Consequences of Stadium District?

[Hoss]

Please forgive for coming late to this dance - too many posts in this thread to read every word but is the BOK mentioned previously the same BOK that received seven million dollars from the city to settle a lawsuit to which the city was not a party at the time? And wasn't the city council rushed into that approval also? Would this also be the BOK whose name adorns the rust-stained duct-tape arena? And the same BOK who had Kathy Taylor as a board member just prior to her promotion to Queen of Tulsa?
Just wonderin'...

Are you talking about that same arena that has been booked over half the time since opening in September?  The 'duct tape' reference is so six-months ago.  Get current.

Just wonderin'...

[cannon_fodder]

Also, not rust.  Silicon.    The streaks on the BOk center are dirt collected on silicon seeping from the window seems.  It is fairly normal for new construction but highlighted on the Bok Center by the stainless steel and exacerbated by the slope of the walls.

But you raise a good point.  We need to be thankful for the rich and powerful in our community for what they do (ie. George Kaiser:  jobs, development, donations) but keep an out out for undue influence.    I stand by my assessment that this project needs to be watched closely:

Donations by BOk
Land owned by BOk
Financing by BOk

and who's on the oversight board?  Mostly people associated with BOk. 

I'm not calling shenanigans, but we need people to keep an eye open and to ensure the system is transparent.  As much of a pain in the donkey as that might be, it's better than more corruption and waste.

[DowntownNow]

Thank you Waterboy for, IMO, a good comment.  But what is funny in all this is it would seem Michael has chosen to re-address this very same topic within another thread on this board.  I can't help but think it was to distance himself from the arguments, points and claims made in here since he wasn't able to counter.  Shame...that is what makes for good discussion.

In that other thread (and since I dont see the reason to clutter this forum with the same topic in another thread) I think something needs to be addressed that Sgrizzle stated.

What's being ignored is that these fees are also paying for downtown maintenance which used to be performed primarily at 5th and Main and will now extend to everyone inside the IDL. That means landscaping upkeep, street sweeping, trash pickup, etc. So even if you don't "directly benefit from downtown baseball, you're still getting something.

Aside from missing the arguement entire on the legal basis and addressing that...The $64 million that has been discussed in here is not derived from the 2.2cents/square foot of assessment appportioned for IDL services.  It comes strictly from the 4.3cents/square foot apportioned for ballpark construction.  The 2.2 cents/square foot portion of the assessment does provide a "special benefit" to the IDL property owners.  But the 4.3cent/square foot does not.  They seem to mistake the two components being one and the same, they are not, IMO - court to decide. 

Regarding the BID Assessment and its coverage of the $25 million bond for the stadium that will incure 6.5% interest to the extent of tens of millions over the 30 years, I found the following funny.  It was posted in this last week's Urban Tulsa article by Mike Easterling:

Making Sausage - April 8, 2009
Woods' report at the April 3 Stadium Trust meeting indicated construction of the ballpark remains on schedule for completion by Feb. 28, 2010. A total of $4 million has been spent on construction so far, he said, and the $39 million project is about 2 percent, or $600,000, over budget. But Woods said several construction packages still need to be put out for bid, and he expects that difference to be made up easily.

"We fully expect to be able to achieve our budget," he said.

In the event construction costs are less than expected (apparently a very real possibility, given the state of the economy and the corresponding lack of activity in many building trades0, trust chairman Stanley Lybarger asked Woods to submit a list of possible ballpark enhancements to the group for discussion.

Why would the Trust not seek to limit the taxpayer liability and decrease the interest expense on a budget savings, reduce the debt earlier, simply save money if it comes under budget?  It seems they are happy and content to pay every last dime afforded under the proposed budget.  Don't the taxpayers deserve some fiduciary responsibility in the slightest to limit liability?

[sgrizzle]

Aside from missing the arguement entire on the legal basis and addressing that...The $64 million that has been discussed in here is not derived from the 2.2cents/square foot of assessment appportioned for IDL services.  It comes strictly from the 4.3cents/square foot apportioned for ballpark construction.  The 2.2 cents/square foot portion of the assessment does provide a "special benefit" to the IDL property owners.  But the 4.3cent/square foot does not.  They seem to mistake the two components being one and the same, they are not, IMO - court to decide. 

While that may be the facts of the matter, that is not how it's being reported. People are complaining because their tax is going from $1,000 to $13,000 which means they are including the 2.2c and 4.3c portions.

In the event construction costs are less than expected (apparently a very real possibility, given the state of the economy and the corresponding lack of activity in many building trades0, trust chairman Stanley Lybarger asked Woods to submit a list of possible ballpark enhancements to the group for discussion.[/i]

Why would the Trust not seek to limit the taxpayer liability and decrease the interest expense on a budget savings, reduce the debt earlier, simply save money if it comes under budget?  It seems they are happy and content to pay every last dime afforded under the proposed budget.  Don't the taxpayers deserve some fiduciary responsibility in the slightest to limit liability?

The design has had things added/removed repeatedly. If they can squeeze in automatic flushing toilets instead of manual, then do it.

[nathanm]

Why would the Trust not seek to limit the taxpayer liability and decrease the interest expense on a budget savings, reduce the debt earlier, simply save money if it comes under budget?  It seems they are happy and content to pay every last dime afforded under the proposed budget.  Don't the taxpayers deserve some fiduciary responsibility in the slightest to limit liability?

Because I and many others would expect them to build as nice a ballpark as they can for the amount of money they have to spend. We want a ballpark. We want it done as best it can be within the budget.

[shadows]

Please forgive for coming late to this dance - too many posts in this thread to read every word but is the BOK mentioned previously the same BOK that received seven million dollars from the city to settle a lawsuit to which the city was not a party at the time? And wasn't the city council rushed into that approval also? Would this also be the BOK whose name adorns the rust-stained duct-tape arena? And the same BOK who had Kathy Taylor as a board member just prior to her promotion to Queen of Tulsa?
Just wonderin'...

Is there a smell of “Conflict of Interest” in issuing revenue bonds to circumvent the people right to vote on what once was know as “General Obligation Bonds” or has all this become the Tulsan way of life?  Is not the 30 year bonds to be passed on to the grandchildren that are not even conceived? 

[RecycleMichael]

  But what is funny in all this is it would seem Michael has chosen to re-address this very same topic within another thread on this board.  I can't help but think it was to distance himself from the arguments, points and claims made in here since he wasn't able to counter.  Shame...that is what makes for good discussion.

No DirtClodNow...I am able to counter your bad arguments, but you have no clue how to make your point. You just ask dozens of inane questions, then expect any that are not addressed to be victories for you. You also claim you are winning the legal argument because the city didn't immediately try to dismiss the suit you filed. I am not a lawyer, but know that a  number of local attorneys disagree with you and trust the judge will as well.

I asked you to not use my business to make your points since we don't know who you are, yet you feel attacking me while remaining anonymous is OK. I am just no longer willing to engage you. I tried being polite and civil, you did not.

This forum ain't a court of law and your brow-beating style makes you not worthy of the discussion. I also noticed when others disagree with you, you claim that they "miss" the argument, as if they can't comprehend it.

You are a pompous fool. There...I have stooped to your level.

[DowntownNow]

And it gets more interesting...

Tulsa city council seeks more info surrounding fee for stadium
by: P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
4/14/2009 2:41:53 PM

A majority of city councilors said on Tuesday that they want an attorney general’s opinion on several issues before they approve the assessment roll for the Tulsa Stadium Improvement District.

The roll will determine how much each property within the district will be charged yearly for downtown services and to help fund the construction of the downtown ballpark.

The council has asked that a resolution seeking the legal opinion be considered at its Thursday meeting.

Last summer, the council approved a new improvement district with a higher assessment rate to replace the current improvement district that is set to expire June 30.

The district includes properties within the Inner Dispersal Loop.

The higher assessment rate - 6.5 cents per square foot of land and structures - would last for 30 years. Of that amount, 2.2 cents will pay for services and 4.3 cents will fund a $25 million bond going toward the $39.2 million cost of the stadium.

Among the protesters who appeared before the council last week, Tulsa County and a state agency raised legal issues over the ballpark portion of the assessment.

One argument was whether the properties were receiving a benefit from the assessment that was proportionate to the rate.

“What would be wrong with the city of Tulsa, Tulsa County and the state going to the Oklahoma attorney general and asking for an opinion on whether this thing works or not,” Councilor Bill Martinson said about the assessment.

Councilor Rick Westcott said the council is facing conflicting legal opinions from the city, county and state on what the council can and cannot do.

“If the council moves forward and approves the assessment roll, there will be lawsuits filed and nobody can predict the outcome of the lawsuits but I think they have merit,” he said.

Westcott said it might be beneficial to resolve the issues as much as possible with an attorney general’s opinion “and hopefully head off a lot of the cost of litigation.”

Senior Assistant Attorney Linda Redemann said she doesn’t think an attorney general’s opinion would head off any lawsuits.

Charlie Price, spokesman for the Attorney General’s Office said an opinion can only be requested by statewide elected officials, state legislators, directors of state agencies, boards or commissions, and district attorneys.

[DowntownNow]

Just to answer one if Michael's false assumptions, comments, accusations, etc...I am not a party to the lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of several downtown property owners.    I believe I already answered this before it was even asked in one of my recent posts.  I just happen to be informed and not a stranger to the District Court files that I take an interest in.

I am not a lawyer but merely put forth the legal argument being used by those parties to the lawsuit for discussion and debate...two things I thought this "forum" was created to provide on a variety of topics and issues.

It would now seem that the Council, perhaps due to hindsight being what it is, is wanting to scrutinize this further to avoid legal ramifications based on the same arguments.

Darn...Maybe I should have gone to law school.

[Rico]

This, newly posted article, in the "World" would make this matter appear to be, in baseball lingo, at a full count...

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=298&articleid=20090416_298_0_OLHMIY78876

[DowntownNow]

While this newest development will likely settle the County and State's issues with the ballpark portion of the assessment (if the Governor signs it)...it does not address the indivdual property owner's issues challenging the ballpark portion of the assessment.  That, I'm sure, will still move through the court...

The one thing this bill will do, however, is also make it so that even the 2.2cent/square foot portion of the assessment may not have to be paid by the County and State, which will put the services component into jeopardy as well.  The County and State are among the largest land owners in the IDL.

This "do it fast, push it on them, damn the consequences" fashion for financing and developing this ballpark is now taking on more serious tones at the state level it seems.

If the bill is signed, this will effectively take any future ability to assess and pay for downtown services and put it on its ear - other downtown property owners will be asked to foot a much larger bill for services which they will prolly say 'no' to in force. 

Before being pushed to pay for a ballpark that will not directly and proportionally benefit them, the State and County were happy to pay any assessment that provided services (under the old Main Mall assessment) within the IDL...now they wont even have to help pay that as a result of this bums rush effort.

Is this a good expample of cutting one's nose off to spite their face?

[TeeDub]

This latest development couldn't have happened to a better group of people...

Sales tax to make up shortfall in 3....2....

[cannon_fodder]

Am I daft or does 2009 HB-1424 not address this issue at all?

BILL SUMMARY
1st Session of the 52nd Legislature

   Bill No.:   HB 1424
   Version:   Introduced
   Author:   Representative Proctor
   Date:   February 21, 2009
   Impact:   $0

Bill Summary

Research Analyst:   Dusty Darr

This measure requires that entities proposing zoning changes including multiple housing units mail a written notice within thirty days of a scheduled rezoning hearing to all registered voters within one-quarter of a mile of the affected area.  The notice is to be mailed at the expense of the petitioning party.

Fiscal Summary

Fiscal Analyst:   Terry McKenna

HB 1424, as introduced, relates to municipal zoning.  The measure provides for notice requirements related to zoning changes and requires the entity proposing a zoning change to all costs incurred in mailing the notice.

Fiscal Analysis

In its present form, HB 1424 has no impact on state revenues or resources.

Long Term Fiscal Considerations

None

Engrossed copy can be found here:
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2009-10bills/HB/hb1424_engr.rtf

I see no mention of exempting any structures from any taxes.  I admit to not taking the time to read it critically, but one with think the general idea would come through.  If I overlooked something or there was a type (SB 1424?) left me know.  No time to really look into it at the moment, but prelim research leaves me confused.

[sgrizzle]

I think I'll move to Owasso so I can vote against Brogdon.

The state complains about the feds messing in their world and then they try to pass a bill to mess with city matters.

[pmcalk]

Am I daft or does 2009 HB-1424 not address this issue at all?

Engrossed copy can be found here:
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2009-10bills/HB/hb1424_engr.rtf

I see no mention of exempting any structures from any taxes.  I admit to not taking the time to read it critically, but one with think the general idea would come through.  If I overlooked something or there was a type (SB 1424?) left me know.  No time to really look into it at the moment, but prelim research leaves me confused.

That's the house version, which passed earlier.  The senate today (probably not online yet) added the language about the tax assesment.  I assume (I'm not up on the legislative process at the state level) that it will go to a joint committee for some compromise.