Consequences of Stadium District?

[DowntownNow]

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

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

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

Pretty sure I addressed all this in my last post.

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

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

[swake]

Still, it's important to acknowledge that some property owners in the IDL are being subjected to a massive new levy because of Stadium District. 

Massive? Really?

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

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

[DowntownNow]

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

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

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

[RecycleMichael]

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

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

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

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

[Renaissance]

Massive? Really?

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

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

So do you.  (btw it's 6.5 cents.)

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

Still fired up about the ballpark. 

[Wilbur]

It had to get funded somehow, and it was good to avoid a vote. 

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

[DowntownNow]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[RecycleMichael]

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

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

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

[DowntownNow]

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

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

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

Section 39 101.  This act may be cited as the Improvement District Act.
Laws 1978, c. 233, § 1, emerg. eff. April 25, 1978. 
§11-39-102.  Definitions.
As used in the Improvement District Act, the singular includes the plural and:
1.  "Acquired" means the acquisition of property or interests in property by purchase, gift, condemnation or other lawful means;
2.  "City" means any city or town incorporated pursuant to the laws of Oklahoma;
3.  "Engineer" means a city engineer, city official, employee or other person competent to advise and assist the governing body in planning and making an improvement;
4.  "Cost" means any cost necessarily or reasonably incurred in making the improvement, including but not limited to cost of:
a.   preparation of preliminary reports,
b.   preparation of plans and specifications,
c.   preparation and publication of notices of hearings, resolutions, ordinances and other proceedings,
d.   fees and expenses for engineers, attorneys, laborers and other personal services,
e.   rights-of-way, materials and other lawful expenses incurred in making any improvement, and
f.   capitalized interest, funding of reserves, premiums for reserve surety bonds, and obtaining bond insurance, letters of credit or other credit enhancements or liquidity instruments;
5.  "District" means an area designated by the governing body to be benefited by an improvement and subjected to payment of special assessments for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement;
6.  "Governing body" means the city council, city commission or board of trustees of an incorporated city or town;
7.  "Improve" means to construct, reconstruct, maintain, restore, replace, renew, repair, install, equip, extend, purchase, alter or otherwise perform any work which provides a new facility, or enhances, extends or restores the value or usefulness of an existing facility;
8.  "Improvement" means any type of improvement made by authority of this Improvement District Act and includes reimprovement of any prior improvement made pursuant to any other act;
9.  "Mail" means by first-class mail;
10.  "Trustee" means a city acting pursuant to this act;
11.  "Street" means any highway, street, alley, boulevard, avenue, right-of-way, public ground, or other public facility, or any part thereof; and
12.  "Publish" or "publication" means printing in a newspaper which maintains an office in the city or town and is of general circulation within the city or town, or, if there is no newspaper which maintains an office in the city or town, a newspaper of general circulation within the city or town and in two (2) separate issues thereof, at least seven (7) days apart.
Laws 1978, c. 233, § 2, emerg. eff. April 25, 1978.  Amended by Laws 2007, c. 362, § 4, eff. Nov. 1, 2007.

§11-39-103.  Creation of improvement districts - Purpose - Contents.
The governing body of any city may create one or more districts for the purpose of making or causing to be made any improvement or combination of improvements that confer special benefit upon property within the district.  Such improvement or combination of improvements may include the following, without limitation because of enumeration:
1.  Acquisition of property or interest in property when necessary for any of the purposes authorized by the Improvement District Act;
2.  Opening, creating, widening and extending or altering of streets to improve paving, and surfacing, constructing and reconstructing gutters, curbs, sidewalks, crosswalks, driveway entrances and structures, drainage facilities, and service connections from sewers, water, gas, electricity and other utility mains, conduits or pipes;
3.  Constructing or improving main and lateral storm water drains and sanitary sewer systems and facilities;
4.  Installation or improvement of street lights and street lighting systems;
5.  Construction or improvement of water mains and waterworks systems;
6.  Improvement (See Definition above) of parks, playgrounds and recreational facilities;
7.  Improvement of any street, parking or other facility by landscaping, or planting of trees, shrubs and other plants;
8.  Constructing or improving dikes, levees and other flood control works, gates, lift stations, bridges and streets appurtenant thereto;
9.  Constructing or improving vehicle and pedestrian bridges, overpasses and tunnels;
10.  Constructing or improving retaining walls and area walls on public ways or land abutting thereon;
11.  Constructing or improving property for off-street parking facilities, including construction and equipment of buildings thereon;
12.  Constructing or improving pedestrian malls; or
13.  Constructing or improving offsite facilities or infrastructure serving all or a portion of land within a district; notwithstanding that, such facilities or infrastructure may also serve areas outside a district, but subject to cost apportionment requirements of subsection A of Section 39-110 of this title.
Added by Laws 1978, c. 233, § 3, emerg. eff. April 25, 1978.  Amended by Laws 2007, c. 362, § 5, eff. Nov. 1, 2007.

§11-39-103.1.  Additional improvement districts - Assessments - Objections - Termination.
A.  In addition to those purposes set out in Section 39-103 of this title, the governing body of any municipality having a population of more than one thousand five hundred (1,500) may create one or more districts and levy assessments for the purpose of providing or causing to be provided any maintenance, cleaning, security, shuttle service, upkeep, marketing, management or other services which confer special benefits upon property within the district by preserving, enhancing or extending the value or usefulness of any improvement described in Section 39-103 of this title, whether or not the improvement was financed or constructed pursuant to this act and such governing body may exclude or modify such assessments according to benefits received on properties which are exempt from ad valorem taxation, except those assessments provided for by Section 39-103 of this title.  In addition, such districts may also be used to fund maintenance, management, marketing and other services being provided through an active Main Street Program recognized as such by the Oklahoma Department of Commerce.  General street repair and maintenance on any street used by vehicular traffic shall not be made a part of any assessments provided for hereunder.
B.  If the governing body determines that it is desirable to continue to provide or cause to be provided the improvements and services authorized by this section, the governing body shall annually prepare and cause to be filed in the office of the municipal clerk an assessment roll containing, among other things:
1.  The name and address of the last-known owner of each tract or parcel of land to be assessed, or if the name of the owner is unknown, state "unknown".  The name and address of the owner of each tract of land shall be obtained from the records of the county treasurer;
2.  A description of the tract or parcel of land to be assessed; and
3.  The amount of the assessment against each tract or parcel of land.
If after filing the assessment roll, it appears that the amount of the assessment against any tract or parcel of land shall be increased, the governing body shall by resolution set a time and place for the assessment hearing at which an owner may object to the amount of the assessment.
C.  Not more than thirty (30) days nor less than ten (10) days before the day of the hearing, the municipal clerk, the deputy municipal clerk or the engineer shall mail the notice of the hearing on the assessment roll to the owner of the tract or parcel of land on which the amount of assessment is increased.  Proof of the mailing is to be made by affidavit by the municipal clerk, the deputy municipal clerk or the engineer, which shall be filed in the office of the municipal clerk.  Failure of the owner to receive any notice shall not invalidate any of the proceedings authorized in the Improvement District Act.  Notice of the hearing shall also be published.  The last publication shall be at least seven (7) days prior to the day of the hearing.  Such service by publication shall be verified by an affidavit of the publisher which is to be filed in the office of the municipal clerk.
D.  No district created under this section shall continue beyond the date that final payment of all principal, interest and other amounts due in connection with bonds issued by that district has been made, or if no bonds have been issued by the district, beyond the date that is thirty (30) years after the adoption of the resolution creating the district, unless re-created as provided in Section 39-101 et seq. of this title for creation of districts.  Provided that, at any time after its creation, and provided further that, no bonds or other financial obligations of a district are then outstanding, the district shall cease to exist if:
1.  The governing body by resolution terminates the district; or
2.  The owners of a majority in area of the tracts or parcels of land within the district and a majority of the owners of record of property within the district petition in writing to terminate the district.
Such termination shall take effect at the end of the fiscal year in which the governing body adopts such resolution or determines the validity of such petition.  Nothing herein shall excuse a tract or parcel of land from its liability for deferred payments or any assessment.
Added by Laws 1981, c. 139, § 1, emerg. eff. May 5, 1981.  Amended by Laws 1983, c. 154, § 1, emerg. eff. May 26, 1983; Laws 1988, c. 152, § 4, eff. Nov. 1, 1988; Laws 1998, c. 30, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 1998; Laws 2007, c. 362, § 6, eff. Nov. 1, 2007.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[DowntownNow]

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

[RecycleMichael]

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

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

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

Do you really expect me to answer each of these?

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

[TheArtist]

 Waaaaa  

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

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

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

[RecycleMichael]

It is what is legally allowable under the law and here it seems very, very stretched and weighing more and more to the side that has brought the action. 

Really?

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

[DowntownNow]

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

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

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

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

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

[DowntownNow]

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

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