This from Thursday's city council agenda...
6. ORDINANCES - FIRST READING
Ordinance creating a new Title 43-G of the Tulsa Revised Ordinances, establishing the official policy of the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma with regard to the expenditure of all monies received from the temporary sales tax levy of one and twenty-three thirtieths (1 23/30) percent put before the voters of the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma on July 29, 2008, including but not limited to procedures for amending said title, oversight committees, and specific project lists. (Emergency Clause) (Martinson) 08-1513-1
6. ORDINANCES - FIRST READING
Ordinance pursuant to Title 62, Section 574 of the Oklahoma Statutes, listing specific projects and costs to be paid if the incurring of additional bonded indebtedness in the sum of $636,000,000.00, is approved by the voters of the City of Tulsa on July 29, 2008. (Emergency Clause) (Martinson) 08-1513-2
That's a bit misleading .... the sales tax money they're going after are existing streams ... and the amounts are only a fraction of the total .... I ha a conversation with my councilor about this issue today.
P.S. with the TCC vote going down and food and gas prices going up, I wonder whether the public will shell out for streets .... even though you can hardly argue its sorely needed.
quote:
Originally posted by blindnil
P.S. with the TCC vote going down and food and gas prices going up, I wonder whether the public will shell out for streets .... even though you can hardly argue its sorely needed.
Since former Streets Commissioner James R. Hewgley III has shown how streets can be handled for only one $100M bond issue, I'd think one six times that large would have some difficulty.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by blindnil
P.S. with the TCC vote going down and food and gas prices going up, I wonder whether the public will shell out for streets .... even though you can hardly argue its sorely needed.
Since former Streets Commissioner James R. Hewgley III has shown how streets can be handled for only one $100M bond issue, I'd think one six times that large would have some difficulty.
The local Road Building Cabal won't want us to be listening to Jas. Hewgley III.
They want over a 1/2 Billion in new taxes.
And, they want it soon.
[:O]
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by blindnil
P.S. with the TCC vote going down and food and gas prices going up, I wonder whether the public will shell out for streets .... even though you can hardly argue its sorely needed.
Since former Streets Commissioner James R. Hewgley III has shown how streets can be handled for only one $100M bond issue, I'd think one six times that large would have some difficulty.
If you think all of the streets in the 200 square miles of Tulsa can be rehabilitated and then maintained for $100 million over several years, then you have a profound misunderstanding of the issues.
quote:
Originally posted by Kiah
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by blindnil
P.S. with the TCC vote going down and food and gas prices going up, I wonder whether the public will shell out for streets .... even though you can hardly argue its sorely needed.
Since former Streets Commissioner James R. Hewgley III has shown how streets can be handled for only one $100M bond issue, I'd think one six times that large would have some difficulty.
If you think all of the streets in the 200 square miles of Tulsa can be rehabilitated and then maintained for $100 million over several years, then you have a profound misunderstanding of the issues.
When the city basically quite maintaining the streets for the past ten years, then of course they've become terrible.
It was merely a softening up exercise to extract a new, huge road building tax.
And, we should therefore REWARD incompetence?
Sorry, wrong answer.
quote:
Originally posted by Kiah
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by blindnil
P.S. with the TCC vote going down and food and gas prices going up, I wonder whether the public will shell out for streets .... even though you can hardly argue its sorely needed.
Since former Streets Commissioner James R. Hewgley III has shown how streets can be handled for only one $100M bond issue, I'd think one six times that large would have some difficulty.
If you think all of the streets in the 200 square miles of Tulsa can be rehabilitated and then maintained for $100 million over several years, then you have a profound misunderstanding of the issues.
Not only do I not think that, I didn't even come close to stating it.
Try reading Mr. Hewgley's plan before flipping out. It makes far more sense than anything else that's been presented to date.
FWIW, the $100M is NEW money. That's a tax increase.
quote:
Since former Streets Commissioner James R. Hewgley III has shown how streets can be handled for only one $100M bond issue, I'd think one six times that large would have some difficulty.
Do you know the amount of backlogs on road funding? It's much more than $100M. The $636M figure seems about right for an immediate, large-impact, meaningful solution. Considering the price per mile, $636 seems much more in line with creating a noticeable impact in the quality of our streets.
quote:
If you think all of the streets in the 200 square miles of Tulsa can be rehabilitated and then maintained for $100 million over several years, then you have a profound misunderstanding of the issues.
You're exactly right. Bear doesn't understand anything.
quote:
When the city basically quite [sic] maintaining the streets for the past ten years, then of course they've become terrible.
It was merely a softening up exercise to extract a new, huge road building tax.
And, we should therefore REWARD incompetence?
Sorry, wrong answer.
FB: No river tax! Fix the roads! Fix the roads! No river Tax.
...no river tax
FB: No road tax! No road tax!
Bear, bonds don't raise taxes. The city is borrowing money, and it's not rewarding incompetence--it's fixing a MASSIVE problem.
Do bears have brains?
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Not only do I not think that, I didn't even come close to stating it.
Try reading Mr. Hewgley's plan before flipping out. It makes far more sense than anything else that's been presented to date.
FWIW, the $100M is NEW money. That's a tax increase.
I have read, and heard in person, Mr. Hewgley's plan, and I think it can be an important part of the solution, but it is not new money (we already carry general obligation bonds for streets). It just shifts bond funds to in-house mill and overlay work, which can also be an important part of the solution -- but not even close to putting a real dent in the backlog, much less maintaining rehabilitated streets in good condition.
And if you've ever dented your backlog, you know how painful that can be . . . but seriously . . . .
Council wants streets on ballot
by: BRIAN BARBER World Staff Writer
5/14/2008 12:00 AM
Councilors work to deliver a streets-improvement proposal that will please voters.
City councilors are working to put a comprehensive package to fix Tulsa's streets on the July 29 ballot.
To make that date — which is also the county, state and federal primary — the council must call for a special election and notify the Tulsa County Election Board no later than 5 p.m. May 29.
"The sooner we can get it to voters, the sooner we can begin implementing it," said Councilor Bill Martinson, who has led a council subcommittee on streets for the past six months.
While the specifics of the proposal are not yet being released, Martinson said it will include multiple funding sources that have been discussed openly in the subcommittee's meetings.
Among the probable components:
Early renewals of the city's general obligation bond and third-penny sales tax programs to devote largely to streets. They would take effect when the bond expires in 2010 and the third penny in 2013.
Raising the city's property tax levy 3.3 mills to match Oklahoma City's. That increase would translate to about an extra $2.50 per month for a $100,000 home.
After Tulsa County's 0.0167 cent Four to Fix the County and 0.6 cent Vision 2025 sales taxes expire, continuing to collect those same amounts of sales taxes in the city of Tulsa. The Four-to-Fix package is scheduled to end in 2012, and Vision 2025 runs until 2017.
Martinson said the exact proposal with all the relevant numbers and projects will be made public once the city's Finance Department has finished its review.
The package, spanning 10 years and providing in excess of $1 billion for streets, would be designed to bring the city's existing infrastructure from a "D" to an average score of "C" on the Pavement Condition Index and provide for routine and preventive maintenance.
"What we need to do is to take care of what we have," Martinson said, adding that some of the city's street expansion and widening needs may be addressed on a separate ballot item.
Over the history of the general obligation and third-penny packages, they have been increasingly filled with other capital needs of the city, not leaving enough for streets, Martinson said.
"We're going to have to tighten our belts," he said. "We need the operating departments to pick up the operating capital items like they used to. This has to be about infrastructure, not fluff and stuff."
The goal has been to minimize the impact on taxpayers as much as possible, Martinson said. That's why existing tax streams are being targeted so as not to change the city's aggregate sales tax rate.
But there is expected to be a bump in utility rates to make up for the money from the third-penny and the general obligation bond programs that have traditionally subsidized the utilities.
"Based on the analysis we've run ... Tulsa's utility rates will remain lower than those in our peer cities and neighboring communities," he said.
Prior to the vote, the council and Mayor Kathy Taylor plan to host town hall meetings.
The council is set to hear public comments beginning at its 6 p.m. Thursday meeting.
Taylor said that if the council is prepared to move on a July election, she'll be ready.
"We want to get it to the citizens as quickly as possible, but we also want to make sure we have all of the pieces together," she said. "This is about prioritizing the streets and making sure we do it right."
During Tuesday committee meetings, councilors said constituents are clamoring for better streets.
"I was just out running for office for the very first time, and I can tell you from one end of my district to the other, this was the top concern I heard about," Councilor G.T. Bynum said.
Councilor David Patrick said: "The streets didn't get this way overnight, but until we get a plan in place, nothing's going to go forward. We're all going to have to come together to get this passed."
This will be a gut check for Tulsa. The timing may be in favor of its success because the average Tulsan won't have time to realize that even though most of the probable components are not tax increases, they will result in hikes in fees for other services.
Collecting v2025 and 4tofix revenues after they expire is simply like extending your mortgage term to lower the monthly payments, a clever way to increase tax without it being too obvious.
And the raising of property taxes won't fly. Those of us who pay it in lump sums are quite aware of how much it has risen the last few years. No one votes on these increases, they just happen by the assessor and you're supposed to be assuaged by the increase in value of your home. That increase in appraisal value doesn't matter if you aren't selling or refinancing. Just another increase.
My prediction is that Tulsans want roads but are unwilling to pay for them during a perceived economic shock wave. If it can be packaged as a re-allocation of existing tax revenues together with an extension of existing taxes it will pass. But if they figure out that its a shell game and you really don't get something for nothing...ixnay.
By only asking for mild increases and extensions I think they can get this passed. The main deal is that they can start work on the backlog today thanks to guaranteed funds in the future. Now that TCC isn't getting any more of my taxes, put that money to the roads.
Also, if it means people have to pay actual costs for city services instead of diverting road money to pay your water bill, then so be it. Tulsans conserve gas, conserve electricity and use water like it's going out of style. Our water rates are so low right now you could probably put a small hydroelectric plant in your backyard, run it off city water, and save $100 month on electricity.
Anyone else notice the "coincidence" that this has to be turned in 1 day before the drillers stuff has to be turned in?
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
By only asking for mild increases and extensions I think they can get this passed. The main deal is that they can start work on the backlog today thanks to guaranteed funds in the future. Now that TCC isn't getting any more of my taxes, put that money to the roads.
Also, if it means people have to pay actual costs for city services instead of diverting road money to pay your water bill, then so be it. Tulsans conserve gas, conserve electricity and use water like it's going out of style. Our water rates are so low right now you could probably put a small hydroelectric plant in your backyard, run it off city water, and save $100 month on electricity.
Anyone else notice the "coincidence" that this has to be turned in 1 day before the drillers stuff has to be turned in?
If I understand the components correctly, that there is very little "new" taxes in this package, I might vote for it.
Besides, I don't expect to be around to have to pay off the bonds.
Teh-heh. Don't tax you, don't tax me --- Tax that man behind the tree.
[;)]
Looks like the city strategy of letting the streets decay to this point may work in driving voters to the polls to continue on with those previous promises of expirations. But there are no other solutions to raising enormous infrastructure funding short of toll roads all over the place. I'll vote for it as long as the entire public diswerks department gets gutted along with the avenues.
Might as well, might as well.
GO.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
... I might vote for it.
I just fell out of my chair because
A. FB might vote YES on something
B. I might agree with FB
^ +1
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
... I might vote for it.
I just fell out of my chair because
A. FB might vote YES on something
B. I might agree with FB
The Tulsa County Ring is not going to like the City of Tulsa grabbing their 4-to-Fix-the-County and Vision 2025 perpetual Tax Honey Pot.
Not...One...Little...Bit.
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Looks like the city strategy of letting the streets decay to this point may work in driving voters to the polls to continue on with those previous promises of expirations. But there are no other solutions to raising enormous infrastructure funding short of toll roads all over the place. I'll vote for it as long as the entire public diswerks department gets gutted along with the avenues.
Might as well, might as well.
GO.
We've already GOT toll roads all over the place.
Turner Turnpike.
Indian Nations Turnpike.
Will Rogers Turnpike.
Muskogee Turnpike
Cimarron Turnpike
Creek Turnpike.
We're the Turnpike Capital of America.
Just try finding a free interstate into or out of Tulsa.
There isn't one.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
... I might vote for it.
I just fell out of my chair because
A. FB might vote YES on something
B. I might agree with FB
The Tulsa County Ring is not going to like the City of Tulsa grabbing their 4-to-Fix-the-County and Vision 2025 perpetual Tax Honey Pot.
Not...One...Little...Bit.
[}:)]
That's one of my favorite parts.
Screw the roads, let's do TCC first.
Do the River!!1~
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Screw the roads, let's do TCC first.
I think you can now stick a Fork into TCC's Task Grab, cause it's definitely Well-Done.
quote:
Originally posted by Kiah
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by blindnil
P.S. with the TCC vote going down and food and gas prices going up, I wonder whether the public will shell out for streets .... even though you can hardly argue its sorely needed.
Since former Streets Commissioner James R. Hewgley III has shown how streets can be handled for only one $100M bond issue, I'd think one six times that large would have some difficulty.
If you think all of the streets in the 200 square miles of Tulsa can be rehabilitated and then maintained for $100 million over several years, then you have a profound misunderstanding of the issues.
One must think in terms of the problem, and just what it is Tulsan's are complaining about.
Hewgley's plan does two things which are not covered in Martinson's plan. However, I do agree with Martinson in that at least some of those future revenue streams needs to be assigned to road upgrades.
The two things are:
1.) It does paving in 2008.
2.) It provides a ten year paving program (at $10 Million/year, an amount Hewgely contends is about that which prevents self-causing cost escalation and massive street closings)
This plan recognizes that MOST of the current problem is in PAVING, not road re-construction from the ground up.
The biggest problem with Martinson's plan is it provides no new money until at least 2011, when the latest 4-to-Fix expires. Then, in 2012 when the current 3rd Penny expires. And, finally, in 2017 when V2025 expires.
So, either we wait for funds until those times (which doesn't solve the current problem in any way), or we bond now for later, paying huge amounts of interest on bond money over a very long term. Makes a current $1 more like $0.50 in value.
The July 31 vote, then, should be a new $100 Million bond to extract already funded 3rd Penny CAPITAL projects from the 3rd Penny so that the displaced 3rd SALES TAX funds can be used for a paving program (which can be funded ONLY by Sales Tax and amounts to maintenance vs. capital projects).
That's where the $10M/yr paving program gets started this year and lasts for ten years.
In the meantime, when those other taxes expire, they can be picked up as additional Road Re-Construction funding (CAPITAL and/or paving projects).
The first is not dependent upon the second.
And, it solves 80% or more of the issue as the public sees things.
As those other taxes expire, the public can then judge how they wish those funds to be directed.
Martinson's plan does now, what we can do much later. And, later, the parties could be expected to be considerably different. Maybe not have exactly the same viewpoint at the time.
I'm not against tying at least SOME those funds up in some way, but it doesn't really address the current problem well. One $700 ($636 + $62) Bond Issue on this July 31 isn't what I had in mind.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
... I might vote for it.
I just fell out of my chair because
A. FB might vote YES on something
B. I might agree with FB
The Tulsa County Ring is not going to like the City of Tulsa grabbing their 4-to-Fix-the-County and Vision 2025 perpetual Tax Honey Pot.
Not...One...Little...Bit.
[}:)]
That's one of my favorite parts.
...mine, too.
Wanted to add that I see no need or reason to increase Ad Valorem (Property) Taxes at all to do this under any circumstance.
....not even to 'match' OKC.
UPDATED:
In Martinson's plan, his 3.3 mills of Ad Valorem is the ONLY NEW MONEY in the current proposal which becomes immediately (next year) available. That's the $62 Million which is going to be a seperate question AND is allocated to road reconstruction CAPITAL projects, NOT maintenance (i.e., paving).
Remember 80% of the problem?
This plan kicks off with Capital Projects of road reconstruction and leaves maintenance for later with the renewal of existing, expiring taxes.
I think if people knew this, they'd not be pleased.
So, to make this short...
Bond part will enable road widening immediately.
Road repair wont start till 2010 or 2011.
While 2010 isnt that far off. I dont think I want to listen to people gripe about the condition of the roads, and that not being worked on, for several more years.
One observation...
95% of a "bad road's" surface isn't bad. That means we are lugging in tons and tons of asphalt to fix such a small surface area. Many communities have found by milling down the asphalt, compacting the base, adding a geotextile, then relaying the recycled asphalt is all that is needed is so many cases.
Also, I have seen many community successfully use concrete to patch bad spots. Cut out cracks and bad spots, dig out, compact, then rebar and concrete smoothed. The level or elevation of the surface of the road is usually consistent enough to pull this off great. What was done on hwy 169 was a joke and a very very poor representation of what can be done using this method.
I guess my question is, how much would it cost to just fix the bad SPOTS, not the whole roads? Buy 100 chop saws and just start cutting out the bad spots, and see how much of a difference it makes.
I have seen this first had here in Haskell. We let out to bid the overlay of a brick street that had been patched incorrectly for so long it was just terrible. The contractor milled down the bad asphalt patches, cut out the weak spots in the brick street, and patched with concrete. I got to drive on the road before they overlaid it at this point, it was the smoothest street in town!
I am just a skeptic after that of full intersection to intersection repaving projects if the problem is a 500 sq. ft. of cracks and dips.
JMHO
Oh, and one more thought...
Just like with so many other forms of infrastructure improvements, we need to stop thinking that we can't buy the equipment to do our own roads.
I don't mind using private companies to do all the work, but not without a warrantee.
The nice thing about the council form of government is the people have someone to point fingers at if the roads are built poorly or without any much thought. Now, a counselor can and will just point at the contractor for a job done poorly. If we as municipalities do the job, you are less likely to have a street director in there for 20 years if they don't do their job right. It is the checks and balances of the system. A street department will want to do a good job because their job depends on it. No one wants to fire a street department employee for "having" to fix a contractors poorly designed road.
I also believe that if the road construction was done in house it would be much cheaper. When a citizen sees something being done incorrectly, there are no contracts binding the continuation of insanity (hwy 169's latest mess). How many of us were going, uh hello? What are you doing?
[:D]
You want people to be on board, prove that all this road work wont be done through contracting deals. The muni is responsible, let them stand up and take the task of fixing them.
Yeah, what exactly WAS done on 169? I drive that every day and it looks unfinished and rides horribly. I feel like kicking someone from ODOT in the cooter everytime I drive that piece of crap. It's so bad now I've been using surface streets, and it's tough to do given today's gas prices.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
Yeah, what exactly WAS done on 169? I drive that every day and it looks unfinished and rides horribly. I feel like kicking someone from ODOT in the cooter everytime I drive that piece of crap. It's so bad now I've been using surface streets, and it's tough to do given today's gas prices.
What happened is this...there isn't a CLEAR, UNDERSTOOD, ACCESSEBLE, check and balance system for road construction. WE ALL NOTICED IT! But what can you do? Someone in OKC and some contractor screwed it up...not much you can do locally.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
Yeah, what exactly WAS done on 169? I drive that every day and it looks unfinished and rides horribly. I feel like kicking someone from ODOT in the cooter everytime I drive that piece of crap. It's so bad now I've been using surface streets, and it's tough to do given today's gas prices.
there are still HUGE CHUNKS OF CONCRETE missing from 169. just try north bound right lane between 31st/21st sometime. If they are calling that done, then it is time to sue.
I like the way the city has begun this conversation. They have a plan to raise the money that seems to encompasse different funding options, especially getting the county out of the sales tax business. It uses existing revenue sources, adds only a few mills to property taxes (less than half of what TCC was asking last week), and takes a long-term approach to fixing the problem.
Now they are asking for the public and the engineers to make decisions on what strets are the priorities.
It is smart to figure out how to raise the money first, then decide how much you can do.
From the news reports, there is a little discussion on how to package it to the voters. Some want a widening and improvement package as one and others want them as separate.
I probably favor keeping them separate. Most of the widening needs is in one area and I know that my neighbors don't want to continue to pay all that money to keep building bigger and bigger roads for south Tulsa. My next door neighbor said it best, "If I wanted to keep subsidizing people to live further and further away from me, I would just give them the cash to leave."
To my simpleton point a view...continually widening roads is how we got in this mess. We keep spending precious funds to make it easier for people to just ignore the core parts of the city. I am not upset for our past, just believe it is time to concentrate on other prioritis now. You can either grow out or fix up...let's do the fix up first this time.
I will probably vote yes for both if they are separate issues on the ballot, but think it makes sense to keep them separate anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
This from Thursday's city council agenda...
6. ORDINANCES - FIRST READING
Ordinance creating a new Title 43-G of the Tulsa Revised Ordinances, establishing the official policy of the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma with regard to the expenditure of all monies received from the temporary sales tax levy of one and twenty-three thirtieths (1 23/30) percent put before the voters of the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma on July 29, 2008, including but not limited to procedures for amending said title, oversight committees, and specific project lists. (Emergency Clause) (Martinson) 08-1513-1
6. ORDINANCES - FIRST READING
Ordinance pursuant to Title 62, Section 574 of the Oklahoma Statutes, listing specific projects and costs to be paid if the incurring of additional bonded indebtedness in the sum of $636,000,000.00, is approved by the voters of the City of Tulsa on July 29, 2008. (Emergency Clause) (Martinson) 08-1513-2
OK, folks, from the top. Let's do a little analysis of the above quoted Propositions, shall we?
Just taking it at face value, no interpretations, indicates a NEW City of Tulsa Sales Tax of 1.7667% is going to be presented and voted upon. If passed, it replaces NOTHING. It adds to the existing Sales Tax burden, currently 8.517%, making the NEW rate 10.1837%.
Certainly, in 2011 the 4-to-Fix 0.6% will be expected to expire, and in 2012 the 3RD Penny would normally expire ( which it has never done, it's always been renewed). However, it will be January 1, 2017 when the Vision2025 tax of 0.1750% expires, basically nine years from now.
Try to remember, that the plan being proposed is a ten year plan.
Sum these three current taxes and we get 0.6% + 1.0% + 0.1750% = 1.775%.
The above Ordinace proposes:
1 and 23/30ths = 1.7667%
Thus, the new 1.7667% is said to "replace" the three taxes totalling 1.775%. By itself, that's a near match.
It does appear, though, that the 1.7667% 'replacement' will be voted upon as a stand-alone City of Tulsa Sales Tax (as it should be). In reality, it does NOT 'replace' either the exiting 3rd Penny, nor either of the two County taxes. Those must expire normally, unless specifically withdrawn by seperate ballot items. Even then, the possibility exists for any or all of them to renew independently of the above propositions.
So, IMO, what's proposed here is bumping the Sales Tax RATE to 10.1837% immediately and for ten years, then reducing it by 0.6% in 2011 when the 4-to-Fix expires making it 9.5837%.
In 2012, when the existing 3rd Penny expires, the rate would go down another 1.0% (IF the 3rd Penny is NOT renewed), making the rate then 8.5837%.
Nine years from now, when V2025 expires (again, if the County doesn't or is unable to renew it) another 0.175% would come off the rate, making it once again near the current rate of 8.4087% (current rate is 8.517%, the difference between 1.7667% and 1.775% above).
See if I'm not correct on this since no one's offered that information yet.
Now I see why long term bonding costs wasn't discussed. There is no long term. A new tax would become effective immediately.
Since each 1.0-Cent Sales Tax is worth between $64 and $72 million per year for the City of Tulsa, a 1.7667% Sales Tax would be worth between $113 and $127 Million per year in revenues. Ten years of that makes the package worth between $1.13 and $1.27 BILLION.
===
Since I'm here, I'd also like to point out those who were considering Street Districts which were to pay half the cost of imporvements in their districts. This effectively DOUBLES the $636 Million being proposed by a 3.3 Mill adjustment of Ad Valorem, making the value of Proposition 2 effectively $1.272 BILLION by itself.
UPDATE: Appears the City may be speaking of a $62 Million total 10-year tax of 3.3 mills at $6.2 M/yr, see discussion in later postings. Wish someone would say so.$1.270 BILLION (1.7667% Sales Tax Increase from current 8.517% to 10.1837%)
$1.272 BILLION$0.062 Billion ($62 million, 3.3 Ad Valorem)
$0.062 Billion ($62 million, "Special Assessments")
==============
TOTAL COST OF ABOVE TWO PROPOSITIONS:
$2.542 BILLION $1.396 BILLION
And, this also assumes ZERO revenue growth in ten years, either in Sales Tax Revenue (which has average 3% growth for twenty years) or in Real Estate Values (which tends to grow at the Ad Valorem Cap rate of 5%/yr).
So, is this what you all had in mind?
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I like the way the city has begun this conversation. They have a plan to raise the money that seems to encompasse different funding options, especially getting the county out of the sales tax business. It uses existing revenue sources, adds only a few mills to property taxes (less than half of what TCC was asking last week), and takes a long-term approach to fixing the problem.
Now they are asking for the public and the engineers to make decisions on what streets are the priorities.
It is smart to figure out how to raise the money first, then decide how much you can do.
From the news reports, there is a little discussion on how to package it to the voters. Some want a widening and improvement package as one and others want them as separate.
I probably favor keeping them separate. Most of the widening needs is in one area and I know that my neighbors don't want to continue to pay all that money to keep building bigger and bigger roads for south Tulsa. My next door neighbor said it best, "If I wanted to keep subsidizing people to live further and further away from me, I would just give them the cash to leave."
To my simpleton point a view...continually widening roads is how we got in this mess. We keep spending precious funds to make it easier for people to just ignore the core parts of the city. I am not upset for our past, just believe it is time to concentrate on other prioritis now. You can either grow out or fix up...let's do the fix up first this time.
I will probaly vote yes for both if they are separate issues on the ballot, but think it makes sense to keep them separate anyway.
quote:
It uses existing revenue sources, adds only a few mills to property taxes (less than half of what TCC was asking last week),
Try again, it's 3.3 mills for 10 years at what was stated as $62 million per year, a total of $620 million. Also, with ZERO escalation of Assessed Values over ten years.
Note: That's $18.79M/Mill. Not sure how the City makes more per mill than the County's $3.55M/Mill, but that's the way both were stated.
UPDATE: The City's rate appears now to be $1.879 million/mill/year, making 3.3 mills Ad Valorem $6.2 million/year, or $62 million over 10 years total.TCC's was a permanent increase of 1.7 mills and a temporary 3.1 mills for 7 years, raising $76 million for the bond and and additional $6M/yr for the permanent assessment. TCC claimed only $3.55Million/year/mill, so 3.1 mills would produce $11M/year and 1.7 mills would have provided an additional $6M/year forever. These values, however, are County-wide, not City of Tulsa, which, by their contention, raises about
$18.79M/year/mill and would raise $62M/year $1.879M/mill/year and would raise $6.2M/year on 3.3 Mills for the City of Tulsa. Someone's numbers (mine) would appear to be off.
But, this Ad Valorem is NEW money, NOT existing revenue streams. And, would NOT replace anything.
If they go with the District plan, where half the costs are passed on to those in districts where the improvements are made by "Special Assessment", then it would effectively double these amounts.
I told you I was a simpleton.
TCC already has 7 mills and was wanting 1.7 more. I inadvertantly added them together.
Is this statement correct? The 3.3 mills asked for in this street package is less than half of what we currently pay for TCC.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I told you I was a simpleton.
TCC already has 7 mills and was wanting 1.7 more. I inadvertantly added them together.
Is this statement correct? The 3.3 mills asked for in this street package is less than half of what we currently pay for TCC.
Well, TCC currently receives 7.21 mills and it came to around $31 million this year, spread over the entire county.
That's about $4.3 million/mill/year.
So, their $11M/yr on 3.1 mills wasn't accurate ($3.55 million/mill/year), it would've been more like $13.3 million/year on that deal, or over $93 million over 7 years (vs. $76M), with no growth in Ad Valorem valuations.
I can't figure out how the City is getting $18.79M/mill/year, the stated $62M/year on 3.3 mills. Something's not right yet, or someone mistated something in a big way.
UPDATE: Appears the City of Tulsa rate is about $1.879M/Mill/Year, producing $6.2M/year on 3.3 mills Ad Valorem.An all-county millage would apply to Tulsa plus all the rest of the county. Tulsa should receive less than the county for the same millage.
UPDATE:
I'm starting to wonder if the stated $62 million was the 10-year total at only $6.2 million per year at 3.3 mills. That'd be about half the revenue of a similar county rate. That's starting to make some sense.
If so, my prior postings on $620 million are off base by a factor of 10.
I said before that I always get millage, village and pillage mixed up.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I said before that I always get millage, village and pillage mixed up.
Millage is what they pillage the village with.
Would tearing up the roads be considered tillage?
He's another way to figure it.
Tulsa picks up right at 70% of any County tax.
So, if Tulsa's millage proceeds are figured as 70% of the County's revenue of $4.3 million/mill/year, then Tulsa would get just over $3 million/mill/year (4.3 * .70).
3.3 Mills, then would produce about $10 Million per year for Tulsa.
And, ten years would be more like $100 million, rather than $62 million.
Again, with zero escalation of either Ad Valorem valuations or Sales Tax collections over 10 years.
This sounds real plausible.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Would tearing up the roads be considered tillage?
Technically that is called millage.
The Channels project would've been a pillage.