or, about $6.3 Million more than last year, with a month to go.
The County did better, though, there's is UP 4.27%, or about $3.7 Million.
....so, what's all this budget fuss about?
Quote from: Wrinkle on June 02, 2009, 05:54:36 PM
or, about $6.3 Million more than last year, with a month to go.
The County did better, though, there's is UP 4.27%, or about $3.7 Million.
....so, what's all this budget fuss about?
Yet, every employee got an email today from the Mayor who said your furlough days are now up to eight days (started at four, went to six, now at eight) with a potential $2.7M more to cut, which simply means more furlough days, yet, .........
So far the city employees I have heard comment on this are thrilled to have more days off lol. Anyone else hear differently?
Quote from: Wrinkle on June 02, 2009, 05:54:36 PM
or, about $6.3 Million more than last year, with a month to go.
The County did better, though, there's is UP 4.27%, or about $3.7 Million.
....so, what's all this budget fuss about?
Not to mention the millions of dollars per year in savings and extra efficiencies because of the new city hall. Seems like the city should be in fine financial shape.
Quote from: TheArtist on June 02, 2009, 09:03:14 PM
So far the city employees I have heard comment on this are thrilled to have more days off lol. Anyone else hear differently?
My impression is that the days off will be
without pay. Are the city employees aware of this? Are they just so glad to get a day off they don't care?
;D
Yes they were quite aware of it.
The employees are so overpaid that they want the time off to spend the money in the new stores that have moved into the burbs where more than half of the employees now live. With the budgeting affixed by statute, future estimates cannot be compared with previous incomes. Tulsa needs to annex all of Tulsa County except Tulsa city may be subservient to the County.
Still who in Tulsa pays any attention to state statues?
Quote from: shadows on June 04, 2009, 07:28:01 AM
Still who in Tulsa pays any attention to state statues?
Why should we pay attention to statues? They don't do anything.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 02, 2009, 10:36:44 PM
My impression is that the days off will be without pay. Are the city employees aware of this? Are they just so glad to get a day off they don't care?
;D
Thrilled! With the 142% increase in health insurance and the eight furlough days, I'm going to be out $3500! Yeah, that helps the economy.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on June 04, 2009, 09:08:36 AM
Why should we pay attention to statues? They don't do anything.
Maybe not in your head.
Quote from: Wilbur on June 04, 2009, 10:15:18 AM
Thrilled! With the 142% increase in health insurance and the eight furlough days, I'm going to be out $3500! Yeah, that helps the economy.
I'm down about the same and yet I don't feel the need to repeatedly lambaste the head of my organization in a public forum. Myself and my coworkers get to keep their jobs so I'm willing to be reasonable and suck it up.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't police generally working a lot of overtime already? Wouldn't this mean theoretically they get to charge up to 8 days to overtime instead of regular pay?
We could go Christiansen's route and just lay some people off.
+ ~$7,000,000 in sales tax revenue
+ ~$1,500,000 in savings from the new City Hall (15.2mil over 10 years)
+ 3 new taxes on the way or here (road, expo, downtown ballpark)
+ Increase in real estate market in Tulsa
+ County with more money (city not covering county duties)
+ BOk Center paying for itself, new bond issues passed just fine, no unexpected crisis to cover (another ice storm, for example).
I'm not trying to be obtuse, but why are we in a budget crisis?
Don't forget the new EMSA Tax, $3.64/mo from every water meter. This produces a surplus to the city over the amount paid EMSA.
Also, there's been a 7% increase in water bills three years in a row, a 25% increase in Stormwater Management Fees, and Sewer rates are tied to water rates.
Generally, there's been huge increases in fees, permits and ticket costs, too.
City revenues are well above last year.
From my we've heard the patrol officers won't actually get days off, they will just get a decrease in pay, since there are minimum manning issues. For once, I'd probably agree with an FOP grevience, that's not fair to just decrease their pay without the time off when everyone else is getting it (including other officers) who knows though, there is always so much gossip. And yes, as I said earlier, the officers can make up the decrease in pay with overtime. They are hiring officers back at overtime rates on almost every shift, every day.
Back on topic, it doesn't make a lot of sense that there is some massive shortfall projection with all the increases going on ? ? ? ?
Original post said receipts were up over last year, but did not provide comparison of receipts to the budgeted projections for this year - which is where a shortfall will occur. Continued, albeit slower, sales tax revenue growth is better than what many cities are facing around the country, but it doesn't mean we don't have a budget shorfall that must be closed.
Furloughs may be the better solution to the problem if you believe the problem to be a one year hiccup.
Quote from: sgrizzle on June 04, 2009, 02:46:46 PM
I'm down about the same and yet I don't feel the need to repeatedly lambaste the head of my organization in a public forum. Myself and my coworkers get to keep their jobs so I'm willing to be reasonable and suck it up.
The head of 'my organization' does everything in a public forum. Of her 4500 employees, plenty disagree with her handling of the budget and her mandatory furlough days, including some of the council. Once again, her 'team' approach is great when you are only allowed to agree with 'the team.' The amount of money she is trying to cut compared to the entire city list of expenditures is extremely small, yet she chooses to do so on the backs of government employees who are already paid at a level WAY BELOW private industry and/or cities of equal size. But, we get a new stadium, we get a new city hall, we get a new .......
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't police generally working a lot of overtime already? Wouldn't this mean theoretically they get to charge up to 8 days to overtime instead of regular pay?
Overtime is not something every officer works and you just can't work overtime when you feel like it.
We could go Christiansen's route and just lay some people off.
According to the police contract, layoffs are the only option open to the city when reductions are made in the name of cost savings. Imagine that..... follow the rules/contract. Would it be politically correct to do so? Probably not. But that is a chance you take.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on June 05, 2009, 08:37:29 AM
+ ~$7,000,000 in sales tax revenue
+ ~$1,500,000 in savings from the new City Hall (15.2mil over 10 years)
+ 3 new taxes on the way or here (road, expo, downtown ballpark)
+ Increase in real estate market in Tulsa
+ County with more money (city not covering county duties)
+ BOk Center paying for itself, new bond issues passed just fine, no unexpected crisis to cover (another ice storm, for example).
I'm not trying to be obtuse, but why are we in a budget crisis?
Not to mention the increased efficiency we are supposed to be achieving through the consolidation of offices at the new city cube.
Quote from: DTowner on June 05, 2009, 10:38:59 AM
Original post said receipts were up over last year, but did not provide comparison of receipts to the budgeted projections for this year - which is where a shortfall will occur. Continued, albeit slower, sales tax revenue growth is better than what many cities are facing around the country, but it doesn't mean we don't have a budget shorfall that must be closed.
Furloughs may be the better solution to the problem if you believe the problem to be a one year hiccup.
Maybe the better question would be who and/or why are they 'projecting' 8%-9% increases in revenue for budgeting purposes when all the experience shows 2-3% increases are typical (20-year history)? In fact, Mike Kier uses, by his own statements, a 2.75%-3.00% escalation rate for Bond revenue projections, why are they using something different for city budgeting?
With those kind of 'projections', there couldn't help but be a 'shortfall', when none really exists.
We are actually performing quite well, especially under the current economic circumstances. Certainly no need for the alarmist proclaimations and wild measures being promoted.
Could it be that the Borg Cube is actually costing us $10M rather than saving us that much? And, are we still paying the cost of the former City Hall since we do still own it as well?
I think a performance review of each of these 'benefits' that have been added to our city is warranted, especially City Hall.
The ballpark will cure itself over time and in court, where, imo, it will be ruled invalid, unconstitutional and bad management. Wouldn't surprise me to find criminal violations, though, at this point, government is stacked in businesses' favor, leaving the public to fend for itself.
Why the "budget fuss"? Could it be that Tulsa, like the rest of the country, is in a recession? I'm thinking, "Maybe". I'm also thinking, "Duh!".
Americans are self-reporting a 40% decrease in spending (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114616/Americans-Reported-Spending-Down-Last-Year.aspx)?
May sales tax receipts were down 8.1% from last year (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090523_11_A11_Mostar713356&archive=yes)?
Everybody's coming up short, including the State (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090605_16_A13_OKLAHO366892&archive=yes)?
So, naturally, there has to be something wrong with the city hall purchase. Here's a thought, Wrinkle: instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on an audit of the OTC purchase, why don't we just ignore your whackadoodle advice for free?
I literally had someone say to me this morning:
"Our budget shortfall is exactly the amount we paid BOK for the GPA settlement"
:rolls eyes:
Quote from: Chicken Little on June 05, 2009, 01:09:14 PM
So, naturally, there has to be something wrong with the city hall purchase. Here's a thought, Wrinkle: instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on an audit of the OTC purchase, why don't we just ignore your whackadoodle advice for free?
Great! Then I assume you can explain how we collected MORE money this year in several categories and still have a multi-million dollar budget shortfall. "There's a recession" would work as a great excuse if the revenues were down - but they aren't.
To me it seems simple: we anticipated an increase that was twice what could realistically be expected.
Wouldn't it be prudent to budget for NO increase or a very modest increase and then if/when we had a surplus we could spend it?
Quote from: cannon_fodder on June 05, 2009, 02:37:31 PM
Great! Then I assume you can explain how we collected MORE money this year in several categories and still have a multi-million dollar budget shortfall. "There's a recession" would work as a great excuse if the revenues were down - but they aren't.
To me it seems simple: we anticipated an increase that was twice what could realistically be expected.
Wouldn't it be prudent to budget for NO increase or a very modest increase and then if/when we had a surplus we could spend it?
Absolutely not, that makes too much sense for government!
Quote from: Chicken Little on June 05, 2009, 01:09:14 PM
Why the "budget fuss"? Could it be that Tulsa, like the rest of the country, is in a recession? I'm thinking, "Maybe". I'm also thinking, "Duh!".
Americans are self-reporting a 40% decrease in spending (http://www.gallup.com/poll/114616/Americans-Reported-Spending-Down-Last-Year.aspx)?
May sales tax receipts were down 8.1% from last year (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090523_11_A11_Mostar713356&archive=yes)?
Everybody's coming up short, including the State (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090605_16_A13_OKLAHO366892&archive=yes)?
So, naturally, there has to be something wrong with the city hall purchase. Here's a thought, Wrinkle: instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on an audit of the OTC purchase, why don't we just ignore your whackadoodle advice for free?
You used to be kind of fun.
Who, besides you, said anything about an audit?
Quote from: cannon_fodder on June 05, 2009, 02:37:31 PM
Great! Then I assume you can explain how we collected MORE money this year in several categories and still have a multi-million dollar budget shortfall. "There's a recession" would work as a great excuse if the revenues were down - but they aren't.
To me it seems simple: we anticipated an increase that was twice what could realistically be expected.
Wouldn't it be prudent to budget for NO increase or a very modest increase and then if/when we had a surplus we could spend it?
Yes, I can offer a good reason for the shortfall...the city took in less revenue than projected due to declining retail sales (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090522_298_0_Mostar607894).
What do you or I know about what was a "realistic" projection a year ago? I can tell you though, I can think of some decent reasons why the projections would be higher than 2007 collections: 1) the December 2007 ice storm was a big hit, 2) hundreds of thousands of square feet of retail opened at Tulsa Hills, and 3) the budget was completed months before the meltdown, which was in September 2008.
Things were looking a lot rosier a year ago than they are today. And although collections were decent through the end of last year, it was only a matter of time before the recession caught up with us. It has now, and based on May sales tax collections, it looks as if this next year is going to suck.
And no, it's not prudent to budget higher or lower than your projections. Budget too high and you are laying off people, putting holds on projects, etc. Budget to0 low and the surplus gets spent on something you didn't expect...and probably something not well thought out.
Quote from: Wrinkle on June 05, 2009, 03:04:08 PM
You used to be kind of fun.
Who, besides you, said anything about an audit?
"performance review"...that's personnel and/or productivity. I think you mean a financial review, aka audit of some kind. Regardless of the terminology, when's the last time something like that cost the taxpayers less than $100,000? Why jump out and dump a bundle on a study when the reasons for their problems are so painfully obvious...and beyond their control?
Believe me, I'm still fun. What's
really tedious is this endless stream of half-baked conspiracy and half-truths. Maybe y'all should try using more than half your brain.
Quote from: Chicken Little on June 05, 2009, 04:12:10 PM
Yes, I can offer a good reason for the shortfall...the city took in less revenue than projected due to declining retail sales (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090522_298_0_Mostar607894).
Either you didn't read the article you cited, or you aren't being honest.
Link Article Headline:
QuoteTulsa area suburbs hit by plunging sales tax revenues
It mentions Jenks, Skiatook, Sapulpa, Bixby, Muskogee, Claremore, Broken Arrow, and even Oklahoma City. That article doesn't mention Tulsa at all. So I agree that the suburbs have seen an annual drop in sale tax revenue and it explains well why they would have budget problems. But it has been referenced that Tulsa is UP for the year . . . so that article is off base.
QuoteWhat do you or I know about what was a "realistic" projection a year ago?
Per Wrinkle, they budgeted an 8% increase in revenue when the historical trend is a 2-3% increase. To me, tripling the statistical expected revenue increase isn't realistic. Particularly when everyone has known for a couple years that hard times were coming (remember the presidential primaries were about the economy even). If this information is incorrect, please educate me. I admit to being lazy in my research here.
If you received a raise every year that varied between -4% to +8% and averaged 2-3%, would you ever make your annual budget to PLAN for the 8% raise? Of course not. Unless it wasn't your money or your job you were playing with.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on June 05, 2009, 04:55:17 PM
Either you didn't read the article you cited, or you aren't being honest.
And either you are acting thick or you
are thick. Here...8.1% down for May (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090523_11_A11_Mostar713356&archive=yes)
QuoteWhen Tulsa officials received their May sales-tax check, which was down 8.1 percent, Mayor Kathy Taylor announced that her $578 million proposed budget would have to be trimmed an additional $7 million to $10 million because of lower revenue projections for the upcoming fiscal year.
Quote from: cannon_fodderBut it has been referenced that Tulsa is UP for the year . . . so that article is off base.
Up over last year, but still below projections. That's what a budget shortfall
is.
Quote from: cannon_fodderPer Wrinkle, they budgeted an 8% increase in revenue when the historical trend is a 2-3% increase. To me, tripling the statistical expected revenue increase isn't realistic.
I listed my theories why they would expect higher revenue, i.e. 2007 ice storm, 2008 Tulsa Hills, and pre-meltdown.
Quote from: cannon_fodderI admit to being lazy in my research here.
Not the first time. Nor is it the first time you have cast judgment based solely on your 20/20 hindsight. You listed some new savings and revenue sources. You know why they don't fill in the gaps? Because they don't bring in $18 million a month like sales tax does. When sales tax takes a dump, so does Tulsa, plain and simple. And why did sales tax take a dump? The recession.
Quote from: cannon_fodderIf you received a raise every year that varied between -4% to +8% and averaged 2-3%, would you ever make your annual budget to PLAN for the 8% raise? Of course not. Unless it wasn't your money or your job you were playing with.
It's not the same. Cities are required to spend down end-of-year surpluses...there's no slack. Compounding this, sales tax fluctuates wildly even in normal times (ice storm, a plant closing, someone puts a nickel in a piggy bank instead of buying a piece of gum, etc.).
So the city has to hit a bullet with a bullet every year. And they missed this year. A whole lot of people missed this year...that's why it's a recession. Based on the factors I listed, I think it's pretty reasonable and realistic for them to have aimed higher last year, but you disagree based on personal experience or some such. Okay, fine. I don't have any personal experience, but I can read and try to find out. What really p8sses me off is that you assume they did something irresponsible...and wrinkle goes further and thinks there's a conspiracy. That's just dumb stuff.
CL I applaud you.. You have staved off the impending wrath of possibly another "Friendly Bear".
Conspiracy is a term not taken lightly on this board. Many have vanished never to be seen or heard from again by the nasty "C" word.
I, personally, see no conspiracy in the agenda of this administration, either past or present.
I see "business as usual". Although, after reading your posts, I have to wonder if the amount of money spent on financial advise and economic solutions, by this administration, was worth more than we received.
In the, now infamous, Council Committee meeting where Councilor Martinson and Mayor Taylor had their little spat. There was one statement that should have received more attention.
"Discretionary spending"
I have a few questions regarding "discretionary spending".
1. How much is "Discretionary spending" ?
2. How much of discretionary spending is directly tied to "Executive Order" contracts. (contracts made between the City of Tulsa and private parties or organizations that require only the Mayor's signature and no other ratification)
As I understand these contracts they are vacated each time the Mayor's office changes occupants and must be re-established or canceled by the incoming Mayor.
Is it part of an open and transparent review, of expenditures, for these "discretionary" items to be laid out and at least examined, modified, temporarily suspended, etc. to lessen the impact of "Sales Tax" shortfalls?
I heard a tearful story of how these harsh economic times had affected one Tulsa native. He had made acquisitions of very large amounts of what some would call little more than junk. Used cardboard, empty aluminum cans, plastics of all shapes and sizes, and.... lo and behold the market value of these products plummeted.
While some were content to say "he should have known better to wager so high on junk" I realized the, recession, had not only reached Tulsa but we were in danger of it taking everything we hold dear.
This story, while hard to read, because of the immense impact it has on so many lives.... Makes me believe that maybe the City of Tulsa has vested itself a little bit too heavy in "junk".
Anytime you spend so much money on the advise and aid to make money.... and wind up so far in the hole. Something needs to change.
No Conspiracy.... Just some very poor decisions.
By the way CL have any money on the Belmont?
Quote from: Rico on June 05, 2009, 11:53:49 PM
I heard a tearful story of how these harsh economic times had affected one Tulsa native. He had made acquisitions of very large amounts of what some would call little more than junk. Used cardboard, empty aluminum cans, plastics of all shapes and sizes, and.... lo and behold the market value of these products plummeted.
That guy is an idiot. Landfills, that's where the real future of Tulsa is.
Quote from: Chicken Little on June 05, 2009, 06:54:06 PM
It's not the same. Cities are required to spend down end-of-year surpluses...there's no slack. Compounding this, sales tax fluctuates wildly even in normal times (ice storm, a plant closing, someone puts a nickel in a piggy bank instead of buying a piece of gum, etc.).
I would be curious if you can cite the statute that requires city governments to 'spend down end-of-year surpluses." If I understand your sentence correctly, no government is allowed to have left over money at the end of the year, regardless of more/less revenue and/or more/less expenditures.
Aside from the question of whether projecting an 8% increase in revenue was prudent... We don't need a new study or audit to tell us the city hall move has not turned out as well as advertised, financially.
First, we haven't attained any of the promised revenues from sales of the surplus land and buildings, all of which we were repeatedly told were very valuable. So far, nothing sold, just additional maintenance costs and marketing costs.
Second, the study that was used to justify the move, if read even somewhat carefully, told us that operating costs in OTC would be HIGHER than in the replaced facilities. (They engaged in a little sleight-of-hand to come up with favorable numbers by including deferred city hall maintenance costs as part of the operating costs of the old city hall and thus compared operating and capital costs of the old buildings with only operating costs in the new building.)
Quote from: Wilbur on June 06, 2009, 07:37:16 AM
I would be curious if you can cite the statute that requires city governments to 'spend down end-of-year surpluses." If I understand your sentence correctly, no government is allowed to have left over money at the end of the year, regardless of more/less revenue and/or more/less expenditures.
Dude,
you are the one that works for a city. And since you guys are required to have a bachelors degree, I'm guessing that you have probably had at least one governmental accounting class.
Nevertheless, in the interest of ensuring that TNF remains content rich, and does not devolve into a collection of bloviating fools, I have attempted to do your research for you. The proposed City budget for 2009-2010 is here (http://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/financial-reports/2009-2010-proposed-budget.aspx). Section 10 - Appendix, contains the following (http://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/19360/section10appendix.pdf):
Quote2. OPERATING BUDGET
a. The City of Tulsa shall comply with the provisions
of the Oklahoma Municipal Budget Act, 11 O.S.
Supp. 1979, Sections 17-201 through 17-216. It shall
be the responsibility of the Mayor through the Department
of Finance to ensure compliance and the
timely preparation of the City of Tulsa's annual
budget.
b. The budget will provide for adequate maintenance of
the capital plant and equipment and for their orderly
replacement.
c. The City will maintain a budgetary control system to
help it adhere to the budget.
d. The City administration will prepare regular reports
comparing actual revenues and expenditures to
budgeted amounts.
e. Each year the City will update revenue and expenditure
projections for the next five years. Projections
will include estimated operating costs of future capital
improvements that are included in the capital
budget.
f. The City will integrate key performance measurement
and productivity indicators within the budget.
g. The City will project its equipment replacement and
maintenance needs for the next several years and
will update this projection each year. From this projection
a maintenance and replacement schedule
will be developed and followed.
h. It shall be the goal of the City that current operating
revenues will be sufficient to support current operating
expenses and in no case shall more than five
percent (5%) of the operating budget be supported
by the use of prior year's fund balances.
i. Adjustments to Water, Sewer, Stormwater, and Solid
Waste Disposal service rates and fees shall be examined
on an annual basis as an integral part of the
City's budgetary process.
So, yeah, they can't just take a fund balance and roll it into a savings account for later use. Your welcome to add information.
Quote from: Oil Capital on June 06, 2009, 09:36:00 AM
Aside from the question of whether projecting an 8% increase in revenue was prudent... We don't need a new study or audit to tell us the city hall move has not turned out as well as advertised, financially.
First, we haven't attained any of the promised revenues from sales of the surplus land and buildings, all of which we were repeatedly told were very valuable. So far, nothing sold, just additional maintenance costs and marketing costs.
Second, the study that was used to justify the move, if read even somewhat carefully, told us that operating costs in OTC would be HIGHER than in the replaced facilities. (They engaged in a little sleight-of-hand to come up with favorable numbers by including deferred city hall maintenance costs as part of the operating costs of the old city hall and thus compared operating and capital costs of the old buildings with only operating costs in the new building.)
How is deferred maintenance "sleight of hand"? If the building you are in is about to cave in on you, then you should either abandon it or fix it. Whether they used operating funds or rolled the money into a capital bond issue like the 3rd Penny, it'd still cost taxpayers the same to fix it, right?
On the new building, the purchase
and the capital improvements were covered by the $76 million revenue bond (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070713_1_A1_spanc84687), right? What else is left to do? The building is relatively new, right? Just because the rent covers the cost of the improvements in this case doesn't mean that something evil is going on. Honestly, guys...I thought you conservatives liked free enterprise. I guess not.
I totally agree with you on the surplus buildings though. I'm outraged, OUTRAGED, O-U-T-R-A-G-E-D! that those buildings haven't sold yet...at full price...in the middle of a recession. Grow up, man.
Quote from: Chicken Little on June 06, 2009, 09:45:52 AM
h. It shall be the goal of the City that current operating
revenues will be sufficient to support current operating
expenses and in no case shall more than five
percent (5%) of the operating budget be supported
by the use of prior year's fund balances.
You're going to have us believe 'shall be the goal' means the city is prohibited from having left over money? That is quite the stretch, and certainly not a mandate in any legal sense.
Quote from: Wilbur on June 06, 2009, 10:27:29 AM
You're going to have us believe 'shall be the goal' means the city is prohibited from having left over money? That is quite the stretch, and certainly not a mandate in any legal sense.
Oh, give me a break. I provide something tangible to back up what I'm saying and you rely solely on your gut. Pay particular attention to the second half of that sentence. I'll admit that I was 5% wrong if you'll admit that you are 95% full of beans. Go ahead and argue with a piece of paper...it makes you look
incredibly smart.
Quote from: Chicken Little on June 06, 2009, 10:18:45 AM
How is deferred maintenance "sleight of hand"? If the building you are in is about to cave in on you, then you should either abandon it or fix it. Whether they used operating funds or rolled the money into a capital bond issue like the 3rd Penny, it'd still cost taxpayers the same to fix it, right?
On the new building, the purchase and the capital improvements were covered by the $76 million revenue bond (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070713_1_A1_spanc84687), right? What else is left to do? The building is relatively new, right? Just because the rent covers the cost of the improvements in this case doesn't mean that something evil is going on. Honestly, guys...I thought you conservatives liked free enterprise. I guess not.
I totally agree with you on the surplus buildings though. I'm outraged, OUTRAGED, O-U-T-R-A-G-E-D! that those buildings haven't sold yet...at full price...in the middle of a recession. Grow up, man.
It's sleight of hand for the very reason I already said. They compared capital costs + operating costs of the old building to just the operating costs of the new building. That masked the FACT that the projected operating costs in the new city hall are actually HIGHER than were the projected operating costs in the old buildings.
Quote from: Chicken Little on June 06, 2009, 10:39:13 AM
Oh, give me a break. I provide something tangible to back up what I'm saying and you rely solely on your gut. Pay particular attention to the second half of that sentence. I'll admit that I was 5% wrong if you'll admit that you are 95% full of beans. Go ahead and argue with a piece of paper...it makes you look incredibly smart.
Dude, you just completely DISproved your own premise. You told us that the city was required to spend all of its money each year, carrying over none. That is, by your own evidence, absolutely 100% false.
Quote from: Oil Capital on June 06, 2009, 12:28:43 PM
It's sleight of hand for the very reason I already said. They compared capital costs + operating costs of the old building to just the operating costs of the new building. That masked the FACT that the projected operating costs in the new city hall are actually HIGHER than were the projected operating costs in the old buildings.
I think you are ascribing motive where none exists. In the new city hall,
what are the capital costs not covered by the revenue bonds? That's the bottom line, isn't it? The cost to the taxpayer? Apples to apples.
If those additional capital costs don't exist, they don't exist. Would you have been okay if they had put in a column called 'capital costs not covered' and then stuck a zero under it? That seems pedantic, but hey, if it keeps you from cooking up conspiracies, maybe it's worth it.
Quote from: Oil Capital on June 06, 2009, 12:31:04 PM
Dude, you just completely DISproved your own premise. You told us that the city was required to spend all of its money each year, carrying over none. That is, by your own evidence, absolutely 100% false.
Now this is
really pedantic. What I said was:
QuoteCities are required to spend down end-of-year surpluses...there's no slack.
Based on the evidence that I actually looked up for you and provided, I'm 95% right:
Quoteh. It shall be the goal of the City that current operating
revenues will be sufficient to support current operating
expenses and in no case shall more than five
percent (5%) of the operating budget be supported
by the use of prior year's fund balances.
They
can't have a mandate to hit the nail on the head every year because sales tax is volatile; it goes up and down unpredictably (unlike property tax, which is a solid and predictable number). Nevertheless, their
goal is to try and hit the nail on the head every year.
And to reinforce that goal, they limit themselves to no more than a 5% carryover. So, what happens if the surplus is greater than 5%? They have to
spend it down...fix a street or something. What's the point in having the money if you can't spend it?
My premise is correct, and I'm 95% right on the details. And I can even tell you
why they have that goal. It's to keep them from running up the budget and then turning back to us and crying about not being able to cover the bills and demanding a tax hike. Go ahead and spend the extra in a good year, but don't abuse the situation and use it to jack with the taxpayer the next year.
I think you are taking this personally, and it's probably because I'm antagonizing you guys with comments like "try using more than half your brains", and "Grow up." I could be nicer, and I will be, when you guys start trying to
understand how things work, and stop thinking with your guts. Not everything that confuses you is a conspiracy...and that's
easy to understand.
And by the way, I really do like you guys, I just think it sucks when you decide to revel in your own ignorance. It's nothing to be proud of, and it holds us all back.
Quote from: Chicken Little on June 06, 2009, 01:33:49 PM
Now this is really pedantic. What I said was:Based on the evidence that I actually looked up for you and provided, I'm 95% right:They can't have a mandate to hit the nail on the head every year because sales tax is volatile; it goes up and down unpredictably (unlike property tax, which is a solid and predictable number). Nevertheless, their goal is to try and hit the nail on the head every year.
And to reinforce that goal, they limit themselves to no more than a 5% carryover. So, what happens if the surplus is greater than 5%? They have to spend it down...fix a street or something. What's the point in having the money if you can't spend it?
My premise is correct, and I'm 95% right on the details. And I can even tell you why they have that goal. It's to keep them from running up the budget and then turning back to us and crying about not being able to cover the bills and demanding a tax hike. Go ahead and spend the extra in a good year, but don't abuse the situation and use it to jack with the taxpayer the next year.
I think you are taking this personally, and it's probably because I'm antagonizing you guys with comments like "try using more than half your brains", and "Grow up." I could be nicer, and I will be, when you guys start trying to understand how things work, and stop thinking with your guts. Not everything that confuses you is a conspiracy...and that's easy to understand.
That is one of the lamest excuses ever. There is no "95% right". Your statement was flat-out wrong. Not true. False. Incorrect. The truth is, completely, 100% contrary to what you stated: Cities are
not required to "spend down end-of-year surpluses."
Quote from: Chicken Little on June 06, 2009, 01:08:46 PM
I think you are ascribing motive where none exists. In the new city hall, what are the capital costs not covered by the revenue bonds? That's the bottom line, isn't it? The cost to the taxpayer? Apples to apples.
If those additional capital costs don't exist, they don't exist. Would you have been okay if they had put in a column called 'capital costs not covered' and then stuck a zero under it? That seems pedantic, but hey, if it keeps you from cooking up conspiracies, maybe it's worth it.
I am talking about the OPERATING COSTS. The "study" they had done showed that the operating costs in the new city hall would EXCEED the operating costs in the old facilities.
You are content to take them at their word that the "capital costs don't exist" and will never exist. Me, not so much. I would love to see a full financial report of the full costs of the move, remodeling of the building, purchase price, financing costs, and lease revenues. Any chance you know where one could find that?
Quote from: Oil Capital on June 06, 2009, 01:54:01 PM
That is one of the lamest excuses ever. There is no "95% right". Your statement was flat-out wrong. Not true. False. Incorrect. The truth is, completely, 100% contrary to what you stated: Cities are not required to "spend down end-of-year surpluses."
That bit from the
Oklahoma Municipal Budgeting Act Edit: City of Tulsa Financial Policies (http://www.cityoftulsa.org/media/19360/section10appendix.pdf) proves that they can't carry over a surplus greater than 5%. I invited Wilbur to argue with a piece of paper, and I invite you to do the same...it makes you look stupid.
Nevertheless, you seem 100% sure of yourself. So, what
is the truth, Oil Capital? "I don't know but and I'm unwilling to figure it out...but not that", is an unacceptable answer. Knock us out with your research skills. Make a case. Something, anyway.
Quote from: Oil Capital on June 06, 2009, 02:04:18 PM
I am talking about the OPERATING COSTS. The "study" they had done showed that the operating costs in the new city hall would EXCEED the operating costs in the old facilities.
You are content to take them at their word that the "capital costs don't exist" and will never exist. Me, not so much. I would love to see a full financial report of the full costs of the move, remodeling of the building, purchase price, financing costs, and lease revenues. Any chance you know where one could find that?
And I can totally see how the operating costs on the old dump has repairs rolled into it. I don't think it's necessarily a conspiracy...or sleight of hand.
I think you are probably chasing your tail, but fine. I know exactly how to get the information you seek: file an Open Records request (http://www.batesline.com/archives/2003/10/open-meetings-o.html)...and you should probably copy your councilor. Man, don't you read batesline?
Quote from: BatesSo it's important for ordinary citizens concerned about the way government is being run to educate themselves on their rights and the government's responsibilities.
Like I said, it's not your point of view so much as your willful ignorance that bugs me.
Quote from: Chicken Little on June 06, 2009, 02:08:52 PM
That bit from the Oklahoma Municipal Budgeting Act proves that they can't carry over a surplus greater than 5%. I invited Wilbur to argue with a piece of paper, and I invite you to do the same...it makes you look stupid.
Nevertheless, you seem 100% sure of yourself. So, what is the truth, Oil Capital? "I don't know but and I'm unwilling to figure it out...but not that", is an unacceptable answer. Knock us out with your research skills. Make a case. Something, anyway.
ROFL. No further research necessary, man. You've already done it and proved beyond argument that you were wrong. Very simple. Cities are NOT required to spend down end-of-year surpluses. In fact, where it is addressed in the state statute at all, it says very simply "Any fund balance remaining in a fund at the end of the fiscal year shall be carried forward to the credit of the fund for the next fiscal year"
And you need to read the information you posted again. It does NOT in any way disallow carrying forward surpluses greater than 5%. It says that no more than 5% of the current years' expenditures shall be funded with funds brought forward. It says nothing whatsoever about what percentage of the prior years funds can remain unspent and be carried forward. Simply put, there is no limit on the percentage of a year's funds that can remain unspent and be carried forward.
Quote from: Oil Capital on June 06, 2009, 02:35:49 PM
Cities are NOT required to spend down end-of-year surpluses.
Tulsa is, as previously noted [edited]. Argue with a piece of paper, man.
This works out really well.
Today, even though last year I earned only $10, and have no reason to believe this year I'll earn anything different, reset my annual budget to $100 for next year and declared a 90% deficiency, cut all required expenses by 90%, thus will actually need only $1 to cover my costs.
Then, when my regular $10 comes in, I'll now have $9 to blow on beers and blondes.
Quote from: Chicken Little on June 06, 2009, 10:39:13 AM
Oh, give me a break. I provide something tangible to back up what I'm saying and you rely solely on your gut. Pay particular attention to the second half of that sentence. I'll admit that I was 5% wrong if you'll admit that you are 95% full of beans. Go ahead and argue with a piece of paper...it makes you look incredibly smart.
Saying that you can't use more then 5% from last year's budget does not mean you can't have more then 5% left over. It says you can't use it for the operating budget, which, like the Mayor likes to point out, is only one of many sections of the city's total expenditure picture.
Quote...current operating revenues will be sufficient to support current operating expenses...
Means you can't deficit spend. Has nothing to do with using money from last year.
Sorry. NG.
Quote from: Chicken Little on June 06, 2009, 03:20:08 PM
Tulsa is, as previously noted [edited]. Argue with a piece of paper, man.
You are really too much. No, Tulsa is not.
I am not arguing with your piece of paper, I am agreeing with your piece of paper. I do wish you would read it for yourself. There is quite simply nothing in your piece of paper that in any way restricts the amount of money that the city can carry forward from one year to the next. Nothing.
Quote from: Oil Capital on June 06, 2009, 04:24:09 PM
You are really too much. No, Tulsa is not.
I am not arguing with your piece of paper, I am agreeing with your piece of paper. I do wish you would read it for yourself. There is quite simply nothing in your piece of paper that in any way restricts the amount of money that the city can carry forward from one year to the next. Nothing.
They just can't spend it. Sounds like the same thing to me.
Quote from: Wilbur on June 06, 2009, 04:17:17 PM
Saying that you can't use more then 5% from last year's budget does not mean you can't have more then 5% left over.
Yes, you are right. As I mentioned, because of the volatile nature of sales tax, some years you are going to be over budget, other years under.
QuoteIt says you can't use it for the operating budget, which, like the Mayor likes to point out, is only one of many sections of the city's total expenditure picture.
We agree again. They can't carry it over into an operating account to pay your salary next year, but they can move it into a capital account, which goes towards a project. The example I gave before was fixing a road. What do you suppose happens when that money is transferred into a project account? It gets spent, right? That's what I'm saying. They can't just keep mad money on hand for folks like you (although I'm sure you are worth it).
Quote"...current operating revenues will be sufficient to support current operating expenses..."Means you can't deficit spend. Has nothing to do with using money from last year.
Sure. And "...in no case shall more than five percent (5%) of the operating budget be supported by the use of prior year's fund balances." says
exactly what you can't do with last year's money. Bit of a selective quote on your part, dontcha think?
Let all of us agree on one thing....
Government handles our money poorly. There is absolutely no benefit to save money from one year to the next. Departments are punished if they save their money and underspend their budget, because, next year, their budget will be cut since they have shown they can do with less.
I have seen it too many years in a row..... a mad rush at the end of the fiscal year to spend every penny left over. Sad.
Quote from: Wilbur on June 06, 2009, 05:54:21 PM
I have seen it too many years in a row..... a mad rush at the end of the fiscal year to spend every penny left over. Sad.
I don't know if I'm correct, but your post implies that you believe that it's different in any large commercial organization. It is not.
Basically, in any organization large enough to have departments, that's how it works. Hell, it's the same for small nonprofits operating on grant money. May as well buy that new computer/printer/whatever that they've been eyeing, as having money left over means the grants get reallocated, no matter whether they come from government, foundations, or whoever.