Newest Ballpark Trust Revealing

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I suspect that wrinkle has a dog in this hunt by his feigned outrage.

Are you with DTU?

The new taxing district calls for people with a three square mile pay a new tax rate based on square footage. The new trust will assume responsibility for maintaining the entire area that funds it.

The current setup is based on how close the property is to fifth and Main. The services also differ greatly based on how close you are to fifth and Main.

The new formula seems more fair to me. The services should improve with this new trust.

It is time to do something different with downtown maintenance and promotion. This new trust assumes both of those responsiblities. It is time we do it right.

This whole discussion and services changes have been discussed from the beginning. This is an opportunity to write new contracts and make the needed changes. Public Trust Authorities are required to have open public meetings, with posted agendas and annual audits. The current contract has none of these. A city employee serves as contract manager with DTU with authorty to approve payments. None of this is done in a public meeting.

You opposition to creating an open process makes me suspicious of your motives.

Nothing feigned here.

Since ALL IDL property owned by either the City or County is paying this tax, it is all of Tulsa County which pays a large portion of the cost of this ballpark. So, if the new 'Stadium' Trust is going to maintain the area which pays for it, when are they going to get started on these roads?

BTW, nobody has yet answered how much of that burden does actually fall onto Tulsa city and county residents. I'd like that number, and the total from all IDL receipts as projected over 30 years.

Note, however, that the lifetime costs are being calculated upon an existing state of IDL development (with, perhaps the ballpark's own development included, but I doubt it). ANY new construction in the IDL improves revenues beyond that which is currently, or projected to be necessary to support a ballpark bond.

I actually like the idea of a ballpark downtown. But, the funding mechanism and the Trust document make it so distasteful as to simply make it not worth it.

Personally, I think those who filed suit on the IDL tax are going to win. It's taxation without a required vote, especially when public properties are taxed the same way, thus paid by all citizens of the City and County.

Time to slow down, take time to analyze the deal from top to bottom, in public, and make it acceptable for all. This going back to the yonder room and coming back with a new deal each time is ridiculous.

Open negotiations.

Actually, three strikes and they're out. Wasn't that three? Toss the entire thing and start over, or simply pass to Jenks. This rush to get it set is nothing but politcal leverage to get it by the public. Those involved have sights on much bigger things than what's being presented.

I like Mr. Bates idea best, pull the public support altogether and let it be a private deal, with us contributing the land for $1, including the block wide perimeter.

Set some zoning for those parcels and wait for opening day.

Try to imagine all who might jump at that, if it were to be offered.

I would.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

Where does it say the trust will be a for-profit corporation?

...think I said for-profit business operation, masquerading as a Public Trust, with contracted impunity.

Just as in a private business, the success (profit) or failure is totally up to them. Of course, if they fail, guess who's door they'll come a knockin'? Does $7.1 million to BOK ring any bells?

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

Where does it say the trust will be a for-profit corporation?

...think I said for-profit business operation, masquerading as a Public Trust, with contracted impunity.

Just as in a private business, the success (profit) or failure is totally up to them. Of course, if they fail, guess who's door they'll come a knockin'? Does $7.1 million to BOK ring any bells?

A chorus of bells ringing loud and clear. The shades of Great Plains surrounding this "Trust" are undeniable.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

Where does it say the trust will be a for-profit corporation?

...think I said for-profit business operation, masquerading as a Public Trust, with contracted impunity.

Just as in a private business, the success (profit) or failure is totally up to them. Of course, if they fail, guess who's door they'll come a knockin'? Does $7.1 million to BOK ring any bells?

A chorus of bells ringing loud and clear. The shades of Great Plains surrounding this "Trust" are undeniable.

Yes, because this is just like an airline. It's a for-profit business that is going to be stumped by a terrorist attack and increase in gas prices.

I like how there are dozens if not hundreds of such trusts in place and working just fine but this MUST be like the one that failed.

[Renaissance]

I don't understand why a trust formed to build and manage a municipal ballpark is also going to be tasked with contracting out maintenance services for the greater downtown area.

Are we sure this is accurate?  It's being attacked and defended as though it's the case, but I'm still waiting on any actual details of this plan.

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

Where does it say the trust will be a for-profit corporation?

...think I said for-profit business operation, masquerading as a Public Trust, with contracted impunity.

Just as in a private business, the success (profit) or failure is totally up to them. Of course, if they fail, guess who's door they'll come a knockin'? Does $7.1 million to BOK ring any bells?

A chorus of bells ringing loud and clear. The shades of Great Plains surrounding this "Trust" are undeniable.

Yes, because this is just like an airline. It's a for-profit business that is going to be stumped by a terrorist attack and increase in gas prices.

I like how there are dozens if not hundreds of such trusts in place and working just fine but this MUST be like the one that failed.

Ok, so it has different dynamics.  Here's where I start to wonder:  If the revenue for this DTU-like entity comes from a tax that is based off of square footages of properties inside the IDL, where is there incentive to make downtown better for increased profits?  Wouldn't more activity downtown actually create a bigger workload on an entity tasked with simple maintenance/cleaning duties?  Whether downtown turns into a booming success with 25,000 residents moving in and another 25,000 coming to partake in urban events, or if downtown remains a desolate hell-hole, what difference does it make to this entity, aside from a potentially higher workload and the same square-footage based income?

A fixed stream of revenue combined with a for-profit venture equals:  The less we do, the more we profit.

I guess none of this has really been cleared up or verified yet, just thought I would ramble on for a minute.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan


Ok, so it has different dynamics.  Here's where I start to wonder:  If the revenue for this DTU-like entity comes from a tax that is based off of square footages of properties inside the IDL, where is there incentive to make downtown better for increased profits?  Wouldn't more activity downtown actually create a bigger workload on an entity tasked with simple maintenance/cleaning duties?  Whether downtown turns into a booming success with 25,000 residents moving in and another 25,000 coming to partake in urban events, or if downtown remains a desolate hell-hole, what difference does it make to this entity, aside from a potentially higher workload and the same square-footage based income?

You're not thinking this through. Someone puts a 500,000sqft building where a parking lot once stood. This group is cleaning the same streets and sidewalks, so they have no additional workload other than a few more people likely to litter. However, they are now collecting an extra $30,000 a year to do so. Pretty good incentive I'd say.

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan


Ok, so it has different dynamics.  Here's where I start to wonder:  If the revenue for this DTU-like entity comes from a tax that is based off of square footages of properties inside the IDL, where is there incentive to make downtown better for increased profits?  Wouldn't more activity downtown actually create a bigger workload on an entity tasked with simple maintenance/cleaning duties?  Whether downtown turns into a booming success with 25,000 residents moving in and another 25,000 coming to partake in urban events, or if downtown remains a desolate hell-hole, what difference does it make to this entity, aside from a potentially higher workload and the same square-footage based income?

You're not thinking this through. Someone puts a 500,000sqft building where a parking lot once stood. This group is cleaning the same streets and sidewalks, so they have no additional workload other than a few more people likely to litter. However, they are now collecting an extra $30,000 a year to do so. Pretty good incentive I'd say.

Would love to see it happen, however, downtown has plenty of empty structures that need to be filled with businesses or people before the demand will fill up the parking lots with new construction.

[Double A]

Add it all up, it still stinks to high heavens even with the changes. I spoke before the Council and pleaded with them to wait a week and review what they were voting on before they approved this haphazardly rushed deeply flawed public trust at the City Council meeting when they recklessly approved the Business Improvement District. I even warned them about this service contract and lack of competitive bidding at the time. The appointments to this trust still do not require traditional Council approval. Not to mention, the ability of this trust to use the power of eminent domain for private development have not been addressed and remain unresolved. Their are still unanswered questions about this trust's ability to exercise this power within the entire Inner Dispersal Loop.

[Wrinkle]

The more I think about this, the more infuriated I'm becoming.

These people have anything but the best interests of Tulsans in mind with the words of this 'Trust' Agreement.

Read it yourself and see if you have any problems with it.

It also takes a full vote by BOTH the Trustees AND the current 'City of Tulsa governing body' to disolve this 'Trust', thus the Trustees have the ability to self-perpetuate this 'Trust' independently of the wishes of the City, its residents or anyone else.

This deal has gotten well out of control and either the City needs to step out of the loop or the City, via its Council, needs to write the Trust Agreement. Right now, it's being written by those who stand to benefit from what it says.

While we're on 'benefit', I'd like anyone to list what 'benefits' the declared Benefactor of this Trust actually receives, unless it goes out of business, which won't happen per the above comment. Even if it did, chances are it'd be left with a negative net worth at that time or there'd be no reason to disolve the thing.

This thing is _conceptually_ OFF and needs to be looked at and redesigned from page one.

As I've stated previously, the Tulsa Public Facilities Authority should own this ballpark, operated by whomever they contract with, such as with the arena.

That, or make it private and leave it at that.
Then, no IDL tax, no Trust, no problems.

The current Trust Agreement goes waaaay beyond lipstick and includes a leotard, fringe and glitter.

[PonderInc]

Tul-Center (aka DTU) has a contract with the City to provide certain services to downtown property owners, paid for through the Downtown Improvement District.  (DTU also receives funding from their member organizations and fundraising, I believe.)

Their contract will be expiring soon. At the same time, the new Stadium Improvement District will replace the old Downtown Improvement district.  

The city will issue an RFP describing the services that are needed/desired for downtown... and Tul-Center and anyone else can respond to the RFP.  (In the past, their contract has simply been renewed without going out for bid.)

A portion of the money from the Stadium Improvement District will go towards providing downtown services just like in the past.  Another portion of the Stadium Improvement District will go towards building the stadium.  Once the stadium is built, that portion will go away, and the downtown property owners will see the percent they pay for the SID decrease significantly.  (In the meantime, their property values will increase b/c of the stadium. The total $$ in the Stadium Improvement District will be greater b/c of new development spurred by the stadium, the arena and growing downtown coolness.  So downtown services should increase as new tax dollars come into the district.)

Also, all downtown property owners will be paying essentially the same percentage, and should be receiving equal services (unlike today, where the businesses closest to the little fountain get more attention/services than those in the Blue Dome or Brady).

The Trust is not going to be "running downtown."  They will be respsonsible for building a ballpark and developing, for the city's benefit, the surrounding area.  

At least, that's how I understand it.  Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of the above.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I totally agree that this could lead to a longer term contract for DTU. It could pick them or could pick any other vendor.
That is why there is a committee looking at the existing contract and assessing the needs of the future.

But read the backup documentation on Thursday's council agenda. There is a major change in the trust indenture...now all issuance of debt has to be approved by the council. It also adds new members representing small downtown property owners. The terms are also from two to five years in length.

I am saying that whatever is done in the future will have to be done in public and will probably be discussed in depth on this forum. I would much rather that public pressure that to how it is being done now.

It ain't just about the ballpark. The whole downtown needs maintenance and promotion. This is a chance to do it better.

And therein lies part of the problem with my attitude- DTU winding up with a longer contract.  This trust simply has some strange and far-reaching tentacles.  I consider myself an "average citizen" and pretty much in touch with the pulse of other average citizens.

There's three or four of us on this thread who have chimed in, yourself and Grizzle included, who have or who do work downtown and we all seem to know what a pathetic little ivory tower DTU is.

If a larger entity is created only to sub-contract back to the same worthless administration at DTU, I think I will give myself a Columbian necktie.  It makes zero sense, and I do understand at this point I'm simply reacting to an internet rumor regarding DTU.

I think there are a lot of Tulsans who feel that the lack of detail and lack of requests for public input are indicative of an arrogant government which thinks they always have the right answer and that citizens are too stupid to know what they really want or need.  That may not be the reality but it is the image, anyhow.

If anything, I do believe our local government is being obtuse by thinking we are just a bunch of obstructionists, bent on shooting down any new publicly-funded proposal.

I think people just want a more open approach to the way new developments are being run through the city these days.  I'm a supporter of the new highrise for MHA clients at Admiral & Yale, but I still think the city could have done a far better job of educating the surrounding area on what this would or would not be going in.

They are going to get the same public outcry (justly or unjustly) on projects where the majority of citizens are kept in the dark about salient details.  

You might not approach it with the same view as many of us because you work around various government entities every day.  Most of us do not, and for that reason, probably lack some of trust that you do have for our local government and associated bureaucracies.

I'm not saying our government is necessarily wrong on this, but they aren't doing much to foment trust from the public with actions held close to the vest.

[Wrinkle]

I think it'd be incorrect to attribute ALL IDL development to the ballpark, especially as a 'benefit'.

Tulsans and Tulsa County residents have contributed (via taxes) to a wholesale redevelopment effort for downtown, including the arena, streets, housing incentives, free land, etc, etc.

To suggest none of that has an impact on future development and it's all due to the ballpark, which we will not own, but contribute most, if not all the actual cost of construction, would be shortchanging everyone.

[PonderInc]

That's true.  I agree that we've invested a lot in downtown already.  However, I'm totally pro ballpark, and optimistic that it will be a promising catalyst for more growth.

I want downtown to be fun, diverse and lively...and the more people who come downtown and have something to do (and a reason to stay before and after) the better.  The ballpark makes sense to me...and will generate a lot more ROI than the current grassy field at the corner of Archer and Elgin.

I'm actually proud of the arena, and proud that we built it with our very own tax dollars.  Did you feel the impact on your pocketbook?  (I didn't, and trust me, I don't make the big bucks.)  But did I feel the impact when I was standing outside our awesome new venue on Saturday night?  You betcha!

Tulsa needs a bit of civic pride.  I actually think downtown is going to help provide it.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

That's true.  I agree that we've invested a lot in downtown already.  However, I'm totally pro ballpark, and optimistic that it will be a promising catalyst for more growth.

I want downtown to be fun, diverse and lively...and the more people who come downtown and have something to do (and a reason to stay before and after) the better.  The ballpark makes sense to me...and will generate a lot more ROI than the current grassy field at the corner of Archer and Elgin.

I'm actually proud of the arena, and proud that we built it with our very own tax dollars.  Did you feel the impact on your pocketbook?  (I didn't, and trust me, I don't make the big bucks.)  But did I feel the impact when I was standing outside our awesome new venue on Saturday night?  You betcha!

Tulsa needs a bit of civic pride.  I actually think downtown is going to help provide it.

The ballpark will be a huge deal to downtown, I just don't see why they need to make this so complicated with this trust and encompass surrounding development.  That's how things like the aquarium wind up down in Jenks.