Thawing of the Ice Cube Deal?

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by jne

Looks like she pulled it off.  Good for Tulsa.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070925_238_A1_hBuil21480

Level3 and Deloitte can bend them over now for rent.  The profit BoKaiser stands to make is so razor thin that Level3 and Deloitte knows they have them by the balls.  If I were Level3 I would shoot for the moon on lease terms.

actually if I were Level3 I would get the hell out of there because the turds wandering in and out of there are a security risk to their operations.  it used to be like fort knox to get in there....not anymore.

in 10-15 years this building will be a piece of ****.  The city couldn't/wouldn't keep up with what they had, what makes you think they will keep up with maintenance here?  This is like some ghetto thug suddenly going from a Dodge Stratus to a Mercedes SLK and not being able to afford the $150 oil changes.

[RuralDweller]

quote:in 10-15 years this building will be a piece of ****. The city couldn't/wouldn't keep up with what they had, what makes you think they will keep up with maintenance here? This is like some ghetto thug suddenly going from a Dodge Stratus to a Mercedes SLK and not being able to afford the $150 oil changes.

This point is well taken.  Many who have defended this purchase have done so under the guise that it is a monetary savings from the immense amount of money which would be required to repair the existing city hall.  What gets lost in these discussions is the fact that it was a willful act to ignore the maintenance on the old city hall.  The money which was to have been used periodically maintaining those facilities was always siphoned off for some other cause.  Had the maintenance money been used as was originally intended, the argument of  purported future savings becomes moot point.  Point of consideration: the old city hall was of conventional, heavy construction.  Newer buildings, such as OTC, tend to be constructed utilizing newer techniques, lighter materials, etc.  While structurally sound, these newer buildings are dependent upon regular maintenance in order to maintain structural integrity and a pleasing appearance.  If the city ignores maintenance on this new structure the way they have for years on the old city facilities, OTC will be a trash heap within a few years.  Take a walk thru the police & courts building & you'll get a nice aroma of mold, mildew, etc.  Many of the employees who work within that structure consider it to have the "sick building" syndrome, causing many to have chronic upper respiratory problems, etc.  Also note that the story keeps changing as to the financial viability of the OTC transaction.  Initially, this was proposed as a revenue enhancing transaction wherein tenant lease payments would lessen the city's costs.  Now it's being represented as a "break-even" proposition.  As with most things, the future holds the real truth on this matter.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by RuralDweller

quote:in 10-15 years this building will be a piece of ****. The city couldn't/wouldn't keep up with what they had, what makes you think they will keep up with maintenance here? This is like some ghetto thug suddenly going from a Dodge Stratus to a Mercedes SLK and not being able to afford the $150 oil changes.

This point is well taken.  Many who have defended this purchase have done so under the guise that it is a monetary savings from the immense amount of money which would be required to repair the existing city hall.  What gets lost in these discussions is the fact that it was a willful act to ignore the maintenance on the old city hall.  The money which was to have been used periodically maintaining those facilities was always siphoned off for some other cause.  Had the maintenance money been used as was originally intended, the argument of  purported future savings becomes moot point.  Point of consideration: the old city hall was of conventional, heavy construction.  Newer buildings, such as OTC, tend to be constructed utilizing newer techniques, lighter materials, etc.  While structurally sound, these newer buildings are dependent upon regular maintenance in order to maintain structural integrity and a pleasing appearance.  If the city ignores maintenance on this new structure the way they have for years on the old city facilities, OTC will be a trash heap within a few years.  Take a walk thru the police & courts building & you'll get a nice aroma of mold, mildew, etc.  Many of the employees who work within that structure consider it to have the "sick building" syndrome, causing many to have chronic upper respiratory problems, etc.  Also note that the story keeps changing as to the financial viability of the OTC transaction.  Initially, this was proposed as a revenue enhancing transaction wherein tenant lease payments would lessen the city's costs.  Now it's being represented as a "break-even" proposition.  As with most things, the future holds the real truth on this matter.

There is a 8.9 million dollar deferred maintenance fund that will be used to defer costs if the master lease does not work. The Mayor claimed the current City Hall has around 15 million in deferred maintenance. The claims of 15 million dollars of deferred maintenance were never verified by the City Auditor. It seems we had the money to repair the at least half the deferred maintenance, if you believe the unverified numbers the Mayor used. Considering this fund was on hand, wouldn't a more accurate representation of the deferred maintenance costs have been around 6 million dollars, working from the numbers provided by the Mayor?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by inteller
 This is like some ghetto thug suddenly going from a Dodge Stratus to a Mercedes SLK and not being able to afford the $150 oil changes.

Good one! [8D]

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by RuralDweller

quote:in 10-15 years this building will be a piece of ****. The city couldn't/wouldn't keep up with what they had, what makes you think they will keep up with maintenance here? This is like some ghetto thug suddenly going from a Dodge Stratus to a Mercedes SLK and not being able to afford the $150 oil changes.

This point is well taken.  Many who have defended this purchase have done so under the guise that it is a monetary savings from the immense amount of money which would be required to repair the existing city hall.  What gets lost in these discussions is the fact that it was a willful act to ignore the maintenance on the old city hall.  The money which was to have been used periodically maintaining those facilities was always siphoned off for some other cause.  Had the maintenance money been used as was originally intended, the argument of  purported future savings becomes moot point.  Point of consideration: the old city hall was of conventional, heavy construction.  Newer buildings, such as OTC, tend to be constructed utilizing newer techniques, lighter materials, etc.  While structurally sound, these newer buildings are dependent upon regular maintenance in order to maintain structural integrity and a pleasing appearance.  If the city ignores maintenance on this new structure the way they have for years on the old city facilities, OTC will be a trash heap within a few years.  Take a walk thru the police & courts building & you'll get a nice aroma of mold, mildew, etc.  Many of the employees who work within that structure consider it to have the "sick building" syndrome, causing many to have chronic upper respiratory problems, etc.  Also note that the story keeps changing as to the financial viability of the OTC transaction.  Initially, this was proposed as a revenue enhancing transaction wherein tenant lease payments would lessen the city's costs.  Now it's being represented as a "break-even" proposition.  As with most things, the future holds the real truth on this matter.

And what gets lost in this argument is that the city of Tulsa is flat broke.  I'm a big believer in preventive maintenance, but we taxpayers don't even provide that fractional amount needed for good upkeep.  So, maybe it's our fault.

[Renaissance]

Don't forget, also, that the building cost in the neighborhood of $300 million to build.

What is it that the proud new owner, the City of Tulsa, paid for the structure?

Bueller?  Bueller?

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Don't forget, also, that the building cost in the neighborhood of $300 million to build.

What is it that the proud new owner, the City of Tulsa, paid for the structure?

Bueller?  Bueller?

The City of Tulsa has been known to break stuff even bigger and more costly than this.

Take a building, whatever the cost, which requires CONSTANT maintenance and ignore it for a year, then get back to us, without a tax increase.

The current deal masks all this for the first 5 years by paying interest only. So, it likely won't become a problem for us until Kitty is long gone.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by RuralDweller

quote:in 10-15 years this building will be a piece of ****. The city couldn't/wouldn't keep up with what they had, what makes you think they will keep up with maintenance here? This is like some ghetto thug suddenly going from a Dodge Stratus to a Mercedes SLK and not being able to afford the $150 oil changes.

This point is well taken.  Many who have defended this purchase have done so under the guise that it is a monetary savings from the immense amount of money which would be required to repair the existing city hall.  What gets lost in these discussions is the fact that it was a willful act to ignore the maintenance on the old city hall.  The money which was to have been used periodically maintaining those facilities was always siphoned off for some other cause.  Had the maintenance money been used as was originally intended, the argument of  purported future savings becomes moot point.  Point of consideration: the old city hall was of conventional, heavy construction.  Newer buildings, such as OTC, tend to be constructed utilizing newer techniques, lighter materials, etc.  While structurally sound, these newer buildings are dependent upon regular maintenance in order to maintain structural integrity and a pleasing appearance.  If the city ignores maintenance on this new structure the way they have for years on the old city facilities, OTC will be a trash heap within a few years.  Take a walk thru the police & courts building & you'll get a nice aroma of mold, mildew, etc.  Many of the employees who work within that structure consider it to have the "sick building" syndrome, causing many to have chronic upper respiratory problems, etc.  Also note that the story keeps changing as to the financial viability of the OTC transaction.  Initially, this was proposed as a revenue enhancing transaction wherein tenant lease payments would lessen the city's costs.  Now it's being represented as a "break-even" proposition.  As with most things, the future holds the real truth on this matter.

And what gets lost in this argument is that the city of Tulsa is flat broke.  I'm a big believer in preventive maintenance, but we taxpayers don't even provide that fractional amount needed for good upkeep.  So, maybe it's our fault.

The City of Tulsa is anything but flat broke. The City had a surplus of over $25 million in JUST Sales & Use Tax revenues in Fiscal Year 2006-1007 ending June 30, 2007.

Placing blame on the citizens for the faults of our leaders may be proper as it relates to votes, but not in funding.

Check your facts again.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Don't forget, also, that the building cost in the neighborhood of $300 million to build.

What is it that the proud new owner, the City of Tulsa, paid for the structure?

Bueller?  Bueller?

Where'd you come up with that number?

And don't forget, also, that the building sat there for sale for years and they could not find a buyer.  Sat there more than 1/2 vacant for years and they could not find tenants.  And then along came our mayor with her many years of business experience... we'll see how the story ends, but it's not looking like a happy ending for Tulsa's citizens.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle
The City of Tulsa is anything but flat broke. The City had a surplus of over $25 million in JUST Sales & Use Tax revenues in Fiscal Year 2006-1007 ending June 30, 2007.

Placing blame on the citizens for the faults of our leaders may be proper as it relates to votes, but not in funding.

Check your facts again.

My facts are fine, Wrinkle, maybe you should check yours.


Look at Councilor Martin's Fiscal Restraints report.  You'll see that Tulsa's budget has been flat, when adjusted for inflation.  Further, Tulsa has been stuggling to meet revenue projections since the late 1980s.  How exactly, is a sudden $25 million surplus going to perform the billions in upkeep that we have not funded for 20 years? Time travel? As RuralDweller suggests, the best solution is to take better care of infrastructure throughout its lifespan.  Do that and you can get more life out of it.  Tulsa has not had the money to do that for decades because nobody wants to pay for it.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Don't forget, also, that the building cost in the neighborhood of $300 million to build.

What is it that the proud new owner, the City of Tulsa, paid for the structure?

Bueller?  Bueller?

The City of Tulsa has been known to break stuff even bigger and more costly than this.

Take a building, whatever the cost, which requires CONSTANT maintenance and ignore it for a year, then get back to us, without a tax increase.

The current deal masks all this for the first 5 years by paying interest only. So, it likely won't become a problem for us until Kitty is long gone.

You are correct sir. The most risk the city will be exposed to will occur in years 5-7.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

Don't forget, also, that the building cost in the neighborhood of $300 million to build.

What is it that the proud new owner, the City of Tulsa, paid for the structure?

Bueller?  Bueller?

Where'd you come up with that number?

And don't forget, also, that the building sat there for sale for years and they could not find a buyer.  Sat there more than 1/2 vacant for years and they could not find tenants.  And then along came our mayor with her many years of business experience... we'll see how the story ends, but it's not looking like a happy ending for Tulsa's citizens.

I believe $600M was the total cost. $300M for the structure, $300M for the furnishings and finishings.

[RecycleMichael]

The city buys a 600 million dollar property for 52 million.

That is 8.6 cents on the dollar. Isn't that the about the same as our current sales tax rate?

Just pay the sales tax and get the product free!

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

The city buys a 600 million dollar property for 52 million.

That is 8.6 cents on the dollar. Isn't that the about the same as our current sales tax rate?

Just pay the sales tax and get the product free!

We are to believe the building owners chose to sell the property for $548,000,000 less then value?  Really?

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

The city buys a 600 million dollar property for 52 million.

That is 8.6 cents on the dollar. Isn't that the about the same as our current sales tax rate?

Just pay the sales tax and get the product free!

We are to believe the building owners chose to sell the property for $548,000,000 less then value?  Really?

Yup.  Williams Communications went bankrupt in 2002.  Level 3 got everything (people, clients, etc.) for $1.1 billion.  They ended up with a building they couldn't fill, so they dumped it.  They got what the wanted and moved on.