During this morning's Economic Development Commission meeting, Don Himelfarb presented a summary of the report on the City Hall Consolidation Study. Below is a link to the PowerPoint presentation. Also, there will be a video airing on Channel 24 at 11:00am, 4:00pm and 10:00pm most days (not Tuesday). The video will also soon be available on uTube. The City Council will vote on the consolidation very soon, most likely on June 28th. The EDC voted unanimously to support the consolidation plan.
Here are just a few reasons the EDC voted unanimously (and reasons why I personally and sincerely hope this passes through City Council):
- Saves the city (and taxpayers) a significant amount of money, money which can then be free to spend on other needy items
- Helps in the revitalization of downtown
- City Hall DESPERATELY needs to present a more favorable impression to companies considering relocation to Tulsa (not to mention our own residents)
- The potential for LEED Certification (Green building) creates a competitive advantage for Tulsa and demonstrates the desire for our city to be a leader in environmental issues (also reduces long term energy needs of the City)
- Creates a "One Stop" for city services all in the same building
- Improves downtown real estate market by reducing vacancy
- Replaces current (obsolete/aging) city hall location with a hotel site adjacent to convention center (will make new arena much more desirable for major conventions, and will increase tax revenues)
- It is an innovative idea that presents Tulsa as a more forward thinking city, and is vital if we want to compete in the 21st Century.
- THERE WILL BE NO TAX INCREASE AS A RESULT OF THIS.
Link to report summary: view report (//%22http://www.cityoftulsa.org/OurCity/Mayor/OneTech.asp%22)
It is imperative that our city councilors understand the importance of this consolidation and its positive benefits to the city. Mr. Himelfarb is presenting this report to the city council today. The Mayor, Mr. Himelfarb, and members of the EDC are asking for letters to your city councilors stressing the need to take this innovative and fiscally responsible step forward for the betterment of Tulsa.
Has it been determined whether or not the Police/Municipal Courts building would be included in this consolidation?
Flip side of this coin is the beginning of the end of Civic Center as we know it.
Not a good thing if you want to preserve Tulsa's Modern Architecture or preserve our Civic Center.
Past discussion on the issue can be found here:
https://tulsanow.org/wp/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6771
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaSooner
Has it been determined whether or not the Police/Municipal Courts building would be included in this consolidation?
According to the presentation it isn't, which kind of eliminates the "One Stop" benefit. So folks who make a court appearance and need to pay a fine would have to go to One Tech or the City would have to have another set of cashiers/supervisory staff located at Municipal Court?
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Flip side of this coin is the beginning of the end of Civic Center as we know it.
Not a good thing if you want to preserve Tulsa's Modern Architecture or preserve our Civic Center.
The Civic Center/Convention Center would receive some much needed renovation and updates. It would not be demolished, but improved. I saw some nice renderings, including a huge ballroom. The current City Hall is the building that would eventually be demolished. I haven't met anyone who would bemoan the loss of that building and all of its mold and other problems. It does not even have a public entrance aside from entering through the parking garage, which is quite lame, and certainly not pedestrian friendly in any way.
quote:
Originally posted by rbryant
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Flip side of this coin is the beginning of the end of Civic Center as we know it.
Not a good thing if you want to preserve Tulsa's Modern Architecture or preserve our Civic Center.
The Civic Center/Convention Center would receive some much needed renovation and updates. It would not be demolished, but improved. I saw some nice renderings, including a huge ballroom. The current City Hall is the building that would eventually be demolished. I haven't met anyone who would bemoan the loss of that building and all of its mold and other problems. It does not even have a public entrance aside from entering through the parking garage, which is quite lame, and certainly not pedestrian friendly in any way.
You just met the one person who will. Hometown will be the person chained to the building like a tree hugger when they go to implode that nasty old City Hall.
quote:
Originally posted by rbryant
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Flip side of this coin is the beginning of the end of Civic Center as we know it.
Not a good thing if you want to preserve Tulsa's Modern Architecture or preserve our Civic Center.
The Civic Center/Convention Center would receive some much needed renovation and updates. It would not be demolished, but improved. I saw some nice renderings, including a huge ballroom. The current City Hall is the building that would eventually be demolished. I haven't met anyone who would bemoan the loss of that building and all of its mold and other problems. It does not even have a public entrance aside from entering through the parking garage, which is quite lame, and certainly not pedestrian friendly in any way.
I'm sure it seemed completely reasonable to Tulsans of the day to demolish each and every one of our wonderful old priceless movie houses.
It takes time to see the value in historic architecture.
I say get good photos. The trends of the last 30 years will most likely continue unabated.
quote:
I'm sure it seemed completely reasonable to Tulsans of the day to demolish each and every one of our wonderful old priceless movie houses.
It takes time to see the value in historic architecture.
I say get good photos. The trends of the last 30 years will most likely continue unabated.
I share your disgust with what has been demolished over the years. When I see the slide shows and photos showing what Tulsa was like decades ago... the density downtown... the activity... the vitality... it makes me want to cry because that's the city I want to live in. And we had it at one time. The biggest crime is when the buildings are demolished to be replaced with surface parking. And, unfortunately, this has been happening even recently when you consider the Skelly Building and the Auto Hotel. If someone insists on demolishing a building, then at the very least they should build something better. This is a situation in which that should happen, as the city is in need of a hotel next to the convention center (according to various folks who have been trying to bring in large conventions to Tulsa). If it's not demolished and simply becomes vacant and available for lease, I wonder if anyone would even be willing to locate their offices there.
However, I see this not so much as an issue of whether or not the current city hall building will be demolished at some point, but more a factor of the city making an improvement (on many levels) in the location of city hall.
Wasn't the idea of revamping 5th St. floated a few years back? Expect more talk about a new library. What does the future hold for the Page Belcher Federal buidling? The YMCA needs to come down and the new fountain is dull. We need ball park downtown.
As a person who's experienced in preservation and types of architecture on Route 66, I can say with considerable certainty that I won't miss that mold-infested, confusingly laid-out, nondescript, dogsh*t building that is city hall.
A truly excellent question!! What IS to become of the Page Belcher Federal Building? That thing is smack donkey in the way of any kind of Arena/Convention Center/Civic Plaza redevelopment.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaSooner
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaSooner
Has it been determined whether or not the Police/Municipal Courts building would be included in this consolidation?
According to the presentation it isn't, which kind of eliminates the "One Stop" benefit. So folks who make a court appearance and need to pay a fine would have to go to One Tech or the City would have to have another set of cashiers/supervisory staff located at Municipal Court?
Bueller....Bueller?
[:)]
I hope this deal gets done.....One of the better ideas someone has come up with.....
quote:
Originally posted by CoffeeBean
Wasn't the idea of revamping 5th St. floated a few years back? Expect more talk about a new library. What does the future hold for the Page Belcher Federal buidling? The YMCA needs to come down and the new fountain is dull. We need ball park downtown.
Ideal plan is the ball park still ends up in the east end and the civic plaza becomes a hotel/restaurant district tied to the arena and convention center. The library and post office/fed courthouse are also possible candidates to move out of the way of progress.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaSooner
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaSooner
Has it been determined whether or not the Police/Municipal Courts building would be included in this consolidation?
According to the presentation it isn't, which kind of eliminates the "One Stop" benefit. So folks who make a court appearance and need to pay a fine would have to go to One Tech or the City would have to have another set of cashiers/supervisory staff located at Municipal Court?
Your court appearance would be in front of a COUNTY judge. The new facility is to be a one stop shop for CITY services.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Your court appearance would be in front of a COUNTY judge. The new facility is to be a one stop shop for CITY services.
People make court appearances in and pay fines for MUNICIPAL court every day, it's in the building just west of the County Courthouse. These appearances would be for court cases involving citations issued by the TPD.
Of the $15 Million supposedly 'saved'over the first 10 years, how much of that occurs in years 1, 2 and 3 (the remainder of Kitty's term)?
When averaging things over 10 years, half of those could be a net loss.
How much of this savings does utilities constitute? And, what are the rate projections for the next 10 years?
Exactly how much rent is the City of Tulsa going to pay the new Authority (bldg owner)?
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Of the $15 Million supposedly 'saved'over the first 10 years, how much of that occurs in years 1, 2 and 3 (the remainder of Kitty's term)?
When averaging things over 10 years, half of those could be a net loss.
How much of this savings does utilities constitute? And, what are the rate projections for the next 10 years?
Exactly how much rent is the City of Tulsa going to pay the new Authority (bldg owner)?
A lot of the savings shown are from not doing maintenance which was already deferred and unfunded. There is no mention of the city paying rent to itself.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Of the $15 Million supposedly 'saved'over the first 10 years, how much of that occurs in years 1, 2 and 3 (the remainder of Kitty's term)?
When averaging things over 10 years, half of those could be a net loss.
How much of this savings does utilities constitute? And, what are the rate projections for the next 10 years?
Exactly how much rent is the City of Tulsa going to pay the new Authority (bldg owner)?
A lot of the savings shown are from not doing maintenance which was already deferred and unfunded. There is no mention of the city paying rent to itself.
It's not paying rent to itself, the City becomes a tenant in a building owned by a new Authority. Thus, rent would be required, if for no other reason than liabilities.
I've not even seen square footage figures on the amount the City expects to occupy.
And, there's rumors of The Chamber, perhaps INCOG and other non-governmental agencies becoming other tenants of this building. That should be of some concern.
Two weeks advance notice for the Council to be presented, digest and form an opinion of this transaction is unacceptable.
Let's see the Operations Budget for the new Authority. In particular, how much money will be spent on MAINTENANCE in the first ten years?
Some of the square footage info is in the powerpoint.
quote:
Originally posted by rbryant
quote:
I'm sure it seemed completely reasonable to Tulsans of the day to demolish each and every one of our wonderful old priceless movie houses.
It takes time to see the value in historic architecture.
I say get good photos. The trends of the last 30 years will most likely continue unabated.
I share your disgust with what has been demolished over the years. When I see the slide shows and photos showing what Tulsa was like decades ago... the density downtown... the activity... the vitality... it makes me want to cry because that's the city I want to live in. And we had it at one time. The biggest crime is when the buildings are demolished to be replaced with surface parking. And, unfortunately, this has been happening even recently when you consider the Skelly Building and the Auto Hotel. If someone insists on demolishing a building, then at the very least they should build something better. This is a situation in which that should happen, as the city is in need of a hotel next to the convention center (according to various folks who have been trying to bring in large conventions to Tulsa). If it's not demolished and simply becomes vacant and available for lease, I wonder if anyone would even be willing to locate their offices there.
However, I see this not so much as an issue of whether or not the current city hall building will be demolished at some point, but more a factor of the city making an improvement (on many levels) in the location of city hall.
A new hotel? I just want to point out that today there are four large hotels in downtown Tulsa that sit nearly empty.
The Doubletree Hotel is two blocks from the new Arena. The other hotels are also located within an easy walk from the Arena.
It's obvious the City has no solid plans for the "old" City Hall building. Otherwise, they'd have the Tulsa World printing six part series on undisclosed developers who are fighting amongst themselves over the possibilities.
Then, there's the Library, which is part of the as yet unrevealed plan. They'll be back asking for the $80 Million for a 'Grand Central' Library (in an Internet Age).
And, the Federal Building hasn't gone unnoticed, for sure.
City Officials need to come out of the closet.
Another hotel is needed to attract the medium size conventions that we want. Downtown hotels don't really compete with each other, they complement each other.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Some of the square footage info is in the powerpoint.
Would it be asking too much to reprint some of those here?
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Another hotel is needed to attract the medium size conventions that we want. Downtown hotels don't really compete with each other, they complement each other.
With all due respect, that doesn't make sense.
The new Authority Budget is of great concern, especially the MAINTENANCE aspects of the operation.
Remember, this Authority will be required to be a competative force in the downtown real estate market. The City norm of deferring MAINTENANCE will be absolutely unacceptable in a competative market place. Tenants will expect services and for their place of business to not be constantly erroding like the City has done to virtually all of its' possessions.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Another hotel is needed to attract the medium size conventions that we want. Downtown hotels don't really compete with each other, they complement each other.
With all due respect, that doesn't make sense.
We only have enough hotel rooms downtown to attract conventions that need less than 1,000 rooms. None of the choices are four star and many conventions like to have one upscale hotel to host.
A new hotel at that location will give us the chance to attract the next size conventions and more upscale visitors.
Ask the management at the Doubletree or the Crowne Plaza and I bet they will say they support a new downtown hotel.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
As a person who's experienced in preservation and types of architecture on Route 66, I can say with considerable certainty that I won't miss that mold-infested, confusingly laid-out, nondescript, dogsh*t building that is city hall.
Amen.
I think the move will prove to be one of the Mayor's more popular decisions. It could give Tulsa a little since of pride, help the economic viability of commerce in our emerging arts district, make it friendlier for folks doing business with the city. We're going from a dungeon with files stacked in hallways and workers knocking elbows to a showcase.
Anyone who has paid a traffic fine in this building or visited the offices knows that the building is no treasure. Style wise or construction quality. The plaza in general has been problematic since it started leaking back in the late seventies, a mere dozen years into its life. Redevelopment into a more complementary property to the Arena certainly makes sense to me.
That being said, the new location seems to be missing a sense of place. It is not "branded" like the plaza area. No other typical govt. services like the library, county offices or fed offices will be nearby. Basically it says, "we're not the player we once were".
Okay RM, that's pretty convincing. New hotel may make sense.
Now, we've seen some numbers about what the city will save. What we haven't seen is what a classic Modern civic center would be worth with time and careful restoration.
How would you figure the economic value of the old movie houses? Many cities restored one of their old movie houses as a performing arts theatre. Oakland's Paramount is quite famous for that and they are now restoring another – the old Fox. What is the value of those restored theatres to Oakland. Those kind of issues are pretty esoteric but in a real sense just as important to a city's bottom line.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Okay RM, that's pretty convincing. New hotel may make sense.
Now, we've seen some numbers about what the city will save. What we haven't seen is what a classic Modern civic center would be worth with time and careful restoration.
We may "need" a new hotel or two to help attract certain large conventions. The problem is, we don't have sufficient market for a new hotel, let alone two. The city's own hotel market study told us that no full-service hotel is likely to be built in downtown Tulsa without substantial subsidies. Has everyone forgotten that we have not been able to attract a single experienced developer to build a hotel on the pre-cleared site across Denver from the arena? And now the mayor would have us believe we can find a hotel developer to buy the city hall property, pay to demolish the city hall and parking deck and build a new hotel??? What alternative reality does she occupy?
The mayor and the Whirled keep telling us that the city hall study shows we'll save money. But what they've shown us so far suggests otherwise. To come up with the so-called $15 million savings, they combined the operating costs of the current facilities with the $24 million of deferred maintenance and compared that with just the operating costs of One Tech, ignoring the $67 million capital cost of getting there. Highly unusual, not to say dishonest.
A bit of math:
One $67.1M Bond at 6%APR/30 years
Results in a monthly mortgage payment of approximately $402,298.40 (o.k., exactly)
That's $4,827,580.80 per year.
Just for the mortgage.
Think I heard there were 750,000 sq ft in this building, which would mean that $6.44/Sq Ft rates are required just to pay the mortgage.
Typical rates for First Class Office Space in downtown Tulsa are between $12-$16/sq. ft.
So, less than half of the potential rental income remains available for MAINTENANCE, Insurance (the City won't be able to Self-Insure like it does for its' own stuff here), and Taxes (this requires some clearification as to whether or not the building is tax exempt, since it leases to non-governmental organizations, and the Authority will be operating a for-profit enterprize).
In addition, there's other overhead expenses like general utilities (not for tenants, City included), Leasing Office, tenant space improvements and remodels for new tenants, advertising, personel costs, window washers, a vehicle or two, vacancy factors (usually around 15%) and a building fund for long term maintenance items like roof replacement.
IF all that can be covered for the remaining $5.60/sq ft per year, then the numbers should prove it.
So, is the City going to lease its' space at the $12-$16/sq ft rate to make it all work?
Or, was the plan just to dump $9-$12M/year into the Authority's budget each year?
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Another hotel is needed to attract the medium size conventions that we want. Downtown hotels don't really compete with each other, they complement each other.
With all due respect, that doesn't make sense.
Classic Spincycle. The convention biz is dead. I bet it winds up as a casino/hotel.
Gee doublea...just because your emloyment doesn't utilize conventions does not mean the entire convention business is dead.
How about this story about how the business is doing well...
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2007/06/04/daily14.html?from_msnbc=1
or this one...
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/orl-convention2706apr27,0,5773040.story?coll=orl-business-headlines
or this one...
http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?ID=18414
or this one...
http://www.presstelegram.com/outlook/ci_5290961
Do you just argue every point without thinking?
Once again, you are either ignorant or so self-centered that you don't have a clue about what others do.
BTW, just remembered, this building was developed originally using a TIF.
I have no idea, but it would seem the TIF would have had conditions in the agreement which would void it in the event of failure (i.e., bankruptcy, insolvency) of the building owner.
Never mind the questions about appropriate use of TIF's.
Anyone know the disposition of this TIF?
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Classic Spincycle. The convention biz is dead. I bet it winds up as a casino/hotel.
The convention biz is not dead, the era of large conventions has however lost out to regionalized conventions which is actually better news for us.
Plus, a downtown hotel/casino wouldn't necessarily be bad from a city standpoint since places like cherokee are pulling casino patrons outside of the city.
So no thoughts on One Tech NOT being a "One Stop Shop" due to Municipal Court? They'll either have to have identical cashiering operations in two places, or folks will have to travel from Muni Court to One Tech to pay.
Or something, *gasp*, new will have to be developed by the court folks.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaSooner
So no thoughts on One Tech NOT being a "One Stop Shop" due to Municipal Court? They'll either have to have identical cashiering operations in two places, or folks will have to travel from Muni Court to One Tech to pay.
Or something, *gasp*, new will have to be developed by the court folks.
Don't they have to travel now?
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Don't they have to travel now?
Yes, across the plaza.
Just seems crazy to me they'd assess costs in court and then tell them to travel, and park again, to the One Tech building to pay the fine. Or, they'll have to have duplicate cashiering staff in court.
Mainly, I'm wondering why the court/police building isn't included in the consolidation. Seems to me that to maximize your savings and property value, you'd want to include as many buildings as possible in the move.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaSooner
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Don't they have to travel now?
Yes, across the plaza.
Just seems crazy to me they'd assess costs in court and then tell them to travel, and park again, to the One Tech building to pay the fine. Or, they'll have to have duplicate cashiering staff in court.
Mainly, I'm wondering why the court/police building isn't included in the consolidation. Seems to me that to maximize your savings and property value, you'd want to include as many buildings as possible in the move.
I'm sure the final fate of the buildings they are leaving is factored in. If someone wanted to buy the current building, the story might be different.
To the extent that the mayor's proposed move would bring additional city employees to downtown, the proposal is a good thing. A couple of years ago I suggested in this forum that city, state and federal governments should consolidate their Tulsa operations downtown to bolster downtown's bid to stay alive.
Government picks winners and losers everyday and government could choose to make downtown a going concern.
The building the city is considering is quite attractive and would be a positive reflection on Tulsa.
But it's not just about where we are going but also what we are leaving behind.
One of the things that concerns me about abandoning civic center is that there is already a nexus of folks there doing government business and the proposed move would disperse that concentration of people.
Also, when we try to measure the value of Tulsa's old Modern civic center I am reminded of my father clearing out my grandfather's house on Charles Page Boulevard after my grandfather's death. The house was full of quality wood furniture that my father believed had no value because it was old. The furniture was sent off to Goodwill. Decades later when I began purchasing furniture for my home, tastes had shifted and wood was once more in style, but by that time even the top line wood furniture did not compare in quality to the furniture that my father had gotten rid of.
Now, I have a very low opinion of folks charged with preservation in this town. I would be ashamed to call myself a preservationist if I had spent my adult life here because Tulsa has failed miserably at preserving her past. There is nothing in the local mindset to suggest we will change. There is no meaningful support for preservation in this town.
Unfortunately, the best of Tulsa was built back in the day and as we redevelop the "new" just isn't in the same class as the "old." If we could ever find anyone to pay the bills that might change, but in the meantime I am not convinced that Tulsa will be able to muster a downtown facility that would equal what our city did in the 60s when it built civic center.
I believe we should find another spot for the new hotel, stop the upcoming remodeling of convention center, tear out all the later additions to civic center and civic plaza and hire the best designers and a name architect to restore our civic center and make it a tribute to Mid-Century Modernism, something that Tulsa has a significant amount of. City Hall should be restored and utilized as a government facility.
But I'm not counting on anything like that ever happening.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Plus, a downtown hotel/casino wouldn't necessarily be bad from a city standpoint since places like cherokee are pulling casino patrons outside of the city.
Would that really make a diff? People will go in with pockets full of cash and nothing to spend when they come out. [}:)]
HT- If you look around, there's been lots of preservation. Many private investors have sunk millions into preserving buildings downtown and elsewhere in older commercial districts.
I just don't see the point in preserving the City Hall- it wasn't "modern" done perfect. Since I haven't been one of the bigger horn-blowers for the BOK Center, I haven't paid close attention to the reno of the Maxwell Center, but I hadn't heard anything about changing the exterior so much as the interior. I think you will still be able to discern the modern architecture on that building.
More at Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070624_1_A1_spanc31224%22)
quote:
After more than five hours of discussion, the City Council decided Saturday to delay a vote set for this week on whether to approve the consolidation of City Hall into One Technology Center.
Councilor Cason Carter said he thinks it is important that given the amount of information on hand, the council take the necessary time to understand all of the assumptions and all of the risks before making a decision.
"That's what we are doing," he said. "This is about whether we will save taxpayers money at the end of the day."
The council is expected to vote on the issue in July.
During a special meeting Saturday, the council spent three hours asking Economic Development Director Don Himelfarb about the risks and how the assumptions were derived in the purchase analysis.
The group then spent more than two hours in closed session to discuss confidential information.
The administration has said that if the move is approved, the city would spend no more than $67.1 million to consolidate 1,000 employees into that site. That cost includes the building purchase price, which sources knowledgeable about the deal say is $52.25
Click Here
million.
The remaining $14.85 million would fund relocation costs, security, consultant work and other capital costs related to the move.
You left out the part about the conflict of interest in the original study by Staubach's company (who stands to gain on the City sale).
This deal is begining to smolder.
Besides being an inapropriate facility for City Government, the City becomes a landlord who's own tenancy is determined by their ability to rent space to others. I go back to my original comment about maintenance. Public commercial lease markets demand much more in this respect than the City has demonstrated its' capable of doing. (i.e., existing facilities in need of $24M in 'deferred' maintenance). They will not survive in a competative marketplace in their current posture.
Bad deal all around.
Oh, did I mention what a HOT real estate market downtown Tulsa is these days?
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Oh, did I mention what a HOT real estate market downtown Tulsa is these days?
"(DOWNTOWN TULSA, Okla.) June 25 - The possible move of Tulsa's city hall now appears to be far from a slam dunk.
After a special weekend meeting, several city councilors have new questions about whether the move is really necessary.
Tulsa’s Mayor Kathy Taylor says the move is necessary because it would make room for a new downtown hotel."
http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=dc92ed10-ab88-45e3-a799-7215c7f106c2
I thought that's why the Towerview was bulldozed? Whack-a-Mole, anybody?
What happened to the efficiencies of having more of the city employees together in one building? I remember how hard it was just to get that little mural approved and such that I did. Meeting after meeting, getting everyone together in one building, kept running into the problem of different people going to this building or that to other meetings, to get papers signed, things approved,.... was the most inefficient stupid way to do things I had ever seen. I got tired of going from place to place to place. Permits in this building, a meeting with the mayor in that building,getting the contract written up in yet another, getting everyone together, was an incredible waste of time (aka money). Thats not the way it should be. Not to mention a secretary and security at each and every lobby and bulding, you could probably eliminate a number of redundant jobs, not to mention redundant meeting rooms lol.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
What happened to the efficiencies of having more of the city employees together in one building? I remember how hard it was just to get that little mural approved and such that I did. Meeting after meeting, getting everyone together in one building, kept running into the problem of different people going to this building or that to other meetings, to get papers signed, things approved,.... was the most inefficient stupid way to do things I had ever seen. I got tired of going from place to place to place. Permits in this building, a meeting with the mayor in that building,getting the contract written up in yet another, getting everyone together, was an incredible waste of time (aka money). Thats not the way it should be. Not to mention a secretary and security at each and every lobby and bulding, you could probably eliminate a number of redundant jobs, not to mention redundant meeting rooms lol.
I don't think anyone's suggesting the current City Hall is acceptable in it's current form. Just that abandoning it and the Civic Center would be a mistake, especially with this deal on One Tech which creates more problems than it solves.
Has anyone notice, too, that no hotel developer has yet shown an interest in the Civic Center site? Don't you think they'd be parading that around if they had one?
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
What happened to the efficiencies of having more of the city employees together in one building? I remember how hard it was just to get that little mural approved and such that I did. Meeting after meeting, getting everyone together in one building, kept running into the problem of different people going to this building or that to other meetings, to get papers signed, things approved,.... was the most inefficient stupid way to do things I had ever seen. I got tired of going from place to place to place. Permits in this building, a meeting with the mayor in that building,getting the contract written up in yet another, getting everyone together, was an incredible waste of time (aka money). Thats not the way it should be. Not to mention a secretary and security at each and every lobby and bulding, you could probably eliminate a number of redundant jobs, not to mention redundant meeting rooms lol.
Those cost efficiencies were all calculated in the Staubach report that concluded (falsely) that the operating costs of the new arrangement would be lower than the operating costs in the current arrangement. (I say falsely because they actually compared operating costs in the new arrangement with operating costs + deferred maintenance of the current arrangement, and totally ignored the capital and relocation costs required for the new arrangement). PLUS, of course, we now also know that the whole "study" is tainted by Staubach's having a financial interest in the outcome.
In short, this whole thing is smelling worse and worse. Time to put it out of its misery.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Has anyone notice, too, that no hotel developer has yet shown an interest in the Civic Center site? Don't you think they'd be parading that around if they had one?
Thank you. I was beginning to think I
was the only one noticing that. There are two alternative explanations:
(1) There is a similar level of interest as there was in the TowerView block back when we were repeatedly told there was a huge amount of interest and we would have multiple developers clamoring for the opportunity to develop that site (and we ended up with
one developer with zero track record and ridiculous demands). (That is to say there is ZERO legitimate interest from hotel developers)
(2) They've already done a back-room deal with some of the local old-money folks to develop a hotel on the site. Anyone remember Great Plains Airlines?
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Has anyone notice, too, that no hotel developer has yet shown an interest in the Civic Center site? Don't you think they'd be parading that around if they had one?
Thank you. I was beginning to think I was the only one noticing that. There are two alternative explanations:
(1) There is a similar level of interest as there was in the TowerView block back when we were repeatedly told there was a huge amount of interest and we would have multiple developers clamoring for the opportunity to develop that site (and we ended up with one developer with zero track record and ridiculous demands). (That is to say there is ZERO legitimate interest from hotel developers)
(2) They've already done a back-room deal with some of the local old-money folks to develop a hotel on the site. Anyone remember Great Plains Airlines?
I'm pretty consistantly feeling there's a Master Plan I haven't seen.
Oh, it's not published, you say?
Every step of the process on everything around here is more about control than anything. That, and the flow of cash around the inner circle.
If anyone was really looking out for us, why on Earth would they promote a "No-Bid" Bond on the One Tech deal? Bidding would only give us the best deal possible. But no, it has to be someone of their choosing. Keep the money local. They see that as a 'community benefit'.
Doesn't matter, I guess, since I can't see this deal actually happening at this point.
Cart prior to horsey?
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/Agendas/agendax.asp?FN=0013448A&num=1
Also, was that $67 Million, or $76 Million Kitty's been talkin' about?
Probably one of those 'scriveners' errors.
Latest facts to ooze out about Kathy's glass palace (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070628_1_A15_spanc86400%22)
Wow, Can this thing get any smellier? Day by day it seems more and more facts ooze out that are contrary to what Kathy would have us believe. Today we discover that, rather than costing $67 million to do the move, it will really be something more like $76 million. Well, that includes the costs of selling the bonds and the costs of demolishing "certain other city-owned facilities". Hmmmmm.... like, maybe the current city hall??? (Never mind that we were told the mythical hotel developer would be paying for that demolition.)
Instead of spending money tearing stuff down, the city should just hand over all unwanted land to QuikTrip and let them deal with it :) They're probably better suited to find fitting uses for all of these lands and brokering the business deals anyways. (yes joking)
But seriously, when I was originally excited about this City Hall consolidation, I figured the city was getting an even better bargain basement deal than they are on the tech building. But that main thing I've soured on is the valid points being made about this facility not being an easily accessible friendly to the public place of meeting. The current city hall is not either, but if you're already dead set on spending $70+ Million, there are other things that could be looked at that would have a better chance in moving our city forward.
Maybe this deal will fail, and it will be another one of those "Channels" deals that at least got us TALKING about solving the problem of our crummy city government setup as it stands.
Does anyone thing a new City Hall could be constructed for similar funds? Any other properties around town that might be better than the Borg Cube to buy and convert?
I don't really understand all the chatter about the current city hall being inaccessible. It's really quite easy to get to, quite easy to park near, and quite easy to walk into. It's a little hard to imagine how it could be easier, unless you move it completely out of downtown somewhere, (which would be a horrible idea).
Yes, it's run-down and needs some sprucing up. But do the $24 million of deferred maintenance already and then keep up on the maintenance. Really should not be that difficult.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
I don't really understand all the chatter about the current city hall being inaccessible. It's really quite easy to get to, quite easy to park near, and quite easy to walk into. It's a little hard to imagine how it could be easier, unless you move it completely out of downtown somewhere, (which would be a horrible idea).
Yes, it's run-down and needs some sprucing up. But do the $24 million of deferred maintenance already and then keep up on the maintenance. Really should not be that difficult.
The current city hall being a sh**hole is what makes it uninviting :) But yes, spending $70 million to move to a building that is less accessible is one of the problems I was concerned with.
Does anyone know what all the "deferred maintainance" would be? New roofs and mold removal? Anything to transform it from a concrete labyrinth? How neglected are we talking here... Do they need running water and that there internet thingy?
For $76M, you could knock it back to the structural frame and start again.
But, a new plaza plan would be appropriate, for sure, along with building remodel.
Next, how to pay for it?
For that matter, how was Kitty going to pay back $76M on One Tech? It didn't add up either.
I suggested the city, state and feds consolidate operations downtown to become anchor tenants for downtown a while back. I thought Taylor's plan would be a step in that direction. But it appears that the only city employees moving into downtown would be coming from a West Tulsa facility and their number is not significant. Now I can't find any silver lining in Taylor's proposal. It's just bad all the way around.
It was one thing to watch Tulsa bungle one thing after another from a distance. But to actually be here while a major mistake is in progress is painful. Tulsa's dumb luck is going to run out. Maybe already has.
Hometown is right.
Where was our congressional contingency when the Federal agencies were fleeing to east Tulsa and abandoning downtown?
The Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, even the quasi-federal Post office left and the downtown worker population plummeted.
It caused almost every restaurant west of Boulder to close.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Hometown is right.
Where was our congressional contingency when the Federal agencies were fleeing to east Tulsa and abandoning downtown?
The Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, even the quasi-federal Post office left and the downtown worker population plummeted.
It caused almost every restaurant west of Boulder to close.
Good Point. However, it was really their choice at the time. They fled downtown to solve what they saw then as parking problems, now there's nothing but surface lots everywhere.
The Corp might actually be willing to reconsider at this point since they plunked themselves down in what has now become the site of nightly fireworks. They'd actually be almost a perfect tenant for One Tech, especially if they could fill the building.
Wait though. Wasn't the Murrah building bombing and 9/11 considered the impetus (or would that be impeti) for de-centralizing Federal offices all around the country?
I realize that had little to anything to do with the USACE and USPO going east, but I believe that would be a stumbling block to centralize much of any Federal offices in a downtown area in the post 9/11 era.
I believe the Williams Brothers wanted the Urban
Renewal to condemn the property up to Greenwood and turn it over to them to redevelop. There seems to be one of the largest frauds in-behind-the back dealing in falsehoods that robbed many of their retirement savings was perpetrated. It surpasses the Community National Insurance fraud of some years back
The design of the present City Hall is traditional and most workers within spend there pension requirement in it. Once they are introduced to the building they only seem to leave in retirement.
The IRS is also among those who moved east to the Corps building. The city could work with WalMart and build a new plaza East on all the vacant land that was annexed.
The Landmark Camelot is to be a new Quick Trip store that will be a killing field for robbers with instant access to the expressways. Those residents will now be happy with all the traffic it will create 24 hours a day.
The traffic tickets should have an explanation on them that the violator is to take the ticket to municipal court at the plaza, then walk the six blocks to the new glass building to pay, because there may be a problem with parking and even then one could have to walk three or four blocks.
Oh! Blessed are the millionaires who donate their time to correct the working poor problems .
I was reading down through the posts, got to that last one and was like, "What the heck kind of incoherent babble...?" Then looked over and saw it was Shadows. lol
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I was reading down through the posts, got to that last one and was like, "What the heck kind of incoherent babble...?" Then looked over and saw it was Shadows. lol
lol me too exactly!
The guy seems to have interesting things to say, I just can't always figure out what they are.
One can find some wisdom in the words of the jester.
If we had the river development with the low water dams installed we would be able to have the water to fill them and all the citizens of God's little acres would be ready then to explore where to store the surplus to fill the future sand bar lakes.
Tulsa best artwork is located on the retaining wall of the old school house east of Yale on 11th street.
We are in need of some more Hotels like the Mayo Brothers built. lol
I happen on this thread while looking for information on the Cith Hall move. Does everyone know that tha Mayor has agreed to pay the Staubach Company a "commision" of $1,100,000.00?
No but I understand the strong mayor, acting through an authority, who will purchase the building and plans to lease a part to the city for thirty years. This way it is a done deal beyond the vote of the people. Millionaires only start with the opening bid of a million dollars I'm told. What else is news?
Hope in thirty years the city does not end up like Bell's with a cancelled lease.
Sorry but thats incorrect. The Tulsa Public Facility Authority vote to issue bons etc if andf only if the deal is approved by the City COuncil. Our voice can make a difference.
Solution to entire problem. Build new city hall in the Channels project of the Arkansas River.
quote:
Originally posted by Walking Point
Sorry but thats incorrect. The Tulsa Public Facility Authority vote to issue bons etc if andf only if the deal is approved by the City COuncil. Our voice can make a difference.
I believe the 4 grade civics classes would describe the purpose of the TPFA in issuing revenue bonds to buy the building and lease it out to qualify for producing revenue. One must come to the conclusion that the silent government that controls all functions of the city does not sit on the council. They just say "jump".
I hear you Shadows. Bringing about real change in Tulsa doesn't stop with city government.
You may have read my posts in the past where I have suggested that Tulsa trade in her rich folks for new and improved models.
Or one or two super rich could circumvent the old money crowd and shake things up. That happened in Fort Worth with their super rich Bass family trumping the old money crowd.
There is a lot of infighting with the rich and the old millionaires can't touch the new billionaires. The old money crowd has the patina of respectability but not the dough. But we live in a bottom line kind of culture where it's the dough that matters.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
I hear you Shadows. Bringing about real change in Tulsa doesn't stop with city government.
You may have read my posts in the past where I have suggested that Tulsa trade in her rich folks for new and improved models.
Or one or two super rich could circumvent the old money crowd and shake things up. That happened in Fort Worth with their super rich Bass family trumping the old money crowd.
There is a lot of infighting with the rich and the old millionaires can't touch the new billionaires. The old money crowd has the patina of respectability but not the dough. But we live in a bottom line kind of culture where it's the dough that matters.
Yea I think the trading our old rich for some new ones is a great idea. I think you should definitely get right on that Hometown. And anything I can do to help, just let me know.
quote:
Originally posted by Walking Point
I happen on this thread while looking for information on the Cith Hall move. Does everyone know that tha Mayor has agreed to pay the Staubach Company a "commision" of $1,100,000.00?
Are you the only other person besides myself who is troubled by this revelation?
I mean, you agree to pay a consultant a higher fee if the deal goes down than if it doesn't. Wouldn't that give the consultant all the incentive needed to say this is a slam dunk deal and ignore any of the pitfalls?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Walking Point
I happen on this thread while looking for information on the Cith Hall move. Does everyone know that tha Mayor has agreed to pay the Staubach Company a "commision" of $1,100,000.00?
Are you the only other person besides myself who is troubled by this revelation?
I mean, you agree to pay a consultant a higher fee if the deal goes down than if it doesn't. Wouldn't that give the consultant all the incentive needed to say this is a slam dunk deal and ignore any of the pitfalls?
**** no it doesn't bother me.
It bothers me that people like you think stuff is and should be free, or else it's not worth it and/or is an "inside" job.
What?
The consultant will be PAID MORE if the DEAL HAPPENS. Don't you suppose that will color his recommendations a little? He will not walk away empty handed if the deal fails.
It hardly should be free, but after reading the account of Himelfarb and the City Council, it was obvious there were some gaps in the consulting report.
Kenosha, are you aware that apparently Staubach was being paid a flat consultants fee for the study and if the city moved to the Borg Cube, Staubach Cos. would get more money? That has a smell of something other than fishy.
Why would you attach a "bonus" to reach one conclusion or another? Should be a flat fee and that's it, otherwise if you attach a financial reward to either it happening or not happening, I don't see how you can possibly wind up with an un-biased report.
Personally, I felt the city auditor's office should have done a preliminary study of the move with all the financial info they can access at their fingertips, then bring in an ouside consultant or auditor to verify the books have not been cooked one way or another and to make sure there has been no arm twisting from the admin arm of the city.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
I hear you Shadows. Bringing about real change in Tulsa doesn't stop with city government.
You may have read my posts in the past where I have suggested that Tulsa trade in her rich folks for new and improved models.
Or one or two super rich could circumvent the old money crowd and shake things up. That happened in Fort Worth with their super rich Bass family trumping the old money crowd.
There is a lot of infighting with the rich and the old millionaires can't touch the new billionaires. The old money crowd has the patina of respectability but not the dough. But we live in a bottom line kind of culture where it's the dough that matters.
George Kaiser is wealthier than any of the Hunt brothers and I don't know that I would call the Hunts new money. You don't think that maybe Kaiser's $100 million donation to the river might just be trying to shake things up, now do you? Or the Warrens and their proposed $100 million donation to "The Channels"
You know what is really wrong with this town? It's not roads, or crime, or "the good ole boys". It's too many whiny idiots that just love to complain loudly about every issue, real or imagined, and don't want to pay for anything.
I've been all around town Swake, and I'm not impressed. Keep trying.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
I hear you Shadows. Bringing about real change in Tulsa doesn't stop with city government.
You may have read my posts in the past where I have suggested that Tulsa trade in her rich folks for new and improved models.
Or one or two super rich could circumvent the old money crowd and shake things up. That happened in Fort Worth with their super rich Bass family trumping the old money crowd.
There is a lot of infighting with the rich and the old millionaires can't touch the new billionaires. The old money crowd has the patina of respectability but not the dough. But we live in a bottom line kind of culture where it's the dough that matters.
George Kaiser is wealthier than any of the Hunt brothers and I don't know that I would call the Hunts new money. You don't think that maybe Kaiser's $100 million donation to the river might just be trying to shake things up, now do you? Or the Warrens and their proposed $100 million donation to "The Channels"
You know what is really wrong with this town? It's not roads, or crime, or "the good ole boys". It's too many whiny idiots that just love to complain loudly about every issue, real or imagined, and don't want to pay for anything.
I think we are very lucky to have what money we do in this town and there are plenty of wonderfully generous people who do a lot for our city and communities. The names above are just a few.
Whenever I have daydreamed about winning the lottery. And I bet I am not the only one. When I imagine what I would do for the city with that money, I always try to figure out how to make the most of it. Even with my wildest fantasy of winning the 200million dollar lottery. "And I dont even play the lottery lol" But its a fun dream[:P] I think of how I can make my dollars go as far as they can. That usually ends up meaning adding on to something the city or someone else is doing and making it better, or saying, here I will give this amount if you add this. Even with 200 mill I couldnt do all the things I want to do. If the others didnt want to add to what I was willing to do. I wouldnt persue a half a dream or a half arsed project. I just wouldn't do it and would choose another of my goals to persue and hope things would turn out better there.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
I've been all around town Swake, and I'm not impressed. Keep trying.
You also are under the impression that City Hall is great Architecture and that the Civic Center Plaza has wonderful possibilities as a great urban public space, so just maybe your judgment is suspect at times.
I never used the word "great" to describe City Hall. Words have meaning. It's important to use the right word.
Local rich folks ....
I admit I have been favorably impressed by Kaiser based on what little information I have read about him. I am particularly hopeful about his reference to buying up Sinclair refinery property. If he is big enough to dislodge Sinclair, I will be sincerely thankful.
And when I went to Greenwood and Archer and saw the Helmerich's name at the top of a list of donors to a memorial there, I said, Helmerich has class.
The refineries being bought up and moved are a pipe dream. Not even God has enough money for the clean up.
Excerpt from Kaiser's comments about River plan:
Acquisition: "If you're going to do a prudent development of a new area," Kaiser said, 0 "you want to assure you have all of the land you may need for future purposes."
Land opportunities lie along the river a little on the east bank, but more on the west bank south of the 11th Street Bridge, he said.
Also, there may be opportunities with American Electric Power-Public Service Company of Oklahoma and Sinclair refinery, he said.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Excerpt from Kaiser's comments about River plan:
Acquisition: "If you're going to do a prudent development of a new area," Kaiser said, 0 "you want to assure you have all of the land you may need for future purposes."
Land opportunities lie along the river a little on the east bank, but more on the west bank south of the 11th Street Bridge, he said.
Also, there may be opportunities with American Electric Power-Public Service Company of Oklahoma and Sinclair refinery, he said.
That's a pretty vague statement he made HT. Sinclair and AEP have property holdings over there that may not be necessary to their core production. Just like the soccer fields, they may find it judicious to dispose of them.
Back on topic, this city hall move will be a clusterf#*ck of epic proportions that Tulsa will not recover from for many, many years.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Back on topic, this city hall move will be a clusterf#*ck of epic proportions that Tulsa will not recover from for many, many years.
Could not agree more.
THLA Endorses Purchase of One Technology Center
http://tulsabusinessjournal.com/article.asp?aID=86483161.566019.590668.461531.66330902.391&aID2=45427
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Back on topic, this city hall move will be a clusterf#*ck of epic proportions that Tulsa will not recover from for many, many years.
Could not agree more.
I disagree. It will be good for city pride and morale. If all goes well, this move will look both pragmatic and visionary. Even in the worst case, the city still gets an upgrade and gets rid of a dilapidated embarassment.
I'll be surprised if this thing makes it out of UED Committee tomorrow.
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/Agendas/agendax.asp?FN=00138F5C&num=1
The sooner it's killed the better.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
I'll be surprised if this thing makes it out of UED Committee tomorrow.
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/Agendas/agendax.asp?FN=00138F5C&num=1
The sooner it's killed the better.
Yep, if it does make it out of committee I will be there to fight it at the regular meeting.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Back on topic, this city hall move will be a clusterf#*ck of epic proportions that Tulsa will not recover from for many, many years.
Could not agree more.
I disagree. It will be good for city pride and morale. If all goes well, this move will look both pragmatic and visionary. Even in the worst case, the city still gets an upgrade and gets rid of a dilapidated embarassment.
That's not the worst case at all. The worst case (which also, sadly, is reality if this happens) is the city gets a huge ($76 million) debt, higher operating costs, and a less accessible city hall. PLUS, it will put on full display for any visitors and potential business relocators just how out of whack this city's priorities are. Talk about an embarassment.
Offer the choice between a well-maintained, clean, well-functioning city with a "dilapidated" city hall versus a crumbling, dirty city with a fancy, over-sized, palace of a city hall; I (and most businesses) will choose the former every single time.
Leave it to a woman who lives in a 28 million dollar mansion to stomp and scream for a status office to go to work in. Maybe we should convert the cities fleet vehicles to Hummers? Maybe get Versace to design couture uniforms for the city employees too? Boy, that would sure improve morale and pride in Tulsa.
Ok, I have sat back and taken this all in. Here is my take:
Pros:
- City services under one roof
- Current facility is reportedly sub par
- projected long term financial savings
- New shiny building for the city of Tulsa (maybe attract better workers? Better presentation to potential conferences or businesses?).
- Eat up some vacant office space, MAY encourage downtown development
Cons:
- Initial Cost is very high. City debt load with 2025 already stretched
- No plans for the many abandoned buildings the city will leave - INCLUDING the current eyesore
- Parking Situation
- Would divide the city services from police, the library, the city, county and federal courts, the post office, and the city council chamber.
- Will result in less funding to maintain/fix the current plaza area as well as add another area to maintain
- Restricted Access to the building - not only the parking, but it is not easy to get to the building. It is at a corner of 2 one way streets and back into the rail road tracks (not hard for anyone that knows downtown, but...).
- Projected savings is based on occupancy and future borrowing cost, land sales, and projected operating expenses. How well did we estimate the last large purchase (BOk center)?
- May discourage a company from filling that prime office space downtown
I am steadfastly against this move UNLESS a firm plan is in place for the abandoned properties. Otherwise we just add tot he asset, maintenance cost, and wasted space the government already has as we watch the properties deteriorate. given enough time, surely the city will find a use for them and the new building will be an addition - not a replacement.
and hey, for a $1mil bonus I can pretty well tell you that anything you present is a great idea. I'd like to know how often this company comes down on the "no I dont want my bonus" side of the fence.
[edit]random jarbled text at the bottom removed[/edit]
Sure would be nice to have some purchase option contracts on these buildings to be vacated before making the move, wouldn't it? I don't understand why the city doesn't look at the area west of the convention center as a possibility for hotel development. Even if everything worked out perfectly on this deal it will be many years before we would see a hotel development on the civic center site.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070711_1_A9_spanc21100
Article about council concerns regarding the OTC deal.
City councilors are concerned that a proposal to buy a downtown high-rise to house a consolidated City Hall doesn't include council oversight.
"Is this just a check for $76 million and that is the last the council sees of it?" Councilor Cason Carter asked Tuesday about a resolution on which the council will vote Thursday.
The resolution seeks permission to incur indebtedness, not to exceed $76 million, to buy One Technology Center and to fund other costs related to the proposed consolidation.
The $76 million includes the cost of the building, which sources close to the deal say is $52.25 million. The rest of the money would cover the bonding costs, the demolition of some vacated city structures, relocation costs, security and consultant commissions.
During a council committee meeting, council attorney Drew Rees said approval of the resolution would be the council's last action on any further decisions related to the move.
Carter said he is "concerned about the risk matching up with the accountability."
The deal depends heavily on revenue from third-party leases of excess space in the building to help repay the revenue
bonds that would fund the move.
Although the Tulsa Public Facilities Authority would be issuing the bonds, the financial risk falls on the city, Finance Director Mike Kier said.
Economic Development Director Don Himelfarb said the risk of leasing the space is minimal and that he is confident that in addition to the current tenants, the city will be able to attract other renters.
Carter said he thinks it's unfair for one entity to bear the risks while another controls the allocations.
Councilor Bill Martinson asked whether the resolution could be amended to require council approval for some future actions related to the move to ensure accountability.
It also was suggested that the council approve only the issuance of a promissory note to cover the purchase of the building while other options are considered.
One option that might be considered is someone buying the building from the city and then leasing space to the city. Himelfarb said that while that would eliminate the risk, it would be more costly and the city would lose control of the building.
If the city owns the building and has three tenants, the total expenses in the 10th year are estimated at $4.5 million, Kier said. With no tenants the figure is $8.9 million, he said.
If the city doesn't move, its expenses in the same time period are estimated at $6.5 million, which includes deferred maintenance costs on its existing facilities, he said.
If the council agrees only to purchase the building, it would need at some time to fund the move into it, Kier said.
Himelfarb stressed that the council should not lose the opportunity to buy the building at the current price, adding that the option could go away at midnight Thursday.
Earlier Tuesday, Himelfarb described the deal to the Economic Development Commission as something "right out of the conservative Republican playbook."
After the council meeting, Himelfarb said the deal would be "transformational," giving the city a "multiyear leap forward" in economic development.
I though of a few other things:
1. At least the Mayor was thinking outside the box. Assuming this deal isnt as corrupt as it could be, she is looking for ways to improve things for the long term.
2. The purchase of the building would require the city to enter the commercial real estate market:
a) to sell some properties
b) to rent space in One Tech
this is a pro and a con. An interest in developing downtown, but at the same time a risk for the city AND competition with other downtown space (older buildings will lose priority to the cities need to make $).
Just some more thoughts.
I'd think it is fairly common for the City to be in the "real estate market" of buying/selling certain properties. They own stuff, so that's going to have to happen.
I'm not that big a fan of them having to find tennants for the remainder of OTC, however. If downtown office space is 37% unoccupied like they stated on the news last night, that could be a risky proposition. A better idea, to me, would be to consolidate more government properties into OTC so there is no need to lease space thereby reducing the risk and increasing the consolidation/reducing the associated costs.
What's the first rule of buying real estate?
Don't get emotional about the deal.
Himelfarb sounds like he is about to pee his pants.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
What's the first rule of buying real estate?
Don't get emotional about the deal.
Himelfarb sounds like he is about to pee his pants.
I thought it was location, location, location.
[:D]
I'm confused about the "parking nightmare" related to moving City Hall to OTC. A quick glance at Google Earth confirms that there are ENTIRE CITY BLOCKS of surface parking within a block or two of OTC. There's also an attached parking garage with air-bridge access. This garage was originally owned by Williams Communications when the building was built. Wouldn't the City acquire the parking garage if the building is purchased?
Also, it seems likely that the city could dedicate certain parking areas for "in-and-out" access to city hall. Unlike office workers, who would park their cars all day, visitors to city hall would be popping in and out. Thus a dozen people might use ONE parking spot during an average day. It changes the math on how many spaces are actually required.
The parking argument is bogus. The current parking is shared with events at the Civic Center and the other government offices. Did you ever try to find a parking spot when a big convention was in town?
The parking will be better at the new place.
The other bogus argument is about having the city in the real estate business. The city is already in the real estate business. They rent out facilities to Subway in the current building, the county lease out expo square to the Drillers and Big Splash, even the RiverParks leases to a restaurant.
Lots of businesses will want to be in the same building as city hall. I am more worried about having contractors, consultants, chambers, etc. be too close.
I also think that they could work out an arrangement with a property company to minimize the risk. That would allow the city to have a middle man take any risk and the city could have a guarantee of income.
I am convinced that this move will re-energize downtown. I am in favor.
Okay, parking argument is somewhat fallacious, I'll give you credit on that.
However, having half a building (or how much ever) of class A office space to rent is a lot different than leasing to Subway and River's Edge Bistro.
Too much of the payment structure on this is based on being able to rent out the rest of the space, which is what I call speculative financing. It's using a best case scenario to push this through.
Outsourced property management comes with a fee. Those companies have to make a profit and that comes at a cost to the city. I really don't see how that takes risk away from the city, as they are still the building owner.
Fine, if they came to the table with 10 year leases for 100% occupancy PRIOR to completing the purchase I'd feel more comfortable about this.
The fervor to push this through is leading myself and a lot of my politically-oriented friends to think either some people in the admin are getting too emotional about a vanity purchase for the city or there's something corrupt deep in the background on this.
Just too much speculation and chance on how to pay for it and there are too many underlying details which came to light after Himelfarb's meeting with the councilors to make me believe this is a slam-dunk.
I read an article somewhere recently that said that 46% of OTC is currently leased. Is this number right? Is this one tenant that would need to be kicked out, or multiple tenants, most of whom would stick around?
I agree with RM that many different entities will want to have "One City Hall" as their business address. Lends them a certain "je ne sais quoi"....
Or it could be a disincentive to move in there. I guess being close to say the permits office for a construction company would be handy, but if most of their construction work is out south, I don't see the benefit.
Not trying to poo poo on your parade, just curious what types of businesses would benefit from being co-located in a city hall? I'm not coming up with any ideas of my own.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
The parking argument is bogus. The current parking is shared with events at the Civic Center and the other government offices. Did you ever try to find a parking spot when a big convention was in town?
The parking will be better at the new place.
The other bogus argument is about having the city in the real estate business. The city is already in the real estate business. They rent out facilities to Subway in the current building, the county lease out expo square to the Drillers and Big Splash, even the RiverParks leases to a restaurant.
Lots of businesses will want to be in the same building as city hall. I am more worried about having contractors, consultants, chambers, etc. be too close.
I also think that they could work out an arrangement with a property company to minimize the risk. That would allow the city to have a middle man take any risk and the city could have a guarantee of income.
I am convinced that this move will re-energize downtown. I am in favor.
Don't believe this spin. This problem was discussed at length in the UED. Costs were estimated at $500,000 dollars just to accommodate parking for employees. The public will have to fend for themselves at the mercy of private surface lot owners or to search for on street metered parking, which there is very little of. It seems to me like this would provide more incentives for teardowns by property owners to create more private pay to park surface lots downtown. Make no mistake, that leasing space in city hall will mean a city government of, by, and for the special interests; complete with their convenient access to public officials and their own convenient private parking that the public won't enjoy. All they have to do is become tenants and threaten to leave the space if their agendas aren't adopted leaving our elected officials with the dilema of doing their will or risk being able to pay the bill. The fact that the metro chamber has already expressed interest shows the writing is on the wall.
This discussion seems to be solely focused on OTC. It should also be focused on the current state of our city hall. Yes, there are a lot of unknowns about the move to OTC, but look at current city hall: $16 million in maintenance issues, mold and asbestos, horribly energy inefficient, and it isn't large enough to accommodate all city offices--instead, they're spread out among a dozen buildings.
Let's not compare OTC to OTC... Let's compare what we currently have with the prospect of something better.
I feel that a move to OTC would benefit the City of Tulsa regardless of what the old city hall building could be used for.
Yes, there are unknowns... but if we don't step out there and do something, they'll always remain unknowns, while the sorry state of our current city hall is well-known.
If this issue fails, what, if ANYTHING, would be done to our current city hall? Would it just sit in disrepair until it completely falls apart? I doubt the councilors want that for the City.
"All they have to do is become tenants and threaten to leave the space if their agendas aren't adopted leaving our elected officials with the dilema of doing their will or risk being able to pay the bill.
In your Government this would be what you would expect to happen.....
Billy LaFortuna, for the most part, did away with the EDC....
The TMC was given their way.... and it got us nothing.
This is mot a Metro Chamber idea... That they are seeking to ride it's coat-tails shouldn't surprise anyone....
They have to show that they can still appreciate a good idea....
Even if they can't come up with one.
quote:
Originally posted by DScott28604
This discussion seems to be solely focused on OTC. It should also be focused on the current state of our city hall. Yes, there are a lot of unknowns about the move to OTC, but look at current city hall: $16 million in maintenance issues, mold and asbestos, horribly energy inefficient, and it isn't large enough to accommodate all city offices--instead, they're spread out among a dozen buildings.
Let's not compare OTC to OTC... Let's compare what we currently have with the prospect of something better.
I feel that a move to OTC would benefit the City of Tulsa regardless of what the old city hall building could be used for.
Yes, there are unknowns... but if we don't step out there and do something, they'll always remain unknowns, while the sorry state of our current city hall is well-known.
I believe Councilors requested a detailed account of these deferred maintenance costs in order to determine how this 16 million dollar number was compiled. To my knowledge this has detailed list has never materialized so I am apt to question the reliability of those numbers, especially since it has grown since this deal was first pushed. The sorry state and poor design of One Tech is well known, lest we forget that the curtain wall and roof of this new state of the art building have already failed. If we want to get into a high risk gamble with taxpayer dollars we might as well go play the Casinos.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
The sorry state and poor design of One Tech is well known, lest we forget that the curtain wall and roof of this new state of the art building have already failed.
I don't know what "poor design" you're talking about, and if you think the building's in a sorry state, you're sadly mistaken. One of the glass panels had been installed backwards. It fell off. That's it.
quote:
Originally posted by DScott28604
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
The sorry state and poor design of One Tech is well known, lest we forget that the curtain wall and roof of this new state of the art building have already failed.
I don't know what "poor design" you're talking about, and if you think the building's in a sorry state, you're sadly mistaken. One of the glass panels had been installed backwards. It fell off. That's it.
This is the building which was heavily damaged in the big wind storm back in May of '04.
The glass and roof have been fixed and come with the warranty intact to the new owners, I've heard that mentioned on several occasions.
It's cleaned up mostly now, but if you had been to City Hall earlier today you'd get to see one of the rainy day occurrences....a leak down by the cashier windows, not to mention behind them. There are so many drip pans in the ceiling of that place, mold couldn't help BUT to grow.
So are the online comments following a TulsaWorld.com article ALWAYS left by idiots?
[:D]
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070712_238_A1_hTheC84848
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaSooner
So are the online comments following a TulsaWorld.com article ALWAYS left by idiots?
[:D]
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070712_238_A1_hTheC84848
"Hopefully the
counsil will use common sense..."
Read no further.
That's ok. A sign on my child's daycare center read:
"Are class will be going on a field-trip."
[V]
or better yet. Fox News reported that Saddam Hussein was hung. Might be true, I dont know. I was more interested in the fact that he was hanged to death the day before.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaSooner
The glass and roof have been fixed and come with the warranty intact to the new owners, I've heard that mentioned on several occasions.
It's cleaned up mostly now, but if you had been to City Hall earlier today you'd get to see one of the rainy day occurrences....a leak down by the cashier windows, not to mention behind them. There are so many drip pans in the ceiling of that place, mold couldn't help BUT to grow.
A warranty and stop gap measures do not make up for a poor design. If you have a recipe for making chicken salad out of chicken s*#t, I'd love to see it. Besides, warranties expire, then what? Let's see that detailed list of all this deferred maintenance and corresponding costs. I'm waiting.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
A warranty and stop gap measures do not make up for a poor design. If you have a recipe for making chicken salad out of chicken s*#t, I'd love to see it. Besides, warranties expire, then what? Let's see that detailed list of all this deferred maintenance and corresponding costs. I'm waiting.
Poor design? Maybe you should speak with the maintenance folks at City Hall. Because the plaza level is basically the ceiling to street level of CH, it leaks like a sieve anytime there is rain or ice/snow melting. The ceiling tiles behind the cashier area are a disgrace as are the rusted out "supports" between them. In that ceiling is a series of drip pans and drainage pipes that any labyrinth would be jealous of.
I'd prefer a detailed list as opposed to your anecdotal unsubstantiated claims.
Gee doubleA...
Funny you should ask someone else to document their statements...
you made these on this thread...
The convention biz is dead. I bet it winds up as a casino/hotel.
Even if everything worked out perfectly on this deal it will be many years before we would see a hotel development on the civic center site.
The public will have to fend for themselves at the mercy of private surface lot owners or to search for on street metered parking, which there is very little of.
It seems to me like this would provide more incentives for teardowns by property owners to create more private pay to park surface lots downtown.
All they have to do is become tenants and threaten to leave the space if their agendas aren't adopted leaving our elected officials with the dilema of doing their will or risk being able to pay the bill.
The sorry state and poor design of One Tech is well known,
All you do is throw out unsubstantiated innuendo...
Last minute changes:
KTUL just reported that within the last few hours, the mayor has presented a third-party guarantor to the Council that would ensure the space for lease would be paid for regardless... It's all happening now.
quote:
Originally posted by DScott28604
Last minute changes:
KTUL just reported that within the last few hours, the mayor has presented a third-party guarantor to the Council that would ensure the space for lease would be paid for regardless... It's all happening now.
I caught part of that....interesting.
Why would somebody do that? They said the person stood to profit IF they are able to adequately lease the empty space.
Well..... I think Tulsa should and can do better than the "armpit" next to the court house.....
If the joint had been buried next to the Belvedere it might have looked better...
My opinion... FWIW... spend a few $$$$
Get something like this....
(http://www.i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/MyRide.jpg)
"Venture somethin to gain somethin..."
(http://www.i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/si29112-R1-045-21.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaSooner
quote:
Originally posted by DScott28604
Last minute changes:
KTUL just reported that within the last few hours, the mayor has presented a third-party guarantor to the Council that would ensure the space for lease would be paid for regardless... It's all happening now.
I caught part of that....interesting.
Why would somebody do that? They said the person stood to profit IF they are able to adequately lease the empty space.
sounds like they hit Kaiser or some other deep pocketed schlep up for some charity.
I'm confused... what would Kaiser have to gain from this transaction?
They are guaranteeing so many dollars, if they get more than that in revenue, they keep the difference.
This is Great Plains all over again. That's my humble opinion.
It's official! 8 to 1 for the move!
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
They are guaranteeing so many dollars, if they get more than that in revenue, they keep the difference.
So would this be the 3rd party like someone mentioned before? They pay the city a fixed amount and agree to handle all of the leasing? City gets that fixed amount and 3rd party keeps the excess profits (or takes the loss)
Now.. now... Mister Proletariat..........
There is nothing humble about you or your opinion.......
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
Now.. now... Mister Proletariat..........
There is nothing humble about you or your opinion.......
Go big or go home. At least I've got the guts to stand up for what I believe, to put it all on the line on TGOV and to defy a room full of some of the most powerful people in Tulsa. That's more than most of the rest of you keyboard jockeys(yes, I consider myself a key board jockey too) out there can claim. Time will surely tell whether I am just an irrational crank or right on the money. Stay tuned.
Originally posted by Double Aquote:
The sorry state and poor design of One Tech is well known, lest we forget that the curtain wall and roof of this new state of the art building have already failed.
As someone who has worked in OTC since it was built, I agree with the others on here who say that OTC is in excellent shape and there is no poor design. Roofs fail and new buildings always have problems - that's why they're warrantied (and these are long warranties - not some sort of 5 year deal). Even the curtain wall failure was covered which was, in all honestly, more of a fluke than anything. The curtain wall is pretty much self-supporting with only a few guides really holding it to the building. Inside the building, you can go to the top floor, look over the railing, and it's a straight unobstructed drop to the solar well on the 4th floor. As ugly as it can be on the outside, I will say the architecture inside is absolutely stunning and the quality of materials used on this building are totally top-drawer. I have mixed feelings about the city moving in but hopefully it'll all work out for the best in the end. It's certainly a better choice that any other building downtown and the price is an absolute steal (this place cost a heckuva lot more to build than $52m - more than even the official numbers might be saying).
Go ahead and say what you really want to AA.
"This deal stinks. The councilors are all dead meat!"
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
So would this be the 3rd party like someone mentioned before? They pay the city a fixed amount and agree to handle all of the leasing? City gets that fixed amount and 3rd party keeps the excess profits (or takes the loss)
Yes, I believe that's exactly how it's supposed to work.
Anyone know if this lease will be up for bid? I'd think it would be...the Mayor mentioned already having two prospects.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaSooner
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
So would this be the 3rd party like someone mentioned before? They pay the city a fixed amount and agree to handle all of the leasing? City gets that fixed amount and 3rd party keeps the excess profits (or takes the loss)
Yes, I believe that's exactly how it's supposed to work.
Anyone know if this lease will be up for bid? I'd think it would be...the Mayor mentioned already having two prospects.
Let's just hope these prospects are more real than all of the developers we were told were excited to have the opportunity to build a hotel on the TowerView block.
Can't wait to see the hotel development on the City Hall site... if any of us should live so long. In the meantime, it will really help boost the prospects of the convention center/arena area to have another vacant parcel of land adjacent. That will really help attract the Big XII, the Mayors . . .
They did the right thing by adding the amendment requiring the third-party lease. That assuages some of my concerns, though the haste with which some of the big issues (this and FG annexation) have been tackled and the last minute wrangling are testing my confidence in the admin.
I sincerely hope that every scenario of doom I've predicted about this administration is wrong and we are looking back in 2.5 years saying, "what a great job". Only time will tell.
I sincerely hope this is a positive development for Tulsa.
I don't agree with Double A, but I think he made good arguments last night.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
I don't agree with Double A, but I think he made good arguments last night.
Aw, you've got me blushing over here. Thanks, you are too kind. You know since this thing is going to happen, my hope is that we could find another government entity to move into the lease space at One Tech, er I mean, City Hall. I think moving the library would be an excellent use of the space, and it would free up more room for development on the civic center plaza. I wish da Mare and council would have considered this opportunity as part of the move. It would still bother me, but I wouldn't have the hellfire heartburn I've got today over it. I really do hope for Tulsa's sake that this house of cards doesn't fall down.
Central library and the post office will probably not be far behind. I predict that once 2025 actually comes, the area south of the arena will be 100% different than now.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Central library and the post office will probably not be far behind. I predict that once 2025 actually comes, the area south of the arena will be 100% different than now.
A public entity in that space would go a long way towards taming the ulcer growing in my belly over this deal.
quote:
Originally posted by tulsabug
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
The sorry state and poor design of One Tech is well known, lest we forget that the curtain wall and roof of this new state of the art building have already failed.
As someone who has worked in OTC since it was built, I agree with the others on here who say that OTC is in excellent shape and there is no poor design. Roofs fail and new buildings always have problems - that's why they're warrantied (and these are long warranties - not some sort of 5 year deal). Even the curtain wall failure was covered which was, in all honestly, more of a fluke than anything. The curtain wall is pretty much self-supporting with only a few guides really holding it to the building. Inside the building, you can go to the top floor, look over the railing, and it's a straight unobstructed drop to the solar well on the 4th floor. As ugly as it can be on the outside, I will say the architecture inside is absolutely stunning and the quality of materials used on this building are totally top-drawer. I have mixed feelings about the city moving in but hopefully it'll all work out for the best in the end. It's certainly a better choice that any other building downtown and the price is an absolute steal (this place cost a heckuva lot more to build than $52m - more than even the official numbers might be saying).
Let's see how it looks after the City defers 10-15 years of maintenance.
A month ago this was reported as a done deal. We only had to put a little smell to the roses to where the councilors couldn't react fast enough to sign on. They were campaigned two days prior to the vote. [ so is reported in today's paper] Could it be that they now have money to finance a rerun for the council seat?
My question is when you have visiting dignitaries' does one parade then through the workers offices or wine and dine them at such a place that is appropriate to entertain them? Or stand on the sidewalk [ if there is room] and rubberneck at what a wonderful glass building we have?
In dry weather when we have the rain showers with the dust mixed in like falls as mud on your windshields will the same happen on the glass of the glass tower? But course we have the fire trucks with the hoses and extended ladders that can be used as window washers.
One would believe that the people's representatives failed to remember who they represented.
xxx
After a little more thought, I've decided to scratch the idea for the library in the unused space at One Tech. An ICE office would be a much better use of that space, that is if the building would meet security guidelines for federal offices.
quote:
Originally posted by Markk
quote:
Originally posted by tulsabug
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
The sorry state and poor design of One Tech is well known, lest we forget that the curtain wall and roof of this new state of the art building have already failed.
As someone who has worked in OTC since it was built, I agree with the others on here who say that OTC is in excellent shape and there is no poor design. Roofs fail and new buildings always have problems - that's why they're warrantied (and these are long warranties - not some sort of 5 year deal). Even the curtain wall failure was covered which was, in all honestly, more of a fluke than anything. The curtain wall is pretty much self-supporting with only a few guides really holding it to the building. Inside the building, you can go to the top floor, look over the railing, and it's a straight unobstructed drop to the solar well on the 4th floor. As ugly as it can be on the outside, I will say the architecture inside is absolutely stunning and the quality of materials used on this building are totally top-drawer. I have mixed feelings about the city moving in but hopefully it'll all work out for the best in the end. It's certainly a better choice that any other building downtown and the price is an absolute steal (this place cost a heckuva lot more to build than $52m - more than even the official numbers might be saying).
Let's see how it looks after the City defers 10-15 years of maintenance.
That is exactly right.
Right now they are replacing the windows in the BOK Building next door to One Tech. I wonder if our forward thinking Councilors made the assurances that when the time comes for this maintenance on One Tech the money will be there for the benefit of the future councils who they were so concerned about saddling with the same kind of decision they faced to make the necessary repairs instead of deferring maintenance. Were these assurances made? Did it even occur to them to consider this? Who knows?
I seem to recall them mentioning several times that funds would be set aside for maintenance on the new building.
Whether that happens or not, I can't say.
Is the third party responsible for the maintenance on the leased space or the city?
I haven't heard anything about that.....I would assume the City would be, but I don't know.
Wasn't it mentioned that they would begin moving SOME city employees into One Tech in August? Does that still hold true? If so, does anyone know exactly when in August this will occur?
quote:
Originally posted by DwnTwnTul
Wasn't it mentioned that they would begin moving SOME city employees into One Tech in August? Does that still hold true? If so, does anyone know exactly when in August this will occur?
No, the closing won't even occur until September 10th (I think), assuming the Council's conditions (either a signed 10-year master lease agreement or assets of $12 mil.) are met.
The earliest I heard staff might start moving is mid to late fall.
I heard a rumor today, and will admit up front I have no idea if it's true. The person who told me this said they read this info on a web site, which we all know, certainly could be false.
With that being said:
The website said the property where city hall currently sits was donated to the city by a family with the stipulation that, if the city ever left the property (moved), the property would revert back to the family who made the donation.
I'm not smart enough to know how to search for that type of information in order to confirm. Any of you?
I also heard the move to the new city hall could be postponed until the recent lawsuit filed against the city was resolved. How long could that take?
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
I heard a rumor today, and will admit up front I have no idea if it's true. The person who told me this said they read this info on a web site, which we all know, certainly could be false.
With that being said:
The website said the property where city hall currently sits was donated to the city by a family with the stipulation that, if the city ever left the property (moved), the property would revert back to the family who made the donation.
I'm not smart enough to know how to search for that type of information in order to confirm. Any of you?
I also heard the move to the new city hall could be postponed until the recent lawsuit filed against the city was resolved. How long could that take?
An entire neighborhood was leveled for the civic center, it was not a single property
The One Tech fiasco is well on it's way to becoming the clusterf*#$k I predicted.
City land to be assesed for environmental issues (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070415_1_A15_hPlan62814%22)
Councilors concerned over lack of master lease (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070905_1_A1_spanc46283%22)
City hall move not likely soon (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070903_1_A1_KWorl61362%22)
A refresher on the third party master lease agreement (//%22http://tulsaworld.cc/cblog/archives/56-July-12th-Video-of-City-Council-Discussion-on-City-Hall-Move.html%22)
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?articleID=071017_238_E1_hLeve56181
quote:
Tower tenant: Tech firm stays logged on in Tulsa
by: D.R. STEWART World Staff Writer
10/17/2007
Level 3 extends lease
Level 3 Communications Inc., the Colorado wholesale telecommunications provider that acquired Tulsa-based WilTel Communications Group LLC two years ago for $749 million, will extend its stay in Tulsa, company executives said Tuesday.
Level 3 has signed a 10-year lease on 143,115 square feet of office space at 100 S. Cincinnati Ave., company executives said.
Known as One Technology Center, the 15-story glass-walled former WilTel office tower is home the majority of Level 3's 700 employees in Tulsa, said company spokesman Chris Hardman.
"There are other facilities" in Tulsa, Hardman said in a telephone interview from Level 3's corporate offices in Broomfield, Colo., north of Denver. He declined to say how much office space the company leased in Tulsa.
Hardman also declined to discuss Level 3's plans in Tulsa.
The city of Tulsa closed on the $52.25 million acquisition of One Technology Center on Sept. 24. The city, which plans to relocate City Hall employees to the office tower next spring, bought the former WilTel facility from Leucadia National Corp. of New York.
Don Himelfarb, director of economic development for the city of Tulsa, said signing a lease on nearly a fifth of One Technology Center's 750,000 square feet of office space is evidence of Level 3's commitment to Tulsa.
"You wouldn't think they would sign a lease if they didn't plan to stay," he said.
The lease contains options, at five years and seven years, for Level 3 to end the contract, with financial penalties, Himelfarb said.
Nine of the 15 floors will be occupied by city employees, Himelfarb said. Besides the three floors and the network operations center leased by Level 3, two floors remain to be leased to a third party, he said.
"City employees can begin moving in in spring," Himelfarb said. "You have to build (City) Council chambers, and other stuff has to be done with security."
The extension of Level 3's lease is surprising in light of the comments made by company executives last year. At the time, the former WilTel unit employed 1,200 people in Tulsa.
Level 3 President Kevin O'Hara noted that the Colorado company operated a primary network operations center in Broomfield, where it employed about 2,000 people, as it does today. The company also operates a backup network operations center in Atlanta, O'Hara said.
One Technology Center should not be viewed as a key to Level 3's future in Tulsa, O'Hara said a year ago.
"While it is a fairly state-of-the-art and attractive building as far as technical infrastructure, it compares to what we have at our other locations," he said. "More to the point are the abilities of the work force and the cost of the work force.
"Compared to Colorado, the lowest cost of doing business is in Tulsa. But looking at the hard costs -- the cost of running two or three locations as opposed to running one location -- there are clearly increased efficiencies by being in a smaller number of locations."
O'Hara couldn't be reached for further comment.
One Technology Center began as the jewel of Williams Communications Group Inc. The company was spun off in April 2001 from parent Williams Cos. Inc. as an independent telecommunications provider.
The new glass-and-steel facility proclaimed Tulsa as the heart of the "silicon prairie," the New York Times once reported.
At its peak, Williams Communications employed 4,500 people worldwide, 3,200 of them in Tulsa and most of them at 100 S. Cincinnati Ave.
But just a year after its initial public offering, Williams Communications filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. It claimed more than $7 billion in debt amid a telecom meltdown and a glut in fiber-optic capacity.
The company reorganized, discharged most of its debt and emerged in October 2002 as WilTel Communications Group.
quoted
Nine of the 15 floors will be occupied by city employees, Himelfarb said. Besides the three floors and the network operations center leased by Level 3, two floors remain to be leased to a third party, he said.
The lease contains options, at five years and seven years, for Level 3 to end the contract, with financial penalties, Himelfarb said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 3 who paid between 680 million and 800 million dollars for the networks operations center and fiber-optics lines has an outlet where they can use years to remove the high-tec network brains from the building that was the center of WilTel operations, It seems that extending the lease would eliminated getting the same treatment from the city that Bell's got from the county commission.