Randi Miller. Since, Karen Keith Kampaigners are using Randi Millers playbook, it just looks more and more like KK and Randi Miller are like I've said they are all along, two sides of the same coin.

"Bell's essentially benefitted from a rent subsidy from a public trust when they went from paying $257K in rent to $130K the next year, yet they did $700K in ride improvements and were preparing to buy another $700 to $750K ride when the lease was allowed to expire. Those rides would be wholly-owned assets of Bell Enterprises when paid off, not the property of county taxpayers. Seems like a break on rent would help make payments on improvements."

That subsidy.  What else would you call a rent concession from a public trust?  How bad have you screamed about a similar concession on rent for Big Splash??  

Possible subsidy shopping in other municipalities to rebuild Bell's as well.  You are not a fan of corporate welfare, as I recall.

Those are known facts from news stories which ran from early November of 2006 until the Bell's vacated the property.  Not smear, it just sounds that way to you because now that Randi Miller is out of the race, it's important to vet the candidates and there are facts coming out you don't want to hear.

Over the coming weeks, Karen will prove skeptics wrong.  She's a lot tougher and much more independent than some of you are giving her credit for.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I have a problem with her saying "Let's throw open the books..." about Big Splash and the fairgrounds operations while refusing to let us see her books.

Why does she refuse to let us see the business plan that she submitted to the Expo Square board? It is one of the only documents that she ever had with a public authority and she refuses to let us see it. Is she embarassed by her business plan? Is the amusement park business so top secret that hundreds of us will take it and open up our own amusement parks?

How can she be the candidate for openness if she won't be open about her own documents?

I don't blame them for not wanting to disclose this before they are able to relocate their business. I bet after they get their business back up and running you'll see this made public. You fools sound like Randi Miller. How'd that business plan crap work out for her? Is this the best smear campaign talking points that the Karen Keith Kampaign staff can come up with? What a bunch of slackers, they can't even create their own smear campaign, so they just plagiarize Randi Millers.

Well, legally and technically, a 'Business Plan' is generally accepted to never be made 'public', ever. It's simply not a public document. No company willfully deploys its' Business Plan, formally, to anyone not needed to achieve the plan.

The 'plan' Randi Miller required of Bell's would've been an abreviated version, taylored to the need, not a complete plan, which IS proprietary.

Even then, the plan submitted by Bell's to Randi Miller remains proprietary and held in strict confidence (if you could actually trust Miller, not). If it had been me, I'd have required anyone requiring a viewing to pre-sign a disclosure agreement, for the County to keep a log of its access and require return of the document and a copy of the log once a determination had been made. No copies, of course.

That's how this is normally handled.

Anyone trying to make a issue of Bell's Business Plan is misguided at best, political opportunist more likely.

Besides all that, Bell's is/was operated by Robbie Bell, who constructed the Business Plan.
Sally Bell is his mother and I seriously doubt in legal position to effect anything regarding Bell's Amusement Park.

She might have to recuse herself to vote as a Commissioner on matters relating to Bell's Amusement Park, but that's about it.

Since Bell's Amusement Park no longer has any relationship with the County, that's unlikely.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Excellent points, Conan.

It appears there are two Sally Bells.

One is a businesswoman wants public subsidy and one is a candidate who is against them.

I understand the difference. She now has a different point of view.

First of all, what public subsidy? That's smear & Spin, you can't and won't back up. The voters already debunked this B.S. in the primary, anyway. Keep up the good work, cause this strategy worked so well for Randi Miller. Since, Karen Keith Kampaigners are using Randi Millers playbook, it just looks more and more like KK and Randi Miller are like I've said they are all along, two sides of the same coin.

"Bell's essentially benefitted from a rent subsidy from a public trust when they went from paying $257K in rent to $130K the next year, yet they did $700K in ride improvements and were preparing to buy another $700 to $750K ride when the lease was allowed to expire. Those rides would be wholly-owned assets of Bell Enterprises when paid off, not the property of county taxpayers. Seems like a break on rent would help make payments on improvements."

That subsidy.  What else would you call a rent concession from a public trust?  How bad have you screamed about a similar concession on rent for Big Splash??  

Possible subsidy shopping in other municipalities to rebuild Bell's as well.  You are not a fan of corporate welfare, as I recall.

Those are known facts from news stories which ran from early November of 2006 until the Bell's vacated the property.  Not smear, it just sounds that way to you because now that Randi Miller is out of the race, it's important to vet the candidates and there are facts coming out you don't want to hear.

Over the coming weeks, Karen will prove skeptics wrong.  She's a lot tougher and much more independent than some of you are giving her credit for.

I think 'subsidy' would mean a portion of current market value being lifted. In Bell's, case, the argument for rent reduction was in County-caused market impact, reducing revenues, thus less market value and less rent, not 'subsidy'.

To call it a subsidy is a major stretch.

[Conan71]

Wrinkle,

I believe you are correct on the business plan being allowed to remain private.  There is some confusion over this though between "business plan" and "books".  

Miller wanted Bell's "books" looked at by a third party to evaluate a second chance for Bell's.  Robby balked at the idea and finally relented, according to news accounts from that time.  All Robby would say at the time was their finances were "Rock solid" and that if they were not viable they would not be able to borrow $1.4mm for new rides.  Valid points, but it does give you pause that they would pay about 1/2 the rent they paid in a previous year, whilst buying a new ride.  The equity paid into a ride via a reduction in rent benefits only the owner of the ride, not the landlord (the taxpayers of Tulsa County).

FWIW, Sally's official title at Bell's was CFO.  IOW- she would have handled the books.  She was as much an integral part of the business as Bob or Robby and she maintained an office at the park.  That was as much a family-owned and operated business as you will ever see.

Very few people dispute that the Bells got a raw deal.  Even fewer dispute that there were some dark dealings with the Murphy's, Rick Bjorklund, and Randi Miller, and a former fair board member.  I hate that the Bell's got screwed.  

I can honestly envision the Murphy Brothers and Big Splash keeping the county and fair board tied up in law suits if Sally Bell is poking her nose into Murphy's affairs in her "official capacity" as county commissioner.  The Bell's were a party to the chicanery at the fairgrounds, even if it was on the recieving end of it.  I don't feel it's appropriate for any of the principals to be investigating an issue which affects 575,000 or so citizens, not just one family.

Don't get me wrong, the Bell's are good people, IMO.  It just goes through me though when someone talks about limiting government benefits when they have been a long-term beneficiary of it.  

People are jumping to conclusions about Karen Keith before they've even bothered to learn what her policies and initiatives are.

[Wrinkle]

Quote by Conan21:

quote: Far as I know, Bell's only paid property tax on the improvements to the land, not the land itself since the county owned the land the park sat on. That was another perk thanks to a public trust.

County land is not taxed for Ad Valorem, why would they pay this?

Bell's didn't own the land anyway. If any tax were due, it'd be paid by the property owner, not the leasee. The Leasor, then, might calculate the rental rate to cover their taxes. But, to suggest Bell's got a deal here is incorrect.

Did Murphy's pay Ad Valorem on Big Splash? I doubt it since they didn't even pay rent (until exposed). Do the Driller's pay Ad Valorem? I doubt so, they don't even pay sales tax on their tickets.

You've created a strawman argument here which is invalid.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle



The question is whether we want the County and the Fair grounds run by the same old bunch who's been doing it for decades or a fresh approach.

Given the County will probably be faced with several ongoing investigations, hopefully a Federal Grand Jury type, anyone who's there needs to be ready to cooperate, not castigate, delay and obfuscate.

The question is also WHO would be most likely to cooperate, not castigate, delay and obfuscate. Someone who is and never has been involved with county operations or someone who was intimately involved and knowledgeable of such? The latter is the one who will have to be involved in any investigation and thus serve the public poorly.

You've made no believable connection between the existing "bunch" running the Fairgrounds and Karen Keith. There was however a connection between Sally Bell and the existing bunch. A bad one apparently.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Quote by Conan21:

quote: Far as I know, Bell's only paid property tax on the improvements to the land, not the land itself since the county owned the land the park sat on. That was another perk thanks to a public trust.

County land is not taxed for Ad Valorem, why would they pay this?

Bell's didn't own the land anyway. If any tax were due, it'd be paid by the property owner, not the leasee. The Leasor, then, might calculate the rental rate to cover their taxes. But, to suggest Bell's got a deal here is incorrect.

Did Murphy's pay Ad Valorem on Big Splash? I doubt it since they didn't even pay rent (until exposed). Do the Driller's pay Ad Valorem? I doubt so, they don't even pay sales tax on their tickets.

You've created a strawman argument here which is invalid.

You misinterpreted what I said, Wrinkle.

If the Bells had owned their own parcel of land in Tulsa, or had rented from a private entity in Tulsa, they would have been paying property tax on the dirt their improvements were on top of, in addition to the improvements themselves.

There was the direct benefit of there being no property tax assessed on the dirt by leasing from the county.

[RecycleMichael]

I believe she should have released her business plan because her entire business was on government land.

She had exclusive contracts to operate her business, contracts that were constantly changed whenever she wanted to lower her payment. Her business plan was given as the reason why her lease was canceled.

I think it is appropriate to see that business plan. I think the commissioners should ask for the same with Big Splash and others at the end of their leases.

If the government does business with you, it weakens the ability to keep your business private.

Are you saying the public doesn't have a right to know?

[Wrinkle]

Quote by Conan71:

quote: I'm curious what others think about a potential conflict between Sally Bell and various Murphy businesses at the fairgrounds.  

Sally Bell has no relationship with the Murphy's or any of their businesses anywhere, including the fairgrounds.

What conflict is it that you presume?

They once were both tenants of the County? But, now, only the Murphy's remain.

That's about the same conflict as anyone who's ever visited the fairgrounds, actually less if someone paid the Murphy's any money to throw darts at balloons or slide down Big Splash.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Quote by Conan21:

quote: Far as I know, Bell's only paid property tax on the improvements to the land, not the land itself since the county owned the land the park sat on. That was another perk thanks to a public trust.

County land is not taxed for Ad Valorem, why would they pay this?

Bell's didn't own the land anyway. If any tax were due, it'd be paid by the property owner, not the leasee. The Leasor, then, might calculate the rental rate to cover their taxes. But, to suggest Bell's got a deal here is incorrect.

Did Murphy's pay Ad Valorem on Big Splash? I doubt it since they didn't even pay rent (until exposed). Do the Driller's pay Ad Valorem? I doubt so, they don't even pay sales tax on their tickets.

You've created a strawman argument here which is invalid.

You misinterpreted what I said, Wrinkle.

If the Bells had owned their own parcel of land in Tulsa, or had rented from a private entity in Tulsa, they would have been paying property tax on the dirt their improvements were on top of, in addition to the improvements themselves.

There was the direct benefit of there being no property tax assessed on the dirt by leasing from the county.

Yeah, so?

All that means is you got to ride Zingo for $0.50 instead of $1.00.

They received no benefit other than what any business operating on County land does.

You're trying to create the impression of some cloaked transaction when there is none.

If you want to disolve public trusts and rewrite the tax code, make your case. But, to try to point at the Bell's as benefiting unjustly, you've not only missed the mark, you've attempted to slander them.

[RecycleMichael]

Yes wrinkle. It does matter that their landlord was a public trust.

We the people were her landlord. That entitled her to special breaks on her taxes and special scrutiny on her business.

That is what conan and I are saying.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I believe she should have released her business plan because her entire business was on government land.

She had exclusive contracts to operate her business, contracts that were constantly changed whenever she wanted to lower her payment. Her business plan was given as the reason why her lease was canceled.

I think it is appropriate to see that business plan. I think the commissioners should ask for the same with Big Splash and others at the end of their leases.

If the government does business with you, it weakens the ability to keep your business private.

Are you saying the public doesn't have a right to know?

Well, you'd be wrong.

GOVERNMENT transactions are what's supposed to be transparent. Private business has only the IRS to answer, at least in an economic sense.

When private business transacts with government, it's the government side of the transaction which is public. If the County says they charged $100 rent, then there should be $100 in rent income show up in their books. That is the public part, not Bell's books.

You are free to know gross revenues if the lease stipulates a percent of gross revenues as the rental rate. And, the receiving entity, then, would normally have an ability to monitor the leasors' books to the degree required to verify gross revenues. Other than that, not.

If rental rates are negotiated or fixed rate, then no book access is needed or required.

As long as the rent gets paid (which, apparently, we can never be certain), how the business is doing is of little concern, certainly not public.

And, business plans aren't even close to being public no matter whom they're doing business.

Try to get the business plan of one of the Casinos sometime. That should tie you up until after the election.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle



The question is whether we want the County and the Fair grounds run by the same old bunch who's been doing it for decades or a fresh approach.

Given the County will probably be faced with several ongoing investigations, hopefully a Federal Grand Jury type, anyone who's there needs to be ready to cooperate, not castigate, delay and obfuscate.

The question is also WHO would be most likely to cooperate, not castigate, delay and obfuscate. Someone who is and never has been involved with county operations or someone who was intimately involved and knowledgeable of such? The latter is the one who will have to be involved in any investigation and thus serve the public poorly.

You've made no believable connection between the existing "bunch" running the Fairgrounds and Karen Keith. There was however a connection between Sally Bell and the existing bunch. A bad one apparently.

Karen Keith was the voice of Vision2025 (hint: A County initiative).