The article in today's paper on the DT fee assessments for the ball park shows that the payoff of the 25M revenue bonds in 30 years will be in the neighborhood of $62,564,073 dollars. The total DT assessment is $93,940,050 dollars of which $2,085,469 dollars are dedicated to the 25M ballpark bonds per year. Assuming the first payment will be due at about the opening date then this would possibility have to be paid out of the general fund or city loose points on their credit rating. The next councilors will have to consider this in next years budget.
Inflation is the easy to create but at what point will deflation begin?
The DT of the city is off to the NW of the center at 41&Yale with the growth is South by East of this point. How can the city continue to build up the DT by adding fees while the commercial business are moving miles from DT?
Does everyone believe that the strong mayor government is a working model for Tulsa? ???
There are at least two distinct issues you raise and one suspect assumption. I'll address the latter.
Doesn't matter much where the geographic center of the city is. It will always meander like the Arkansas. The center of the city retains three of the five hospitals in town. The center of local government is housed there including the county seat. The only colleges in town are within a couple miles of downtown with another soon to expand just north of downtown. Midtown and downtown/uptown could survive handily if each of the burbs surrounding it decided to separate. In fact we might prosper with better roads paid for by toll fees! The population within this area is dense, affluent and well educated.
Sure, Jenks and Owasso will survive, not sure about BA but probably, but not as well as they do with a healthy core. You could move these essentials to Promenade mall if you wish but the only improvement will be in transit times for buses and cabs. And of course it would make Jamesrage a happy camper.
Whether or not the timing of cash flow from the dowtown assessment fees has been addressed is a good question as well as a strong mayor form. We just had a strong mayor. General assessment is that might not have been a good thing. But I don't relish a strong council or a return to commission form either.
The first payment on the ballpark was made on November 1st.
The city will not be paying anything towards these bonds out of the General or any other fund.
Where did you get your figures? I did not see any of that in the article that I read. ???
Quote from: TulsaSooner on November 05, 2009, 06:42:47 PM
The first payment on the ballpark was made on November 1st.
The city will not be paying anything towards these bonds out of the General or any other fund.
Where did you get your figures? I did not see any of that in the article that I read. ???
Don't tell me that the TW is printing two papers. Under "fees" extended from page A1 first column, last line. 66.6% is reserved to pay off the bonds over 30 years (simple 4 grade level math) Ax%x30=sum.
Why was a payment made on the bond so premature?
Was the payment made out of same account as the 7.1M Tulsa was not obligated to pay?
Incase of a default what account will the city feel obligated to pay out of?
Seem hindsight records more facts than foresight. ???
Prediction
WHEN this gets to [the right] Court, it will be thrown out. But, that won't happen until the ballpark construction/funding is nearly complete. Notice all the unnecessary delays already, and the incomparable opinions already rendered (fully expecting to be overturned later).
Once thrown out, the default (probably already worded in the agreements we don't ever see) would be to seek remedy from the City to pay off the Bonds (even though the City was supposedly specifically removed from liabilities with the ballpark, ah la Great Plains). Don't know if this would require an actual suit or not, but the methodology would classify it as a judgement of some type, to then be paid out of the city's Sinking Fund, which by law is required to maintain a minimum level of funding even if it requires an increase in Ad Valorem to do so.
Bingo, up yours with the Ad Valorem.
End result, exactly what was intended, all citizens (property owners) of the city pay a ballpark tax.
Thanks Kitty, we won't soon forget you.
Waterboy: In all due respect look a Kansas City and all the little burbs around it. Dallas the same way. The two major hospitals of those you cite were well established when cattle were grazing on the east side of Lewis at 3rd St.. The street car reversed to go back down town at a block west of Lewis where the wide street is between 5th and 6th. Many cities have moved the governing office to the center of the population very successfully. It is time for Tulsa to circle the wagons and centralize its government functions where they will be available to all its citizens one might surmise.
Quote from: shadows on November 05, 2009, 08:01:30 PM
Don't tell me that the TW is printing two papers. Under "fees" extended from page A1 first column, last line. 66.6% is reserved to pay off the bonds over 30 years (simple 4 grade level math) Ax%x30=sum.
Why was a payment made on the bond so premature?
Was the payment made out of same account as the 7.1M Tulsa was not obligated to pay?
Incase of a default what account will the city feel obligated to pay out of?
Seem hindsight records more facts than foresight. ???
I see it now....I wasn't sure what you were talking about before.
Because Nov 1 was the due date.
No, it was made by the Trust from collections of the assessment.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=333&articleid=20090624_16_A1_Fiftee225296&archive=yes
QuoteA $25 million revenue bond was issued in December to be repaid by the assessment fee. The first payment on the bond is due in November, officials have said.
Quote from: TulsaSooner on November 06, 2009, 08:57:49 AM
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=333&articleid=20090624_16_A1_Fiftee225296&archive=yes
Thanks for the information. It seems that the Tulsa World is printing two issues. One for the DT elitist and one for the peasants.
Do you by any chance know how much the payment was and who is the holder of the revenue bond?
I want to say it is around $1.9 million.
You could probably find the exact answer in some of the newspaper articles about it, but I think the bond initially had no bidders because it was not rated and on a speculative revenue source and was floated during the bond market collapse...eventually, it ended up being loaned to the trust or purchased by the donors to the stadium or something. It was kind of convoluted and I don't remember exactly how it ended up being worked out but I believe the donors are esentially the bondholders.
TulsaSooner: Thanks again for the information. One could correlate the dealing with transferring the money from one pocket to another pocket in the typical way that business as usual is conducted by the city. In the end the donor's part will be deeply entrenched in the black column. ;D
Shadows...this post in the TW comments section might answer that question for you...but may spawn others like it has for me.
In the TW Article: Stadium trust approves policy on fee liens
BetterorWorse (11/5/2009 7:51:09 AM)
How exactly can this mayor approve anything associated with the Tulsa Stadium Trust or the ballpark and its operations when she is a sitting Trustee of the Tulsa Community Foundation? There is a distinct conflict of interest in every action she has undertaken with regards to this ballpark under the City's ethics ordinance.
Ordinance:
"No City official shall participate in any City business in which they have a related
personal, financial, or organizational interest"
"The possibility, not the actuality, of a conflict shall govern"
Kathy Taylor had both an 'organizational interest' as a Trustee on the Tulsa Community Foundation that was awarded the single bid construction contract as well as the single bid financing structured through the TCF.
She had a 'personal interest' given that her family's foundation was providing a contribution to the effort and enjoyed a "direct or indirect interest, matter, or relationship not
shared by the general public which could be reasonably expected to impair the City
official's objectivity or independence of judgment."
The Trust will argue that the actions were taken before the establishment of the Public Trust but then the question becomes, were those action legal under the Oklahoma Open Records Act? Those decisions should have been made only after the establishment of the Trust.
BetterorWorse (11/5/2009 8:10:03 AM)
And let's not forget that BOK (majority owned by George Kaiser) provided the $25 million loan to the Tulsa Community Foundation (established by George Kaiser)for the purchase of the construction bonds which accrue 6.5% interest...2.0% of which goes to the Tulsa Community Foundation ($15 million in interest) and the remaining 4.5% to BOK ($33.75 million in interest)
And here is the TW story confirming TCF as bond purchaser:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20081205_11_A1_TheTul228695&archive=yes
"Lakin said the foundation, a tax-exempt public charity, agreed to provide the financing after the Tulsa Stadium Trust did not receive any bids from 27 prospective lenders."
Wow, 27 prospective lenders and not one bid???
I'm largely ignorant on how the mechanism works for this, but in my mind, I'm thinking the bonds must be a real sh!t burger if there was no interest out of 27 lenders.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 06, 2009, 04:48:18 PM
"Lakin said the foundation, a tax-exempt public charity, agreed to provide the financing after the Tulsa Stadium Trust did not receive any bids from 27 prospective lenders."
Wow, 27 prospective lenders and not one bid???
I'm largely ignorant on how the mechanism works for this, but in my mind, I'm thinking the bonds must be a real sh!t burger if there was no interest out of 27 lenders.
Maybe, but at that point in time I think the volatility of the bond market, particularly the lack of interest in so-called "story" bonds, is what killed the demand.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 06, 2009, 04:48:18 PM
"Lakin said the foundation, a tax-exempt public charity, agreed to provide the financing after the Tulsa Stadium Trust did not receive any bids from 27 prospective lenders."
Wow, 27 prospective lenders and not one bid???
I'm largely ignorant on how the mechanism works for this, but in my mind, I'm thinking the bonds must be a real sh!t burger if there was no interest out of 27 lenders.
Actually it appears that the bond offering may have been written in such a way, and with certain restrictions, that may have lent itself only to be of interest to a 'local foundation.'
The Tulsa World reported on Dec 2, 2008:
The trust received responses declining to bid on the financial portion of the project from J.P. Morgan Chase Bank and Wells Nelson & Associates, an Oklahoma-based public finance investment bank.
"While we desire to assist the Tulsa Stadium Trust, there are parts of this proposal that prohibit us," David Page of Chase Bank wrote.
Randall Nelson, executive vice president of Wells Nelson, wrote that because of the current credit market conditions and the risk associated with the proposed stadium financing, "we are unable to submit an offer at this time."
However, Nelson said that should the trust consider alternative financing approaches, the bank would be willing to submit a bid or discuss the options. It was funny that Stan Lybarger, the BOK President heading up the ballpark efforts, pitched the idea that if no traditional lenders were interested in purchasing the ballpark bonds, that the Council should allow a 'local foundation' to purchase them and that in order to do that, the Council should waive the competitive bid process. The request as well as the timing also seemed a little unusual. The proponents of the ballpark could have waited until truly documenting no bids and then ask the council to waive the competitive bid requirement and pitch it to a local foundation but that wasnt done here.
From the Tulsa World: Council set to vote on ballpark bonds (11/19/08)
If no satisfactory bids are received, Lybarger said it would be helpful for the trust to have the ability to negotiate a financial transaction with a local foundation that might be willing to provide funding.
To be able to do that, the council would need to waive the competitive-bidding process, he said.
"But, the clear intent is not to do that," Lybarger said. "We hope to be in the position to accept a bid the comes through the request for proposal process."The other funny thing here is the timing:
Thursday, November 20, 2008 - City Council approves construction bonds to be issued by Trust
Monday, December 1, 2008 - Bond purchase bids are due (9 working days from Council approval)
Friday, December 5, 2008 - Trust approves TCF for bond purchase
Now normally, I think the bond offering has to be published after approval to comply with the Competitve Bid process...but I wonder, if the Competitive Bid requirement was removed by Council, was it printed? And even if so, is 9 days enough time for interested parties to review the bond requirements thoroughly?
The other funny thing that one Tulsa World article stated with regards to the sole bid to construct (and subsequently the bond financing):
Phil Lakin, the construction company's manager, submitted the bid.
Lakin also is executive director of the Tulsa Community Foundation, a tax-exempt, public charity created by George Kaiser and other philanthropists in 1998 to receive, protect and distribute gifts from individuals and organizations for the improvement of Tulsa and eastern Oklahoma. Kaiser is not a foundation board member.
The bid also included a statement that no conflicts of interest exist between the construction company and the stadium trust that would interfere in any way with fair competition in the bid- selection process.
Taking a cue from BetterorWorse up there...how could there not be even the possibility of a conflict of interest given the relationship between donors, foundation, public trust and the principal financial lender BOK - they're all so inter-related?
In rounding off the figure, if the payment was $1,900000, the tax free interest would have been $1,625000 paid by a city beneficial trust, to a tax sheltered trust, exempt from the FOI, with the $275,000 reduction of the principle, with a deep possibility of COI, a mayor flying the coop and a fed grand jury in session, it would seem that the citizens of Tulsa should be asking some questions. Or I guess that is considered legal maneuvering in the way Tulsa does business.
Brightside is those DT fee's are available to buy those private cubby holes at the new ball park for the top enlists.