Turner: BOK to punish North Tulsans tax stand

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

One wonders why you keep parading out these arguments. Its as though you have to keep selling to yourselves the idea that you made the right decision to poison the well. Sure, some elements of this plan may end up in future plans but find a leader who wants to stake his future on any plan after the thrashing leaders got with this one.

Let me remind you of what happened to popular council members who championed the widening of Riverside Drive over a decade ago. They also were pilloried and hounded out of office. The only one I know that survived politically went to the state legislature.

Never seen such poor winners in my life. Swallow your success and the consequences it brought. Is it because in Tulsa the thing actually passed and you're afraid it might pass with a little more bait thrown out to the burbs next time?

Man, I guess you guys have to blame someone other than our supposed leaders for this one.

That's o.k., we'll take credit for its' defeat, proudly. We saved millions in wasted spending  and putting the County in control of everything river.

Remember, they still owe us river dams in Vision2025. Perhaps they'll decide to get on them.

Even the Patron Saint of "No", Bates, admits that he knew that the 2025 money was intended as matching funds for federal money. Matching funds that our "conservative" Republican congressional delegation has FAILED to secure.

Inhofe's current bill (a likely veto victim) that authorizes $50 million for the river still contains no money for the river. And our other senator voted against the very same bill. The reason 2025 isn't building dams is because of the failure of our "conservative" delegation to get us any money.

I think we are owed better representation more than we are "owed" dams. How about we all agree to vote against Inhofe and Coburn? I will agree to vote against Randi Miller (again).

The question of Federal Funds is moot. The County openly stated there would be large collection overages in Vision2025 and that they would be used to assure completion of ALL projects, including dams, if need be.

They went so far as to suggest the possibility that those funds might not come through, and which have not (to date). So, use the collection overages from Vision2025 to complete ALL projects promised.

Simple, really.

If they don't, then their legal ground for  using collection overages for any other purpose is clear. They cannot.

Document your statements. Until then they are worth nothing.

So, Randi can just say "there is no overage" and you believe her?

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Silly is the river tax plan proposed.
Actually, there are more descriptive adjectives, but I won't use them.

The idea of that plan should be put completely out of its misery. The idea of river development lives on. Short-sighted would be an all-or-nothing mindset.

Way to duck the question.  Forget the plan; the plan is out of its misery.  Your augury is that the "free market" is going to fix everything. We're listening, but it's obvious we're not unquestioningly swallowing your rhetoric. I think it's therefore only fair that you explain to us exactly how the prospects for private development are improved by the public's failure to invest in it.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle


The question of Federal Funds is moot. The County openly stated there would be large collection overages in Vision2025 and that they would be used to assure completion of ALL projects, including dams, if need be.

They went so far as to suggest the possibility that those funds might not come through, and which have not (to date). So, use the collection overages from Vision2025 to complete ALL projects promised.

Simple, really.

If they don't, then their legal ground for  using collection overages for any other purpose is clear. They cannot.

Document your statements. Until then they are worth nothing.

The county stated no such thing. BATES stated their will be overages. EAGLETON said their will be overages. The county stated they might collect something like $20M extra, but they won't have a real good idea until 2012 and they won't know for sure until 2015.

Unlike what Eagleton suggests, the age of sub-prime mortgages are over. We can't build a dam anytime soon based on hopes, wishes or rainbows.

Hey, don't rely on me, read it yourself:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=050617_Ne_A1_Visio

quote: The $5.6 million allocated in Vision 2025 for river projects only pays for a portion of two low-water dams. It is supposed to be used along with federal funds, but Miller said officials may need the extra money to make sure the dams get built.  

Oh, and even since that article (which was prior to the election) the amounts have grown substantially, County itself now says $750 Million Gross Vision2025, which actually remains low. That's $125 Million over the numbers John Piercey used to come up with his most recent $80 Million surplus.

Now try to tell me there's no money for dams.

Of course, the current "plan" is to deny all and demand proof. I call BS on your "won't know until...".

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle


The question of Federal Funds is moot. The County openly stated there would be large collection overages in Vision2025 and that they would be used to assure completion of ALL projects, including dams, if need be.

They went so far as to suggest the possibility that those funds might not come through, and which have not (to date). So, use the collection overages from Vision2025 to complete ALL projects promised.

Simple, really.

If they don't, then their legal ground for  using collection overages for any other purpose is clear. They cannot.

Document your statements. Until then they are worth nothing.

The county stated no such thing. BATES stated their will be overages. EAGLETON said their will be overages. The county stated they might collect something like $20M extra, but they won't have a real good idea until 2012 and they won't know for sure until 2015.

Unlike what Eagleton suggests, the age of sub-prime mortgages are over. We can't build a dam anytime soon based on hopes, wishes or rainbows.

Hey, don't rely on me, read it yourself:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=050617_Ne_A1_Visio

quote: The $5.6 million allocated in Vision 2025 for river projects only pays for a portion of two low-water dams. It is supposed to be used along with federal funds, but Miller said officials may need the extra money to make sure the dams get built.  

Oh, and even since that article (which was prior to the election) the amounts have grown substantially, County itself now says $750 Million Gross Vision2025, which actually remains low. That's $125 Million over the numbers John Piercey used to come up with his most recent $80 Million surplus.

Now try to tell me there's no money for dams.

Of course, the current "plan" is to deny all and demand proof. I call BS on your "won't know until...".

Yes, in June of 2005 there was a projected surplus of $65 million. Then in July 2006 $45.5 million of that was put to the arena cost overruns.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20060719/ai_n16542408

That leaves a projection of $19.5 that will be available sometime in 2013. You want to take a loan out against that last $19 million? After paying bonding costs it would pay for about half a dam.

Thank you for proving our point.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Silly is the river tax plan proposed.
Actually, there are more descriptive adjectives, but I won't use them.

The idea of that plan should be put completely out of its misery. The idea of river development lives on. Short-sighted would be an all-or-nothing mindset.

Way to duck the question.  Forget the plan; the plan is out of its misery.  Your augury is that the "free market" is going to fix everything. We're listening, but it's obvious we're not unquestioningly swallowing your rhetoric. I think it's therefore only fair that you explain to us exactly how the prospects for private development are improved by the public's failure to invest in it.

If the County builds the dams they promised in Vision2025, we have the major portion of the County's river tax plan, less pedestrian bridges to nowhere and perhaps a gathering place or three.

HCM is once again proceeding on their intent to build a Tulsa Landing on the west bank, if the City of Tulsa can help with a TIF. He's back on track where he left off before Taylor and Miller iced him during the campaign.

RiverWalk II is proceeding. The $1 Billion Jenks development is proceeding (saying it wasn't depending on the tax passage), the Bixby development is proceeding.

Jenks says they may have a way to fund their own dam using private monies.

Not sure just where you're seeing any loss, other than a new tax with a conditional gift and a new authority to take control.

If those projects do not spur additional development, it wouldn't have happened with over a quarter billion in public funds either.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle
the amounts have grown substantially, County itself now says $750 Million Gross Vision2025, which actually remains low. That's $125 Million over the numbers John Piercey used to come up with his most recent $80 Million surplus.

Why don't you try to document this?

[Chicken Little]

^Wait a minute, Wrinkle.  Are we supposed to trust what Miller says or not.  'Cause your last two posts sorta swing both ways.

[swake]

Also,

There is this, when the arena went over budget, part of the deal was the future surpluses would be spent on projects outside of Tulsa:


Suburban mayors supported the supplement to counter the city's construction cost overruns only after being assured that any future additional funding paid from the county's Vision 2025 sales taxes would be targeted for projects outside Tulsa.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=060719_Ne_A1_Tulsa33517

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle


The question of Federal Funds is moot. The County openly stated there would be large collection overages in Vision2025 and that they would be used to assure completion of ALL projects, including dams, if need be.

They went so far as to suggest the possibility that those funds might not come through, and which have not (to date). So, use the collection overages from Vision2025 to complete ALL projects promised.

Simple, really.

If they don't, then their legal ground for  using collection overages for any other purpose is clear. They cannot.

Document your statements. Until then they are worth nothing.

The county stated no such thing. BATES stated their will be overages. EAGLETON said their will be overages. The county stated they might collect something like $20M extra, but they won't have a real good idea until 2012 and they won't know for sure until 2015.

Unlike what Eagleton suggests, the age of sub-prime mortgages are over. We can't build a dam anytime soon based on hopes, wishes or rainbows.

Hey, don't rely on me, read it yourself:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=050617_Ne_A1_Visio

quote: The $5.6 million allocated in Vision 2025 for river projects only pays for a portion of two low-water dams. It is supposed to be used along with federal funds, but Miller said officials may need the extra money to make sure the dams get built.  

Oh, and even since that article (which was prior to the election) the amounts have grown substantially, County itself now says $750 Million Gross Vision2025, which actually remains low. That's $125 Million over the numbers John Piercey used to come up with his most recent $80 Million surplus.

Now try to tell me there's no money for dams.

Of course, the current "plan" is to deny all and demand proof. I call BS on your "won't know until...".

Yes, in June of 2005 there was a projected surplus of $65 million. Then in July 2006 $45.5 million of that was put to the arena cost overruns.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20060719/ai_n16542408

That leaves a projection of $19.5 that will be available sometime in 2013. You want to take a loan out against that last $19 million? After paying bonding costs it would pay for about half a dam.

Thank you for proving our point.

Wrong again. That $65 Million was projected before the tax passed, and based upon revenue projections of $625 Million (ref: John Piercey's Vision2025 Summary -  http://www.batesline.com/archives/Vision2025FinancialSummary-20070910.pdf ). The County upped it's revenue projections to $750 Million in January 2007. And, John Piercey's estimated overage, after paying $45.5 Million in arena cost overruns, and including interest costs, remains at $78 Million, but still based upon only $635 Million in revenues. There's between $125 and $140 Million missing, making the current expected overage something over $200 Million, with only something like a 2.5% escalation factor for future growth. The past 20-year average escalation has been over 3.0% per year, so actual revenues will likely be even greater.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070121_Ne_A13_Taxre37067

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by swake

Also,

There is this, when the arena went over budget, part of the deal was the future surpluses would be spent on projects outside of Tulsa:


Suburban mayors supported the supplement to counter the city's construction cost overruns only after being assured that any future additional funding paid from the county's Vision 2025 sales taxes would be targeted for projects outside Tulsa.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=060719_Ne_A1_Tulsa33517

That's what was said, according to the Whirled, but Miller later denied any deal for new projects was made to fund arena overages. In fact, it would be improper to do so. The resolution clearly states ALL projects must be completed before any additional projects may be considered with any surplus funding.

The dams were promised and listed as Vision2025 projects. The dams must be funded before surplus funds can be used for any additional projects.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by swake

Also,

There is this, when the arena went over budget, part of the deal was the future surpluses would be spent on projects outside of Tulsa:


Suburban mayors supported the supplement to counter the city's construction cost overruns only after being assured that any future additional funding paid from the county's Vision 2025 sales taxes would be targeted for projects outside Tulsa.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=060719_Ne_A1_Tulsa33517

That's what was said, according to the Whirled, but Miller later denied any deal for new projects was made to fund arena overages. In fact, it would be improper to do so. The resolution clearly states ALL projects must be completed before any additional projects may be considered with any surplus funding.

Document this statement.

And you are not including in your figures any money for debt service. There simply is no big pot of money. I agree that there may well be more money than is projected. But are you willing to gamble on that by taking out a loan against POSSIBLE surpluses? Who is the conservative here?

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by swake

Also,

There is this, when the arena went over budget, part of the deal was the future surpluses would be spent on projects outside of Tulsa:


Suburban mayors supported the supplement to counter the city's construction cost overruns only after being assured that any future additional funding paid from the county's Vision 2025 sales taxes would be targeted for projects outside Tulsa.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=060719_Ne_A1_Tulsa33517

That's what was said, according to the Whirled, but Miller later denied any deal for new projects was made to fund arena overages. In fact, it would be improper to do so. The resolution clearly states ALL projects must be completed before any additional projects may be considered with any surplus funding.

Document this statement.

And you are not including in your figures any money for debt service. There simply is no big pot of money. I agree that there may well be more money than is projected. But are you willing to gamble on that by taking out a loan against POSSIBLE surpluses? Who is the conservative here?

EVERY PROJECT in Vision2025 was funded on the basis of anticipated future revenues. Their projected revenues, which began at $635 million and revised, by them, to $750 million.

John Piercey's numbers include debt service costs for everything but dams.

Two $27.5 Million dams, three years from now require about 7 years in bond term. $55 Million bonded at 5% for 7 years costs about $66 Million. John Piercey's $78 Million overage will easily cover that, without even considering the additional $125-$140 million in surplus in their own projections. I'm not making up 'possible' surpluses here, it's the County's own numbers.

All numbers I present are based upon the SAME conservative posture the County took in funding those projects, and which can actually be considered excessively conservative.

It's not a gamble.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

If the County builds the dams they promised in Vision2025, we have the major portion of the County's river tax plan, less pedestrian bridges to nowhere and perhaps a gathering place or three.

HCM is once again proceeding on their intent to build a Tulsa Landing on the west bank, if the City of Tulsa can help with a TIF. He's back on track where he left off before Taylor and Miller iced him during the campaign.

RiverWalk II is proceeding. The $1 Billion Jenks development is proceeding (saying it wasn't depending on the tax passage), the Bixby development is proceeding.

Jenks says they may have a way to fund their own dam using private monies.

Not sure just where you're seeing any loss, other than a new tax with a conditional gift and a new authority to take control.

If those projects do not spur additional development, it wouldn't have happened with over a quarter billion in public funds either.

Thanks for responding.  

So we start off down $117 million; we build dams with V2025 money that even Bates says isn't really there; we settle for fewer public improvements; and, presuming the Huffman and Jenks deals can be done with TIFs (do you links to show that either are actually going through with their developments?), we ensure that neither city will see a dime of revenue from these developments for many years whilst they pay off the TIFs.

Heck, I'll even give you the bridges...I thought they were pointless without a better West Bank plan.  I'll even suspend my disbelief long enough for you to make the claim that we can actually pay for some kind of public improvement along the River without a tax.

Even without 'em, I'm seeing a second-rate "solution" with a dicier outlook and fewer direct benefits.  Moreover, if I were either of those developers, I'd be scaling back my proposals to something befitting this lesser product.  I'd also put the screws to the cities in order to reduce my risk.

So, yeah, even still, I think we're losing a lot.

[Wrinkle]

I'm going to revise my commets significantly.

There's errors in John Piercey's Summary. He does not account for revenues to date of $180 Million already collected in his "Revenue Sources" section. If one were to subtract the $39M 'held by County'from prior proceeds, there's $141 million of that not accounted for in his spreadsheet.

The simple, logical math says that $535 million in project costs (now $580.5 million with the $45.5 million arena cost overruns) cannot have $200 Million in overages, making a total of $780.5 Million covered with $750M in revenues, before debt service. I grant that.

But, his $78M in projected overages still covers the cost of dams, including debt service. So, if one were to add the $141 to his projected overage, that's where the $200M+ number came from.

Conservative revenue estimates (slightly less conservative than the County's ultra-conservative posture) still suggests overages will be at least twice John Piercey's $78M amount.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by swake

Also,

There is this, when the arena went over budget, part of the deal was the future surpluses would be spent on projects outside of Tulsa:


Suburban mayors supported the supplement to counter the city's construction cost overruns only after being assured that any future additional funding paid from the county's Vision 2025 sales taxes would be targeted for projects outside Tulsa.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=060719_Ne_A1_Tulsa33517

That's what was said, according to the Whirled, but Miller later denied any deal for new projects was made to fund arena overages. In fact, it would be improper to do so. The resolution clearly states ALL projects must be completed before any additional projects may be considered with any surplus funding.

Document this statement.

And you are not including in your figures any money for debt service. There simply is no big pot of money. I agree that there may well be more money than is projected. But are you willing to gamble on that by taking out a loan against POSSIBLE surpluses? Who is the conservative here?

EVERY PROJECT in Vision2025 was funded on the basis of anticipated future revenues. Their projected revenues, which began at $635 million and revised, by them, to $750 million.

John Piercey's numbers include debt service costs for everything but dams.

Two $27.5 Million dams, three years from now require about 7 years in bond term. $55 Million bonded at 5% for 7 years costs about $66 Million. John Piercey's $78 Million overage will easily cover that, without even considering the additional $125-$140 million in surplus in their own projections. I'm not making up 'possible' surpluses here, it's the County's own numbers.

All numbers I present are based upon the SAME conservative posture the County took in funding those projects, and which can actually be considered excessively conservative.

It's not a gamble.

Sorry, a little flaw in your figures.

Three dams, Zink needs to be rebuilt, and fixing Zink is ALSO in 2025.

And you have not addressed your claim that the county backtracked on it's pledge to the suburbs on arena overruns.