Council Approves Stadium Fee

[DowntownNow]

While I'm sure everyone has heard about this already, I wanted to post this anyway because it bears some examination of where this will take many IDL property owners...right to the steps of the District Court to file their lawsuits. 

Council approves stadium fee, 5-4

by: P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writer
Friday, June 05, 2009
6/5/2009 3:34:50 AM

The City Council approved a controversial assessment roll Thursday to help fund the construction of the downtown baseball stadium.

"There comes a time to make difficult decisions, and with that I move to approve," Councilor Dennis Troyer declared after listening to lengthy explanations of why some of his colleagues favored or opposed the assessment.

In a 5-4 vote, Troyer and Councilors G.T. Bynum, Eric Gomez, David Patrick and Jack Henderson approved the roll.

Councilors Bill Christiansen, Bill Martinson, John Eagleton and Rick Westcott opposed it.

The council failed to get the six votes needed to approve an emergency clause that would have allowed the city to begin collecting fees from downtown property owners by July 1.

As a result, the approved ordinance that sets the roll will not go into effect until 30 days after its publication.

Fred Dorwart, attorney for the Tulsa Stadium Trust, said after the meeting that the slight delay in collection will not affect the finances.

The assessment fee will be collected annually from downtown property owners for 30 years. A portion of the collected fees will raise $25 million to repay a revenue bond issued to fund part of the cost of the $39.2 million stadium.

The council meeting room was packed, with people lining the walls. Most in attendance supported the assessment.

The council heard from 14 people in favor of the assessment and five against it.

All of the councilors who spoke Thursday said they supported the ballpark.

Those in opposition to the assessment roll, however, said they thought the process for setting the assessment was illegal, flawed or lacked due process.

Bynum said the councilors who say they support the ballpark but are against the financing are "like me saying I want to be skinny but I hate to exercise and love ice cream."

Bynum said the council voted in July to create the district and that based on that vote local philanthropists donated $30 million to the project.

"Now we're saying we're going to leave you guys holding the bag because we're not going to hold up to our side," he said.

Martinson said it is the council's job to decide whether there "is adequate benefit to the people that are actually paying the bill."

Unlike the voluntary donors, property owners are being forced to pay the assessment for the ballpark, he said.

Martinson said he didn't support the assessment roll because he hasn't seen the benefit to all the people who will be affected by the fee.

Although several assessment issues have been in dispute by property owners, the main contention centers on whether the assessment fee outweighs the benefit a property owner would receive from the ballpark's existence.

The council sought a legal opinion from the state attorney general but received only advice that assessments must be proportionate to benefit. The council also was advised that it can adjust assessments to reflect an appropriate benefit for property owners who filed timely protests in April, when the council conducted a hearing on the roll.

The city's Legal Department, however, disagrees with the attorney general, saying the time to contest the assessment roll was last July, when the Tulsa Stadium District was created.

Westcott said he believes from reading the attorney general's advice and state law that the way the assessment was set up is illegal.

He said the property owners were twice misinformed by Mayor Kathy Taylor and the city attorney. He said they were told it was legal to have a flat rate assessed across the district and that property owners couldn't protest their fee amounts in April if they had not protested them the previous July.

But, Westcott said, the attorney general said that was "absurd."

"The greater good is never served by doing something illegal," Westcott said.

Christiansen said that after reading the attorney general's advice, "I just believe the property owner rights are being violated."

"They have not been given their due process that I believe the attorney general says is due," he said. "As a small business owner, if this had happened to me, I'd be one mad man."

The current Main Mall assessment district, which is being replaced by the new Tulsa Stadium District, has a formula fee based on a property's location relative to the former pedestrian mall. It funds only services such as street cleaning and landscaping. That district expires June 30.

The new district has an increased flat rate for all properties — 6.5 cents per square foot, with 4.3 cents allocated to the ballpark and 2.2 cents reserved to pay for services. The current assessment district rate varies from 0.01 cent to 3.5 cents per square foot, depending on distance from the former Main Mall.


I attended the meeting last night.  Over and over, the proponent speakers stood up, many of them neither living nor owning property or businesses in the IDL to say that the ballpark is a good thing for Tulsa and that's why the fee should pass.

Over and over, opponents of the ballpark stood and said "yes, a ballpark is a good thing for Tulsa, BUT the way you are assessing me is not."  There was no question among any both for and against the ballpark being a good thing.  These opponents that did own land, businesses and rental property in the IDL have a problem with the assessment itself...in particular the benefit to be received by the property owner in relation to the assessment. 

The only Councilors to speak in support of passing the fee were Bynum, Gomez and Troyer.  Troyer, true to form was already positioned to act in one way, and one way only, without any discussion for his views to approve by vote. 

But the thing that struck me as being both arrogant, and quite possibly ignorant, were the comments made by Bynum and Gomez.  Now, both of these men are real estate professionals...Gomez is licensed by the Oklahoma Real Estate Commission and has placed his license with Keller-Williams.  Bynum works for Williams and Williams Real Estate Auction...not sure if he is licensed, but should at least be familiar with real estate law and the conduct one must follow as a real estate professional.

In each case, these real estate professionals made the claim that the 'benefit' to the IDL property owners as a whole would be the increased property value generated as a result of the construction of the ballpark, no matter where within the IDL the property was located and without consideration for existing improvements or condition of the property, its taxes and now its assessment.

Real estate professionals can not and should not make statements to the effect that "because of this thing, this other thing will definitely happen."  In this case, "if we levy this assessment against you to build the ballpark, you will receive an increase in your property's value as a direct result." 

It would be one thing to suggest that property values 'could' increase...but to definitively state that they will as required by the statutes is another matter. 

A real estate professional can not, and would not, ever suggest to a potential buyer that by buying a home, they will be guaranteed a positive return on investment.  Its against the rules of OREC because property value is speculative in nature and always changing due to multiple influences.  An increase in one property's value may not be in direct relation to the value of the property next door or a mile away.

So the question becomes, how did two real estate professionals (wherein at least one is bound to act in a certain manner when describing real property by being licensed) determine that there would be a definite and direct benefit through increased property value afforded to every parcel within the IDL to meet and satisfy the requirements of the BID assessment?

I would be curious if such an arguement by any real estate professional when dealing with real property then becomes the domain of OREC to investigate...hmmmm.

[RecycleMichael]

Sounds like you are desparate to win your "hate the ballpark" campaign at any cost. Go ahead and make up any slam you can to anybody who votes against you.

Why don't you just hire homeless people to stand outside their office and chant?

[custosnox]

Sounds like you are desparate to win your "hate the ballpark" campaign at any cost. Go ahead and make up any slam you can to anybody who votes against you.

Why don't you just hire homeless people to stand outside their office and chant?

So you don't think that there will be lawsuits being filed left and right over this?

[Conan71]

DTN,

I don't see anything illegal or unethical in Gomez or Bynums comments.  It's not in the context of selling someone a home or commercial property.  It's being stated in the context of their duties as councilors, not real estate professionals.  It might well get someone in hot water with OREC if it were in relation to the sale of property, but I've not read their code of ethics.  I don't believe either of these councilors were attempting to sell real estate when they were speaking.

Thank you for the detailed account, but your analysis of that part of the issue is weak and shows a bias on your part.

I do agree miles of litigation is not a good thing for the city and the handling of the stadium district has been bungled.

[FOTD]

Making decisions basing the process on fear of litigation is not the way to move forward in business as nor in life.

You know this demon constantly questions authority. Looks like our good city just tilted towards ignoring the law. Gad flies can fight the bad fight. Baseball has come to downtown.

All hail civil disobedience.

[Wrinkle]

Remember when Medlock was threatened with suit over his vote on the F&M Bank deal?

Councilors' who vote certain ways are personally and professionally liable and also get to defend themselves (pay legal fees) on city matters since they carry no professional liability insurance and city legal has to recuse themselves.

Maybe next week there'll be one of those famous "reconsideration" votes.

[DowntownNow]

Just keep trying to rack up E's for effort eh Michael?  If you got the empty cans, recycled plastics and day old cage lining paper out of your eyes, you could infer as a reasonably intelligent individual that my arguement has never been against the ballpark itself...I wholly believe that a ballpark could and should stimulate further economic growth and redevelopment in the area and by the private sector.  I also believe that if it is to accomplish what the proponents have stated it is supposed to do, then the surrounding property could easily be developed independently by the private sector and without public financing assistance.  Anything less makes light of the proponent arguement that the ballpark is a necessary 'third leg' of publicly finananced general improvement that once completed, will sput that growth, bringing cultural enlightenment and economic prosperity to downtown and all of Tulsa...blah blah blah. Let's be realistic, in a capitalist market..that growth and development is spurred by the need for services and products that the market can and will bear...independent of how ever much public money is thrown at it....but I digress.

Where I do have an issue is the mehtod by which the City Administration organized, drafted and pushed for approval of an obviously flawed assessment district that creates a substantial financial burden upon property owners that were not given a choice or allowed to vote on what amounts to a taxation to fund a general improvement that is not provided for as being allowed by the statutes.  I'm sure you can find my previous post that listed the exact statute.

At the same time, rather than quibble with what I 'campaign' about...why dont you take the time and read the related state statutes, the Attorney General's letter of advice and postulate an arguement of your own to counter mine...far more productive if you can rationalize and get me to see the light your way.

[RecycleMichael]

Oh...now you want to talk about the financing...it seems before you were just talking smack about real estate and making innuendo.

Your post that started this thread was certainly a new low for you. You tried to get two politicians who disagreed with you in hot water in their other jobs. You have no facts, just a compelling need to personally attack them.

Anonymous attacks...no facts, just slander. You disgust me.

[Wilbur]

I think DowntownNow brings up two interesting points:

1.  IF property values go up in the IDL, what is to say they went up ONLY because of the ballpark?  Maybe they went up because of the new arena, or because McNellie's added more space on the first floor, or because of the new museum, or the PAC is bringing in better shows, or .........

2.  And a bigger question might be....  what if property values go down?  Does that mean the new tax increase assessment, which is based on a benefit to property values, becomes null-n-void?  Would a property owner have a good argument to say my property values went down, which means the ballpark provided no benefit, so I don't have to pay the new rate?

[waterboy]

Wilbur: No. The converse argument is that property values would have substantially decreased further without the ballpark. When you phrase your arguments the way you have, there is no way to justify any development investment anywhere. Neither question is valid.

Why? You would have to build a very complex model to accomodate all the possible impacts to property values that would be of any benefit. Then it would still be subject to negative scrutiny based on contempt and lack of faith in government (those being the critical motivations in this valuation scenario).

The answer is, that these are subjective valuations based on common sense logic and experience. You build a ballpark that attracts patrons, logically, it is going to benefit those in the surrounding area. How do you deny that? Especially when the surrounding area is the recipient of other development whether public or private. Long term, the prospects of increased value of your downtown property is better than it was before these efforts when downtown looked like hell. The argument here is the methodology. Assessments are in fact taxes without a vote but it is a commonly used tactic, the problem here is one of fair apportionment of fees.

DowntownNow: such a waste of critical analysis. The real estate code argument was so weak that even a non Realtor was able to puncture it. As a former agent I am familiar with the code and it is a twist of logic to use it here.

If we can get past the legal stumbling blocks and the contrarian attitudes, a compromise can be effected. There will be a ballpark downtown and it will be partially funded by assessments of nearby landowners. That reality needs to be digested.

[TheArtist]

  I am so excited about what is happening downtown. I am really interested to see what will go around the ballpark. With everything that is being built and refurbished, downtown is going to be a completely different place within 3-5 years. It already has improved greatly.

Just think, a few short years ago, there was really nothing going on downtown except for more and more businesses leaving. Its deplorable that the city allowed things to deteriorate to the point they did. This was a situation that was decades in the making, the trend was continuous and obvious. It wasn't a sudden surprise where someone looked around and went,,, "OMG! our downtown is completely dead!" Something should have been done decades before this one. I am guessing they tried, I wasnt politically or socially aware like I am now so dont really know,,, but obviously they failed. The decline continued and picked up steam if anything. You may complain about whats been done in this decade, but its showing results. We needed to move, and move big lol. 

Since vision 2025 we have made tremendous and yes very difficult progress. If you look at the point we were starting from say in 2000 and where we are today, just 9years later. I am actually kind of amazed at how far we have come. It seems achingly slow while imagining what we still want to see done, but looking at the big picture of what we have already achieved in just this decade shows a different story. We still have a lot further to go. But wow, what a transformation we are going to see for there is real, postitive, momentum at last. More living, more restaurants and fun places to hang out, museums, fantastic new arena, several new hotels, historic old buildings, large and small, being saved and not left empty to rot. The new ballpark, possibly lots of new development, some by the arena, some by the ballpark and other places downtown. Expanding the colleges, improving the streets and sidewalks, train noise being fixed,,,, I could go on and on with improvements large and small. The entire city and county along with local philanthropists, entrepreneurs, and investors, have all chipped in to invest hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars into downtown and surrounding areas. With more to come, "some from the state hopefully".  All of these pieces are working together to improve things, for the city, and whole region really.

The point from which we were starting was shockingly desperate. Downtown was essentially lost. What we will have done in just a decade is nothing short of miraculous.  We fought back the decline, held steady, and are now pushing forward on so many fronts. Its great to see and despite the controversies and I am sure some legitimate complaints and problems,,, over all we have done what other cities in similar situations could only dream of doing. We will have succeeded in sparking vibrant new life into the, dead as frack, heart of our city. This, I have no doubt, will create a wave of revitalization which will ripple outward from the center once again.

Sorry, all the whining and griping was just getting a little out of hand and needed some balance imo lol.