There is an interesting story about the progress in Tulsa City Councilor Roscoe Turner's idea of annexing the fairgrounds into the city limits.
Fairgrounds: Annexation: Analysis by city sees tax revenue By P.J. LASSEK World Staff Writer
2/4/2007
Councilor Roscoe Turner favors annexing the county fairgrounds with the hope of generating new money for the city. The city could increase its annual revenues by an estimated $389,000 to $1.1 million if the county fairgrounds were annexed, a city cost analysis shows.
"Based upon the preliminary analysis, particularly with the compelling information that we found from Oklahoma City, it appears to make sense at this stage," Mayor Kathy Taylor said about annexing the 230 acres that sit in the middle of the city. The fairgrounds is between Louisville and Yale avenues and 15th and 21st streets.
Annexing the area into the city would not change the county's ownership or operation of the facilities. The move to annex the fairgrounds has been pushed by City Councilor Roscoe Turner, who said the city needs to seize any sales tax revenue it can.
"I don't see any reason to hold back on this," Turner said. "We need to get in there and collect that tax." Taylor agreed that the city needs to collect all sales taxes to which it is entitled. "We spent a significant amount of time doing a detailed analysis, and it clearly shows it would generate additional sales tax," she said.
On Thursday, Turner directed council staff to begin preparing for the annexation process so there will be no delays if the council decides to pursue that action. The council will begin its discussions on the analysis prepared by the mayor's staff at its 10 a.m. Tuesday committee meeting.
Taylor said she also has submitted the analysis to the county and asked the county commissioners to forward any additional information they may have to the city.If the council decides to support an annexation, Taylor said, "certainly we'll be prepared to act expeditiously on it."
The mayor said the analysis dispelled concerns raised by the county that the annexation would create a competitive disadvantage for attracting shows to Expo Square because of the additional 3 cents in city sales tax. The analysis indicates that Oklahoma City owns the fairgrounds within its city limits and there is no competitive disadvantage with sales tax charges over other venues.
County officials have said they are able to attract shows by promoting the fairgrounds as a venue that doesn't charge city tax. The analysis does state that constraints on accessing county data make it impossible to determine exactly how much sales tax revenue the city could collect.
However, using a "reasonable range" methodology, the analysis estimated increased general fund revenues ranging from $389,000 to $1.1 million. Turner said he thinks the estimates are low. "I have the feeling the amount is much higher because the county doesn't know the actual figures out there, or they're not telling us," the councilor said.
City operations would be affected little to none, if the city annexed the fairgrounds, the report states. In some cases, fire, public works utilities and EMSA already service the fairgrounds. The only significant cost would be for the city to duplicate the county's policing level during the two-week fair, which is estimated to cost $500,000, the analysis states.
The analysis' worst-case scenario showed that if the minimum estimated revenue were collected and there were no offseting charge for the $500,000 in police service, a $100,000 loss would be produced. But if a special event fee is charged to offset the policing, and the high-end estimate of revenue is collected, there is about a $600,000 annual gain, the anaylsis states.
Once again Roscoe steps up to fill a void in leadership to tackle the tough issues facing Tulsa. Proving yet again:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v246/mistymountainhop/Roscoe_Turner.jpg)
Does anyone know the true history of the fairgrounds property and why it was never annexed by the City in the past? Why did the City of Tulsa grow and expand around the fairgrounds over the years and was never incorporated into the City? Probably bitter politics and "turf wars," but does anyone know the skinny? Just curious.
"This entire situation (possible annexation) arose as a symptom of the fact that the city has been having problems balancing their budget in looking at cost-saving opportunities," Commissioner John Smaligo said.
"I would encourage the city to follow the county's lead in doing some self-audits. Be more introspective in their outlook instead of seeking opportunities to find quick cash from other governmental entities, and doing so on the backs of taxpayers."
http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=070206_Ne_A15_Count11318
Are we talking about the same fairgrounds that had Flintco install 365-day/year stadium-style floodlighting for acres of parking lots that are empty most of the year, and then wonder aloud how they were going to pay their utility bills?
"Decline in revenues forces fairground cuts"
http://www.tulsaworld.com/ArchiveSearch/buy.asp?ArticleID=030219_Ne_A9_Decli
They(Miller, Smalligo, and Perry) are just pissed that they will have to share some of the milk from their cash cow that Tulsa has been feeding for free for many years. If these RINO's were really small government fiscal conservatives they wouldn't be County Commissioners in a County like Tulsa where County government is becoming increasingly unnecessary as unincorporated areas dwindle. They are career politicians looking for the bigger better deal where good old boy networks flourish and pay to play is the name of the game.
Chinese Proverb...Even the fool occasionally gets it right!
(http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w299/madashell_photos/jester.jpg)
Roscoe gained my respect after I met him at a meeting that was held for the airport noise mitigation plan with the Tulsa Airport Authority. He seemed genuinely interested in his constituents and has done more for getting that issue resolved than anyone previously...I was going to say he was articulate, but I've been told that's a no-no now.
In the archives of Tulsa history the city sought to consolidate the county and city governments into one metro-government. The court over-ruled the combining of the governments. The county is established by the state constitution and the city is established by charter as a politic body.
John Zink Company for years remained an island surrounded by the city as well as other islands.
The city is progressing to the point of no return in the cost of expansion of departments and retiring personal pensions. The bureaucrats who control the departments have over the years been re-luctant or refused to furnish data on how their allotted money is spent. It has been said that even the city auditor has difficulty getting the data.
The solution will in the future have to focus on the number of years before a city employee can retire with a pension like SS is beginning its change.
The councilor who is pushing for adding additional resources to the city income, has become a search of the citizens pockets for more taxes with less regard for increasing trade for businesses.
When a former city employee retires, receiving a retirement pension and gets a job again with the city, paid out of the city coffers, that is double dipping. This gives such person a vested interest to increase taxes while filling a job another family needs.
It is time to curb the waste in the city government and encourage the trade in the island of the fair grounds.
Above all attend some of the budget meetings and observe.
Roscoe is hilarious. Even when he's wrong, he's the best act in town.
Annex Now!
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
When a former city employee retires, receiving a retirement pension and gets a job again with the city, paid out of the city coffers, that is double dipping. This gives such person a vested interest to increase taxes while filling a job another family needs.
You have proof of this, or are you just flapping your yap?
A few years back, during the economic downturn, city employees agreed to take a 4% pay CUT to help balance the budget. Then they went several years without a raise of any sort.
How much have you given at the office lately?
Remember, Joe, that shadows admitted on another thread that he doesn't necessarily mean what he says.
So, yes, he is credibility-challenged.
I wonder if the City annexes the Fairgrounds if the Vision 2025 gods will punish the City by directing funds toward other County projects.
My proposal would give the BOK Center to the County since it is in a better position to absorb the losses.
AJ: The list is long of those and it is open to the FOI if you are interested. The good councilor and vice Mayor names are two that appear daily it seems. I believe it was in 1927 that an air compressor's overload valve failed and the tank blew up. Another job was created to inspect all the air compressors costing the owner $5 increasing to $25 every year. The steam boilers were inspected by the insurance companies inspectors. When the city inspector retired the practiced seems to have died, with the inspector drawing a city pension and getting another city job.
Don't believe we have had an explosion in all this time as there seems to be a long standing regulation that all un-loaders have a seal on them.
There are many retired city employees drawing city pensions, S.S. and working on another job also.
The city is going to annex the fair grounds to increase revenue. That sounds so simple.
The county and its property is established by the state constitution.
The city is established by charter granted by the state.
The city can be dissolved.
The county cannot.
The city can be annexed by another city.
The county cannot
City ordinances may not apply to undivided plots of 260 acres.
City ordinances may apply where farm animals are kept.
The city wants to take on the obligations of:
Electric inspectors inspecting the carnival wiring during fair.
Enforce plumbing regulations on use of fair grounds.
Enforce the forbidding of living in camp trailers or RV's.
Determine attractive nuisances that could harm children.
Policing the collection of sales taxes at the flea market.
Watch each sales to see if the product is carried out and subject to tax
If it is shipped to a destination outside the city it is taxed at point of delivery unless it is an un-incorporated area not subject to taxes.
Large items will be delivered outside the city and not subject to tax.
The city will be required to keep up the roads and streets in the fair grounds.
The city will be required to police the area.
City code enforcement will require more help.
The city will have to reduce the water rates on the fair grounds.
All the law students may get a chance to participate when they get their ticket but as they are aware the city hires personnel from outside the city.
Then also the city may secede and form a new state called North Oklahoma.
One can see where there is a broad challenge that may cause litigations over the next decade.
The rose has many thorns. Wear some hand protectors before you cut it from the vine.
Did anyone watch the discussion on tgov this evening? There are issues that seem to have caught the councilors by surprise. Especially the law enforcement changes, permitting changes and inspections.
One guy put it best. The county does a good job on something and the city wants to come in and rake off the top.
If the city wants to annex the fairgrounds to take 3% and yet still expects the county to run the place it doesn't make sense does it?
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
One guy put it best. The county does a good job on something and the city wants to come in and rake off the top.
If the city wants to annex the fairgrounds to take 3% and yet still expects the county to run the place it doesn't make sense does it?
Yeah, let's stop collecting City Sales Tax down at Woodland Hills Mall, too. The City really does expect those businesses to do all their own work, then just comes in an takes 3% of everything.
Face it, the Fairgrounds is nothing but another 'mall', run for profit/revenue, by its' 'owners' (the Fairgrounds Trust Authority).
It makes a lot of sense to me. Besides, City of Tulsa builds and maintains the surrounding infrastructure which provides access to the Fairgrounds, utilities and the balance of benefits of simple location.
The fact is, the 'discount' they have been providing gives them unfair advantage over real local businesses who may be competing for the same customers in many cases.
It doesn't cost the County anything, it's in addition to the taxes the County and State already charge.
The sole argument that it makes it harder for them to attact events may be, in fact, true. They would then have to compete on a level playing field.
But, most of their offerings are sole source type events in the first place. (Fair, Bell's, Big Splash, et al) So, no loss.
They are, after all, wholly within the City. I don't think anyone can contest that.
Shadows is off his meds. The city is well within it's rights to annex the fairgrounds. It seems to me like the county is the one constantly trying to overstep it's authority(remember when they tried to use eminent domain against the city). My favorite part of the meeting was when County officials admitted they had no idea how much revenue is generated from the fairgrounds, talk about great stewardship of taxpayer dollars! Another highlight from the meeting was when Fred Perry admitted he's basically clueless about how County government functions. What was the deal with Randi Miller acting like she didn't understand what a special event application is? She must have approved hundreds of these during her tenure on the Council. Did she not understand what she was voting on back then? What else should we expect from the folks that thought privatizing the jail and a privately owned toll bridge in South Tulsa were great ideas?
BTW, while the city of Tulsa struggled to make it through arguably one of the most(if not the most) difficult economic downturns and extreme revenue shortfalls it has ever faced due to the vulnerable nature of unpredictable sales tax streams the city is forced to rely on(thanks in no small part to the County), the County was busy devising new sales taxes to assess on top of the property taxes they collect, further complicating the cities ability to generate revenue to keep the city running. When former Mayors(with the support of the Council) approached the County about helping the city secure a more stable funding source, possibly a 3 mil property tax assessment that formerly was collected by the city that for some reason(the logic of which defies me) was turned over to the County, they were basically ridiculed, patted on the head, and pushed back out the door.
The Council gave the County way more respect than they have received from the County by not going ahead with the annexation at the meeting. It was a very gracious thing for the Council to do, because it was respect the County did not deserve.
Take the POLL (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5480&SearchTerms=Annex,Fairgrounds%22)
wow. So lets just kick the county out. Do you think they have any purpose within the confines of the city? Other than serving court papers?
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
One guy put it best. The county does a good job on something and the city wants to come in and rake off the top.
If the city wants to annex the fairgrounds to take 3% and yet still expects the county to run the place it doesn't make sense does it?
Yeah, let's stop collecting City Sales Tax down at Woodland Hills Mall, too. The City really does expect those businesses to do all their own work, then just comes in an takes 3% of everything.
Not a fair comparison. Sarcastic, but not comparable.
I don't care whether the city annexes the fairgrounds, the courthouse, or whatever but to not understand what that will imply as far as services provided is naive. If you guys think the city can provide the same services at the same level and still pocket some money then take it all over.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
wow. So lets just kick the county out. Do you think they have any purpose within the confines of the city? Other than serving court papers?
Not many purposes. And since they do such a swell job making money off public facilites why not give the BOK Center to the County?
I am all about clarifying boundaries, and as I was looking at my map of City/County there are a lot of areas that need to be clarified.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
wow. So lets just kick the county out. Do you think they have any purpose within the confines of the city? Other than serving court papers?
Not many purposes. And since they do such a swell job making money off public facilites why not give the BOK Center to the County?
I am all about clarifying boundaries, and as I was looking at my map of City/County there are a lot of areas that need to be clarified.
Maybe you could clarify that sovereignty issue between the state and the tribes while you're at it. Its all so simple really.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I don't care whether the city annexes the fairgrounds, the courthouse, or whatever but to not understand what that will imply as far as services provided is naive. If you guys think the city can provide the same services at the same level and still pocket some money then take it all over.
Annexation doesn't change ownership, only jurisdiction. The county would still own and operate the fairgrounds, just like they own and operate LaFortune Park, which, like the fairgrounds, used to be an unincorporated enclave, but is now within the city limits. Annexation would simply bring the fairgrounds under the jurisdiction of Tulsa's ordinances.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Maybe you could clarify that sovereignty issue between the state and the tribes while you're at it. Its all so simple really.
IMO I think that the tribes - inasmuch as their land was stolen from them - should have free reign to do anything they like. But that's just me.
What of Fred Perry's observation of the differences in number of events per year between OKC and Tulsa?(KOTV (//%22http://kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=119977%22))
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelBates
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I don't care whether the city annexes the fairgrounds, the courthouse, or whatever but to not understand what that will imply as far as services provided is naive. If you guys think the city can provide the same services at the same level and still pocket some money then take it all over.
Annexation doesn't change ownership, only jurisdiction. The county would still own and operate the fairgrounds, just like they own and operate LaFortune Park, which, like the fairgrounds, used to be an unincorporated enclave, but is now within the city limits. Annexation would simply bring the fairgrounds under the jurisdiction of Tulsa's ordinances.
My quote didn't refer to ownership, which as you say, is quite different than jurisdiction. The city wants/needs more money and sees this as a potential source. The article pointed out that the city may not provide the same level of services that the county does (like fair security) but could charge the county for those services if they feel it necessary. I hope the state doesn't do this during money shortages. We could end up paying a special assessment for being represented at the state house!
The fairgrounds is an example of govt. working fairly well. If it wasn't for the money would anyone be suggesting this? This is politics for sure and should be handled gingerly lest war ensue. I was not impressed with either side last nite but the city looked like a hungry dog talking to dinner.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Maybe you could clarify that sovereignty issue between the state and the tribes while you're at it. Its all so simple really.
IMO I think that the tribes - inasmuch as their land was stolen from them - should have free reign to do anything they like. But that's just me.
What of Fred Perry's observation of the differences in number of events per year between OKC and Tulsa?(KOTV (//%22http://kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=119977%22))
Wow. I'm a card carrying member of the Cherokee Tribe and I thank you for your offer. I want your house. Leave the keys in the mailbox, I'll be by to pick them up later...
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Maybe you could clarify that sovereignty issue between the state and the tribes while you're at it. Its all so simple really.
IMO I think that the tribes - inasmuch as their land was stolen from them - should have free reign to do anything they like. But that's just me.
What of Fred Perry's observation of the differences in number of events per year between OKC and Tulsa?(KOTV (//%22http://kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=119977%22))
Looks like we need to send you to the Middle East.
Fred Perry needs to go to toastmasters. There is some logic though in what he pointed out. Not much, but some. We have more events at our facilities than they do at theirs even though their fairgrounds is more "capacious" (thanks for that legalism mr Eagleton). Does that mean ours is better run? That there are fewer buildings capable of handling ChiliBowl's there? I don't know and neither do any of these folks that's why there needs to be much more discussion and less drooling.
The only real opposition to this is coming from the County itself.
DoubleA makes a lot of good points with regard to the County's disposition relative to the City.
The County wants to be the dominate economic engine of the region, while the City IS the dominate economic engine.
Besides, if annexed, County officials would have to open up their books for City auditors, impliment record keeping protocols for all the funtions they now keep track of in thier pants pockets, and the TRUE revenue picture of all the functions would be publically available.
Race Track, Sports Bar, Hotel, Bell's or it's new evolution, Big Splash, IPE, Stables and Horse Arena, Fair, Car Shows, Chili Bowl, Boat Shows, Gun Shows, et al.
Accounting is the issue here.
That's something County officials never have done and are definitely not so inclined to start.
I predict the City revenue from sales tax will far exceed current estimations, if all sales are taxed. There's been some discussion of aspects not being taxed. Read somewhere gate tickets and items sold at IPE would be excluded, for some reason. Everything should be taxed.
Event promoters are responsible for security at their own events. If County wants to contract for special events help during the Fair, fine.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
The only real opposition to this is coming from the County itself.
DoubleA makes a lot of good points with regard to the County's disposition relative to the City.
The County wants to be the dominate economic engine of the region, while the City IS the dominate economic engine.
Besides, if annexed, County officials would have to open up their books for City auditors, impliment record keeping protocols for all the funtions they now keep track of in thier pants pockets, and the TRUE revenue picture of all the functions would be publically available.
Race Track, Sports Bar, Hotel, Bell's or it's new evolution, Big Splash, IPE, Stables and Horse Arena, Fair, Car Shows, Chili Bowl, Boat Shows, Gun Shows, et al.
Accounting is the issue here.
That's something County officials never have done and are definitely not so inclined to start.
I predict the City revenue from sales tax will far exceed current estimations, if all sales are taxed. There's been some discussion of aspects not being taxed. Read somewhere gate tickets and items sold at IPE would be excluded, for some reason. Everything should be taxed.
Event promoters are responsible for security at their own events. If County wants to contract for special events help during the Fair, fine.
I think you've pretty much exposed yourself as an insider here. You should fess up and disclose your interest. No one knows that much unless they are retired and politics is a hobby or they work for one of the entities involved and harbor a grudge. Which is it?
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
The only real opposition to this is coming from the County itself.
DoubleA makes a lot of good points with regard to the County's disposition relative to the City.
The County wants to be the dominate economic engine of the region, while the City IS the dominate economic engine.
Besides, if annexed, County officials would have to open up their books for City auditors, impliment record keeping protocols for all the funtions they now keep track of in thier pants pockets, and the TRUE revenue picture of all the functions would be publically available.
Race Track, Sports Bar, Hotel, Bell's or it's new evolution, Big Splash, IPE, Stables and Horse Arena, Fair, Car Shows, Chili Bowl, Boat Shows, Gun Shows, et al.
Accounting is the issue here.
That's something County officials never have done and are definitely not so inclined to start.
I predict the City revenue from sales tax will far exceed current estimations, if all sales are taxed. There's been some discussion of aspects not being taxed. Read somewhere gate tickets and items sold at IPE would be excluded, for some reason. Everything should be taxed.
Event promoters are responsible for security at their own events. If County wants to contract for special events help during the Fair, fine.
I think you've pretty much exposed yourself as an insider here. You should fess up and disclose your interest. No one knows that much unless they are retired and politics is a hobby or they work for one of the entities involved and harbor a grudge. Which is it?
I guess I could consider that a compliment of some sort since I have no interest other than as a resident of Tulsa, the City.
Just what info did I provide which could be considered 'inside' anyway? Even reading the TW would provide that much.
Add a bit of logic and it just happens.
The Fair proclaims a successful event when 1,000,000 people come through the gates. At $7/ticket, 3% adds up to $210,000. That's approaching the LOW end of current revenue estimates.
That doesn't count anything purchased inside.
And, doesn't include any of the other specticals of the asset such as horse racing, baseball, boat shows, etc.
So, I see estimates being way low.
See, it's not really magic, or insider info.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
The only real opposition to this is coming from the County itself.
DoubleA makes a lot of good points with regard to the County's disposition relative to the City.
The County wants to be the dominate economic engine of the region, while the City IS the dominate economic engine.
Besides, if annexed, County officials would have to open up their books for City auditors, impliment record keeping protocols for all the funtions they now keep track of in thier pants pockets, and the TRUE revenue picture of all the functions would be publically available.
Race Track, Sports Bar, Hotel, Bell's or it's new evolution, Big Splash, IPE, Stables and Horse Arena, Fair, Car Shows, Chili Bowl, Boat Shows, Gun Shows, et al.
Accounting is the issue here.
That's something County officials never have done and are definitely not so inclined to start.
I predict the City revenue from sales tax will far exceed current estimations, if all sales are taxed. There's been some discussion of aspects not being taxed. Read somewhere gate tickets and items sold at IPE would be excluded, for some reason. Everything should be taxed.
Event promoters are responsible for security at their own events. If County wants to contract for special events help during the Fair, fine.
I think you've pretty much exposed yourself as an insider here. You should fess up and disclose your interest. No one knows that much unless they are retired and politics is a hobby or they work for one of the entities involved and harbor a grudge. Which is it?
I guess I could consider that a compliment of some sort since I have no interest other than as a resident of Tulsa, the City.
Just what info did I provide which could be considered 'inside' anyway? Even reading the TW would provide that much.
Add a bit of logic and it just happens.
The Fair proclaims a successful event when 1,000,000 people come through the gates. At $7/ticket, 3% adds up to $210,000. That's approaching the LOW end of current revenue estimates.
That doesn't count anything purchased inside.
And, doesn't include any of the other specticals of the asset such as horse racing, baseball, boat shows, etc.
So, I see estimates being way low.
See, it's not really magic, or insider info.
Its about the money Wrinkle. I ask the question again. Would this be happening during good economic conditions? If the county totally mismanaged the fairgrounds would the city even be looking at them? No. Its not about serving the best interests of the city to exploit success with an additional tax. If anything their success points to a scary proposition. That lower taxes may boost sales activity! Uh-Oh! Don't tell MTTA that lower prices spur growth! This could be big!
Perhaps charging additional sales tax during the fair when there is a natural flow of outside money into the fairgrounds regardless of the cost would be possible. It is naive to think that raising the tax 3% is not going to effect sales. Shame on Roscoe and Henderson for not realizing what most folks take for granted. Its cheaper to buy a washer/dryer at the home show and people are inclined to consider that.
I really hate it when people espouse these "simple" solutions. Nothing is simple.
The grouping of all the merchants and events at the fair grounds, to compare them with grouping of merchants of a mall in the city, is like holding a orange up and describing a grape.
If you look at your property tax distribution statement you will find the city collects about a fifth more than the county on property taxes already.
If you take the figures posted of the possible $210,000 dollars loss in uncollected sales taxes on the million tickets sold at the fair and the city estimate that policing the fair grounds cost the city $500,000, it is hard to correlate the advantage of trying to enforce the city ordinances on the un-platted, undivided acreage as being cost efficient.
The purpose proposed, [it seems] from the city is to purchase three new wheelbarrows for the county to fill with the 3% sales tax revenue, hire three more city employees to push them to the fair gates for the city treasure to pick up and take the money down to city hall.
Someone should look up case law on if the county has not prevailed over city ordinances in Federal courts. And how large an un-platted acreage a city can enforce its ordinances on.
Its easy to see why Bell is getting his stuff together to-get-to-hell out of an ensuing squabble.
quote:
Its about the money Wrinkle. I ask the question again. Would this be happening during good economic conditions? If the county totally mismanaged the fairgrounds would the city even be looking at them? No. Its not about serving the best interests of the city to exploit success with an additional tax. If anything their success points to a scary proposition. That lower taxes may boost sales activity! Uh-Oh! Don't tell MTTA that lower prices spur growth! This could be big!
Perhaps charging additional sales tax during the fair when there is a natural flow of outside money into the fairgrounds regardless of the cost would be possible. It is naive to think that raising the tax 3% is not going to effect sales. Shame on Roscoe and Henderson for not realizing what most folks take for granted. Its cheaper to buy a washer/dryer at the home show and people are inclined to consider that.
I really hate it when people espouse these "simple" solutions. Nothing is simple.
The annexation is about money, sure. The opposition is about accounting, however.
Sales Tax, per se, doesn't take anything from the county, money-wise, if you discount the County's claims of inferior marketing skills when competing on a level field.
It's 'simply' additive.
As for whether it would be happening in good economic times, I can't say for sure. But, it's been wrong the entire time. I see this as correcting the situation, and that it needed an opportune time to implement. A major change in Commissionors and Council/Mayor is as good a time to do this as any.
There used to be a prominent local business, Reeves, at 15th and Harvard. They even built a brand new building there a few years back.
With people waiting to buy their washer/dryers, dishwashers, etc during the Fair, since they could save $15 or so in Sales Tax, the place was completely shut down and since remains empty.
If people paid sales tax at the fair, then they'd be just as likely to shop Reeves as the fair. It'd become a matter of fair competition and other intrinsics like service and friendliness.
The Fair brings potential customers, it shouldn't also need to be subsidized to make it work.
I'm of the opinion the City should be receiving Sales Tax regardless of any economic or political situation.
If it solves a problem, so much the better.
Besides, the County DID, in fact, wrestle Sales Tax into their portfolio, thus making it unavailable as potential for the City, which it really could use better.
I'm hoping voters see the light a stop renewing it (at least, the part they can).
Meantime, I'm just as opposed to the City's recent launch of efforts to seek Ad Valorem Tax as another revenue source, which currently is illegal.
It really is pretty simple.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
The grouping of all the merchants and events at the fair grounds, to compare them with grouping of merchants of a mall in the city, is like holding a orange up and describing a grape.
If you look at your property tax distribution statement you will find the city collects about a fifth more than the county on property taxes already.
If you take the figures posted of the possible $210,000 dollars loss in uncollected sales taxes on the million tickets sold at the fair and the city estimate that policing the fair grounds cost the city $500,000, it is hard to correlate the advantage of trying to enforce the city ordinances on the un-platted, undivided acreage as being cost efficient.
The purpose proposed, [it seems] from the city is to purchase three new wheelbarrows for the county to fill with the 3% sales tax revenue, hire three more city employees to push them to the fair gates for the city treasure to pick up and take the money down to city hall.
Someone should look up case law on if the county has not prevailed over city ordinances in Federal courts. And how large an un-platted acreage a city can enforce its ordinances on.
Its easy to see why Bell is getting his stuff together to-get-to-hell out of an ensuing squabble.
You'll recall, perhaps, the promoter of Special Events is, by law, responsible for their own security.
If they wish to contract for TPD to provide this service during the Fair, fine. That'll be $500,000 please, making Tulsa's take likely well over $1,000,000 by the time one adds inside sales, too. And, that's figuring less than $10 (a large pop and a corndog) for inside sales, too.
That's just the Fair.
IF Sheriff's Office wants to continue to provide security, I'm sure the County has pretty consistantly dropped that money into the Sheriff's budget.
Net effect = Zero.
Security isn't the issue.
By the time we add a season of Horse Races, Baseball, Bell's or whatever it becomes, Big Splash, Horse shows/arena, Car Shows, Chili Bowl, Boat Shows, Gun Shows, Home & Garden shows, ...
We already know the revenue from some of those from the Bell's flap. IAC, I'll admit to purely guessing here, but I'd say the 3% would add up to something closer to $3,000,000 or more.
I see some mistakes in your simple logic. I believe you are interested in keeping taxes low and every part of government on a fair and balanced platform. No problem with the first dream but good luck with the last.
Lets start with why this is happening now. A new council make-up is perceived as weak without the old boys around to keep it strong. The city knows Miller, assesses the newcomers and thinks they can strongarm them now. Don't shrug off the money issue. It wouldn't happen without it.
Reeves TV was not the right example. Flint closed for many reasons but NONE of them were related to the fairgrounds. I could go into more detail because I know him and used to do business with him. Try advancing age, stronger competition, poorly designed new building, loss of key employees. But not the fairgrounds. His competitors did operate during the remodeling shows which usually increased his traffic. No one kept him from marketing in that manner as well anymore than they kept him off the internet.
Your assertion that the city could spend the tax monies better than the county comes from what insight? Would it be the city's propensity to shut off street lights on one side of the expressway? Would it be the city's intelligent use of asphalt instead of concrete on streets so that we always have repairs to be made? I don't see them as any better than the county. More professional I'm sure but no more effective.
Lastly, the accounting issues. The county has instituted an audit of all areas of spending. Has the city? It has been alluded to that there is improper use of revenues but nobody seems to have specifics. If you do know of any make them public and we'll take them behind the wood shed, otherwise its just character attacks.
The real issue is who can provide the administration of the fairgrounds at the level of service and security we have now. And at what cost. Short of a failure in those areas one wonders why we are trying to tinker with something that is working pretty well. What is that compelling reason?
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
The grouping of all the merchants and events at the fair grounds, to compare them with grouping of merchants of a mall in the city, is like holding a orange up and describing a grape.
If you look at your property tax distribution statement you will find the city collects about a fifth more than the county on property taxes already.
If you take the figures posted of the possible $210,000 dollars loss in uncollected sales taxes on the million tickets sold at the fair and the city estimate that policing the fair grounds cost the city $500,000, it is hard to correlate the advantage of trying to enforce the city ordinances on the un-platted, undivided acreage as being cost efficient.
The purpose proposed, [it seems] from the city is to purchase three new wheelbarrows for the county to fill with the 3% sales tax revenue, hire three more city employees to push them to the fair gates for the city treasure to pick up and take the money down to city hall.
Someone should look up case law on if the county has not prevailed over city ordinances in Federal courts. And how large an un-platted acreage a city can enforce its ordinances on.
Its easy to see why Bell is getting his stuff together to-get-to-hell out of an ensuing squabble.
You'll recall, perhaps, the promoter of Special Events is, by law, responsible for their own security.
If they wish to contract for TPD to provide this service during the Fair, fine. That'll be $500,000 please, making Tulsa's take likely well over $1,000,000 by the time one adds inside sales, too. And, that's figuring less than $10 (a large pop and a corndog) for inside sales, too.
That's just the Fair.
IF Sheriff's Office wants to continue to provide security, I'm sure the County has pretty consistantly dropped that money into the Sheriff's budget.
Net effect = Zero.
Security isn't the issue.
By the time we add a season of Horse Races, Baseball, Bell's or whatever it becomes, Big Splash, Horse shows/arena, Car Shows, Chili Bowl, Boat Shows, Gun Shows, Home & Garden shows, ...
We already know the revenue from some of those from the Bell's flap. IAC, I'll admit to purely guessing here, but I'd say the 3% would add up to something closer to $3,000,000 or more.
It may add up to zero for the city but not the special event! They now need to pay $500,000 under your plan as the Sheriff made it clear he would be granted no budget by the state board to provide such. Now how many new special events are going to see us in the same light? It will undoubtedly have an effect on demand for the fairgrounds for events as they will raise the cost to the general public or decide to not play at all. So where do you want to pay? Through taxes or at the gate?
I was for the annexation at first but the more I listen the more I think well enough should be left alone....I think it will be a wash in the end and possibly cost the city some money....I say it's not broke so don't F with it...
[quote]With people waiting to buy their washer/dryers, dishwashers, etc during the Fair, since they could save $15 or so in Sales Tax... [/quote]
Where were the washers and dryers for sale at the Fair?
I thought I went all through the fair this year, saw cars, boats, goats, sunglasses, corn dogs, even fried cookies, but don't remember seeing the kitchen appliance sales booths.
The city could save the same amount of money by downsizing the HUGE fire stations they are building right now. 4 or 5 million dollar fire stations...two of them being built right now.
Sounds like Senator Edwards designed it.
Hey, Waterboy where do you get off calling someone an insider when you had your little sweetheart deal for your failed Arkansas river boating adventure? Annexing the fairgrounds is in the best interest of Tulsa. Most people on this board agree(the majority of those that don't probably don't even live in the city anyway) and when it comes to a vote, the majority of Tulsans will approve it. So, cry me a river(pun intended).
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Maybe you could clarify that sovereignty issue between the state and the tribes while you're at it. Its all so simple really.
IMO I think that the tribes - inasmuch as their land was stolen from them - should have free reign to do anything they like. But that's just me.
What of Fred Perry's observation of the differences in number of events per year between OKC and Tulsa?(KOTV (//%22http://kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=119977%22))
That is because of the sales tax funded improvements at the fairgrounds and a very dedicated public servant named Denny Tuttle(RIP), not lower sales taxes at the fairgrounds. If sales taxes are such a deal breaker for events at the Fairgrounds why does the County collect them? The County can choose not to collect their share of sales taxes at the Fairgrounds to offset the new sales tax created by the annexation and keep their lower sales tax "marketing tool". BTW, if the county is so opposed to this annexation they could probably get the council to drop it if they were willing to give back the 3 mils. It looks like the County will have to make some tough choices and some sacrifices for a change. Turnaround's a b#*tch, ain't it?
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
The grouping of all the merchants and events at the fair grounds, to compare them with grouping of merchants of a mall in the city, is like holding a orange up and describing a grape.
If you look at your property tax distribution statement you will find the city collects about a fifth more than the county on property taxes already.
If you take the figures posted of the possible $210,000 dollars loss in uncollected sales taxes on the million tickets sold at the fair and the city estimate that policing the fair grounds cost the city $500,000, it is hard to correlate the advantage of trying to enforce the city ordinances on the un-platted, undivided acreage as being cost efficient.
The purpose proposed, [it seems] from the city is to purchase three new wheelbarrows for the county to fill with the 3% sales tax revenue, hire three more city employees to push them to the fair gates for the city treasure to pick up and take the money down to city hall.
Someone should look up case law on if the county has not prevailed over city ordinances in Federal courts. And how large an un-platted acreage a city can enforce its ordinances on.
Its easy to see why Bell is getting his stuff together to-get-to-hell out of an ensuing squabble.
It'd be far more constructive if you were to actually describe the orange and grape. How are they different?
The one difference I acknowledge is that the Mall is run by a Management company, the Fairgrounds by an Authority. But, they act in virtually identical roles.
Oh, and the Fairgrounds receives huge amounts of public funding.
quote:
If you look at your property tax distribution statement you will find the city collects about a fifth more than the county on property taxes already.
You should look again. Tulsa, the City, receives ZERO Ad Valorem tax proceeds.
In fact, it's illegal.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
[quote]With people waiting to buy their washer/dryers, dishwashers, etc during the Fair, since they could save $15 or so in Sales Tax...
Where were the washers and dryers for sale at the Fair?
I thought I went all through the fair this year, saw cars, boats, goats, sunglasses, corn dogs, even fried cookies, but don't remember seeing the kitchen appliance sales booths.
[/quote]
That was from recollection in years past. I suppose the current situation would more likely find them at the Home & Garden Show or such. Same thing, really.
Only the name changes. The tax situation remains the same.
QuoteIt may add up to zero for the city but not the special event! They now need to pay $500,000 under your plan as the Sheriff made it clear he would be granted no budget by the state board to provide such. Now how many new special events are going to see us in the same light? It will undoubtedly have an effect on demand for the fairgrounds for events as they will raise the cost to the general public or decide to not play at all. So where do you want to pay? Through taxes or at the gate?
[\quote]
What's this State Board stuff?
More importantly, why are they providing public funding to the Sheriff's Office for Fair security? It's the Authority's overhead.
The Authority is responsible for Fair security, no matter the source.
I'm sure the Sheriff isn't going to work for nothing, he's a Republican after all. So, the Authority would need to make up whatever is required there. If they've been using public monies to do that in the past, well, that needs to stop as well.
In fact, I'd be inclined to ask for a refund of past proceeds.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Hey, Waterboy where do you get off calling someone an insider when you had your little sweetheart deal for your failed Arkansas river boating adventure? Annexing the fairgrounds is in the best interest of Tulsa. Most people on this board agree(the majority of those that don't probably don't even live in the city anyway) and when it comes to a vote, the majority of Tulsans will approve it. So, cry me a river(pun intended).
[:O]Maybe you could enlighten me as to my sweetheart deal? Were you one of those sweethearts that charged me 10% and required a million dollar insurance coverage for every vehicle I drove across the parking lot? Were you the sweetheart that kept me from operating during the Octoberfest no matter what percentage I was charged? Some sweetheart.
You're getting personal AA because of remarks you misunderstood on another thread. Its not necessary. Wrinkle can handle himself well and did.
Ps. Let me emphasize this. Your attempt to show some conspiracy of insiders is just wrong. I knew no one at the RPA when I presented to them. I knew nothing about contracting with a public authority. I never to my knowledge received any special treatment stemming from my very common name and background. I took a good idea to them and they responded. I have met Randi Miller twice. Once at a Channels meeting and once to deliver a letter encouraging her to continue river development efforts. I don't work for the county, the city, the state or any other government agencies. I'm clean and unpaid for. How about you?
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
QuoteIt may add up to zero for the city but not the special event! They now need to pay $500,000 under your plan as the Sheriff made it clear he would be granted no budget by the state board to provide such. Now how many new special events are going to see us in the same light? It will undoubtedly have an effect on demand for the fairgrounds for events as they will raise the cost to the general public or decide to not play at all. So where do you want to pay? Through taxes or at the gate?
[\quote]
quote: What's this State Board stuff?
Sheriff Glans referred to them when asked by the council who would cut his funding for security at the fairgrounds.
quote:More importantly, why are they providing public funding to the Sheriff's Office for Fair security? It's the Authority's overhead.
Because they can? And decided to do so? Not surprising since they are a county funded operation.
quote:The Authority is responsible for Fair security, no matter the source.
So? So the city says they may not provide that security if they annex the area and put it under their jurisdiction.
quote:I'm sure the Sheriff isn't going to work for nothing, he's a Republican after all.
I'm a democrat and I won't work for nothing.
quote:So, the Authority would need to make up whatever is required there. If they've been using public monies to do that in the past, well, that needs to stop as well.
Confusing to me. You expect a public authority to provide security for public land but you don't want them to spend public monies?
You guys may be right. You may be on to some major discoveries of corruption in govt. I just didn't see any compelling arguments at that city council meeting to support a major change. I saw reason enough for them to sit down and discuss grievances and the impact of changes.
quote:
quote:More importantly, why are they providing public funding to the Sheriff's Office for Fair security? It's the Authority's overhead.
quote:
Confusing to me. You expect a public authority to provide security for public land but you don't want them to spend public monies?
I think I'm starting to see the problem here.
Seems a large number of the public and, in particular, county persons, think of the 'Fair' as a Government Function. It's not.
Besides already being segregated from regular 'County' functions by means of an 'Authority', it's a for-profit enterprize. No different than a collection of stores at the mall.
It is indeed on County-owned property, which resides fully inside the body of the City of Tulsa, yet having an island boundary surrounding it, exluding it from being a citizen of the City.
City Sales Tax, for that matter, County Ad Valorem tax, has therefore never been collected on things which occur ON that County-owned (Authority operated) land.
Just what is it about it being County-owned which excludes it from the City? IF the land sat there vacant, it wouldn't be much of an issue. But, the County uses the land to produce income via various methods. In fact, the County actually has little control (by definition, not in pratice) of the Fairgrounds operations. Those functions have been assigned to an Authority (Public Trust). These things are supposed to segregate politics from operations.
The Authority, meanwhile, is supposed to be doing everything it can to make the operations there run smoothly, make repairs and improvements, and last, but definitely not least, to make it profitable.
It's a for-profit operation, not a function of government.
Being wholly surrounded by miles of City landscape, it's hardly unreasonable to think of it in terms of being a citizen of the City, just as any other mall, business or single-family homestead.
What makes them special that they think City Sales Taxes should not apply?
It flat doesn't make sense.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
quote:More importantly, why are they providing public funding to the Sheriff's Office for Fair security? It's the Authority's overhead.
quote:
Confusing to me. You expect a public authority to provide security for public land but you don't want them to spend public monies?
I think I'm starting to see the problem here.
Seems a large number of the public and, in particular, county persons, think of the 'Fair' as a Government Function. It's not.
Besides already being segregated from regular 'County' functions by means of an 'Authority', it's a for-profit enterprize. No different than a collection of stores at the mall.
It is indeed on County-owned property, which resides fully inside the body of the City of Tulsa, yet having an island boundary surrounding it, exluding it from being a citizen of the City.
City Sales Tax, for that matter, County Ad Valorem tax, has therefore never been collected on things which occur ON that County-owned (Authority operated) land.
Just what is it about it being County-owned which excludes it from the City? IF the land sat there vacant, it wouldn't be much of an issue. But, the County uses the land to produce income via various methods. In fact, the County actually has little control (by definition, not in pratice) of the Fairgrounds operations. Those functions have been assigned to an Authority (Public Trust). These things are supposed to segregate politics from operations.
The Authority, meanwhile, is supposed to be doing everything it can to make the operations there run smoothly, make repairs and improvements, and last, but definitely not least, to make it profitable.
It's a for-profit operation, not a function of government.
Being wholly surrounded by miles of City landscape, it's hardly unreasonable to think of it in terms of being a citizen of the City, just as any other mall, business or single-family homestead.
What makes them special that they think City Sales Taxes should not apply?
It flat doesn't make sense.
Thats a lot to digest and to parse out what is opinion and what is law. If what you say is true its doubtful there would have been anything but perfunctory enforcement of a sales tax by the city. Since the city seems to be unsure of their power to do so, one wonders how sound your information may be. They apparently feel that they cannot without annexing the area.
Sounds like the River Parks Authority, which is supposedly separate from the city and county but has representatives of each on its board. They pay little attention to either entity on difficult decisions. They are also a for profit operation though it amounts to begging from the business community and the city/county/state.
Perhaps the county should just sell the property to a private entity and allow the area to be developed. They could then purchase land outside of Tulsa city limits to operate a fairgrounds, 48th street west might be a good location, and continue to offer the lower taxes until Tulsa annexed that area. Then we could start all over.[:P]
I have addressed most of what you have posted but I see no reciprocity on your part. Not even to these two simple questions, "would this be happening if the fairgrounds was not well managed and made very little money?" the answer to that has implications.
And, "You want to shift the cost of security to the event planners who will shift it to the gate. You think this will not affect its marketability but offer no basis for that belief. Why?"
quote:
I have addressed most of what you have posted but I see no reciprocity on your part. Not even to these two simple questions, "would this be happening if the fairgrounds was not well managed and made very little money?" the answer to that has implications.
Of course the City sees it a potential new revenue, we wouldn't be discussing this if that wasn't true. So, if it weren't making money, it wouldn't matter much. I still believe it should be a Citizen of the City, by being included in the City Limits, and thus subject to City Sales Tax on whatever miniscule revenues it did have.
For that matter, if it were losing money. We're paying for it either way. But, it happens, ALL the Fair, and most other things which occur on the Fairgrounds, are by contract with third parties. It's they whom would stand to gain/lose for the most part. The County makes money on ticket admissions and cuts from the third party vendors. So, in fact, it could never actually lose money. Just make it. The question is how much. We've already provided all the facilities, so they, in effect are doing exactly what they (and some here) are suggesting of the City, and that is scraping the cream off the top with no overhead. If they aren't providing security costs either, then it really is a no overhead situation, and larger profits.
I seem to recall a special insurance arrangement, too, where Bob Dick and his agent buddy once got caught not really having actual insurance. Another one of those pesky overhead cost things.
quote:
And, "You want to shift the cost of security to the event planners who will shift it to the gate. You think this will not affect its marketability but offer no basis for that belief. Why?"
Ha!
You, above anyone, should understand free markets and overhead costs.
The responsibility for security has *always* been the Authority's. Thus, the cost for the overhead. There's no shifting going on here.
If they've gone behind the backs of their constituants and obtained a 'grant' from the State Board to pay for it using our money instead of theirs, that's just wrong to start with.
Sure, that would affect the Authority's take. It's easy to make money when you have no overhead.
If I bought your boat, your paddles, lifevests for a dozen tourists, paid your insurance and provided you a car to get to and fro, do you think you could profit from a riverboat business?
Security is an overhead cost of a Special Event called the Fair, on County Fairgrounds property, Operated by the Fairgrounds Trust Authority, and for a profit.
What's hard about this?
quote:
Since the city seems to be unsure of their power to do so, one wonders how sound your information may be. They apparently feel that they cannot without annexing the area.
Uh, I don't think anyone's questioning the ability of the City to annex, or collect Sales Tax.
The issue is that in order to collect City sales tax, it must be a part of the City. It currently is not. So, must first be annexed.
quote:
Perhaps the county should just sell the property to a private entity and allow the area to be developed. They could then purchase land outside of Tulsa city limits to operate a fairgrounds, 48th street west might be a good location, and continue to offer the lower taxes until Tulsa annexed that area. Then we could start all over.
I think you were trying to be cute here, but it actually makes more sense than you might think.
IF the City annexes the Fairgrounds, the County certainly has the option of selling. If they feel they can make more money being outside the City limit and not charging City Sales Tax, then I'd actually expect them to do so.
Even they (speaking more of our former set of Commissioners) are not so lacking as to know the importance of location, and the physical facilities we've given them. They know the value, they just want to keep the revenue to themselves. It's that intrinsic value of location together with surrouding infrastructure which provides the City's claim.
There really isn't another IPE building within a two hour flight of here. Only a couple in the country.
Wrinkle Quoted : You should look again. Tulsa, the City, receives ZERO Ad Valorem tax proceeds.
In fact, it's illegal.
_______________________________________________
This quotation just makes my day. I am looking at "Your ad valorem tax distribution for the current year is as follows"
It list amounts for Health, Schools 4-mils, School District, Tulsa Technology Center, Tulsa Community College, Emergency Medical Service 0, CITY, County and Library.
Now what name should I use in this letter telling county treasure, Semler, that I have reduced these tax statements by the assessment amount having been advised he is collecting taxes Illegally for the city of Tulsa?
He may have missed the 4th grade civics class,
He may be unaware that a "public trust" operates as a for-profit corporation, aside from the budgeting process of a government of the people. I sure was not aware of it until I read it on the form. The assessor may need to be advised that such public trust acting as a for-profit corporation should be on the corporation tax rolls and be taxed accordingly.
I am not aware that the annexing of the fair grounds would require a vote of the people.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
I have addressed most of what you have posted but I see no reciprocity on your part. Not even to these two simple questions, "would this be happening if the fairgrounds was not well managed and made very little money?" the answer to that has implications.
Of course the City sees it a potential new revenue, we wouldn't be discussing this if that wasn't true. So, if it weren't making money, it wouldn't matter much. I still believe it should be a Citizen of the City, by being included in the City Limits, and thus subject to City Sales Tax on whatever miniscule revenues it did have.
For that matter, if it were losing money. We're paying for it either way. But, it happens, ALL the Fair, and most other things which occur on the Fairgrounds, are by contract with third parties. It's they whom would stand to gain/lose for the most part. The County makes money on ticket admissions and cuts from the third party vendors. So, in fact, it could never actually lose money. Just make it. The question is how much. We've already provided all the facilities, so they, in effect are doing exactly what they (and some here) are suggesting of the City, and that is scraping the cream off the top with no overhead. If they aren't providing security costs either, then it really is a no overhead situation, and larger profits.
I seem to recall a special insurance arrangement, too, where Bob Dick and his agent buddy once got caught not really having actual insurance. Another one of those pesky overhead cost things.
quote:
And, "You want to shift the cost of security to the event planners who will shift it to the gate. You think this will not affect its marketability but offer no basis for that belief. Why?"
Ha!
You, above anyone, should understand free markets and overhead costs.
The responsibility for security has *always* been the Authority's. Thus, the cost for the overhead. There's no shifting going on here.
If they've gone behind the backs of their constituants and obtained a 'grant' from the State Board to pay for it using our money instead of theirs, that's just wrong to start with.
Sure, that would affect the Authority's take. It's easy to make money when you have no overhead.
If I bought your boat, your paddles, lifevests for a dozen tourists, paid your insurance and provided you a car to get to and fro, do you think you could profit from a riverboat business?
Security is an overhead cost of a Special Event called the Fair, on County Fairgrounds property, Operated by the Fairgrounds Trust Authority, and for a profit.
What's hard about this?
Mr. Medlock is that you...?
I do appreciate your effort to address some questions. I'm not swayed by your answers. It still is a basic power/money grab. Two entities of government arguing like mobsters over territory. Unseemly.
The fairgrounds was once located just east of downtown. When the city grew it relocated. The buyers were not the city but a private foundry. It may be time for it to move again. The buyer may not necessarily be the city. Perhaps a non-profit or the ever popular religious facility. Both non-taxable.
quote:
Mr. Medlock is that you...?
Nope...not me. And you can call me Chris.
IGNORE THIS POST. IF IT IS READ IT COULD CHANGE SOME POSTER'S MINDSET.
Residents of Tulsa do not pay sales taxes on the water because it is public owned.
Residents do not pay sales taxes on admission to the zoo.
The admission charged at the fair grounds are used by the trust to maintain the fair grounds. I would not assume that one governing body [city] would have authority to tax another governing body established by the same citizens. If such has standing then the anticipated $210,000 admission tax becomes a moot item on which sales taxes can be charged.
By the same argument if the admission charged at the IPE building is a set percentage fee, secured by an underwrite guarantee [only the money paid by the underwriter would be subject to sales taxes.]
Without the knowledge of how the trade shows are charged but it would be to the economic advantage to the county for the shows to enter into an agreement whereas the cost was tied onto the attendance.
True, the peoples government of the city furnished the infrastructure for the two weeks of the fair but they also furnish the same infrastructure for more than a 100,000 workers that commute to jobs in the city 52 weeks a year paying nothing. The city receives $1 dollar per month for each man, woman and child in the last census count, for street repairs, from the gasoline taxes.
The concession stand's deal in cash during the fair as well as the flea market, weekly. They do not give receipts so they estimate the sales taxable income. By adding another 100 city auditors they could collect the sales taxes at the end of each day the businesses are open. Many of the local concession have tax permits and pay sales taxes on their sales during the fair through their regular tax number permit.
The health department will not develop any sales taxes but the city taxpayers will incur street repairs on the provided infrastructure even at present it is a joint adventure by the city and county governments.
The fair has a large attendance from the rural areas. Any items they purchase that is used in the production of crops or live stock is exempted from state and city sales taxes. This could cause a cloud on the payment of admission cost if the purpose was relative to purchasing farm supplies or machinery during the fair or trade shows. [home & garden etc]
This group could ask for a refund on the sales taxes they paid or show their sales tax number at the time of purchase. Items delivered by the seller are taxed at the point of delivery which would most likely outside the city.. .
Annexing the fair grounds would be liken to the sales taxes on liquor, liquor by the drink, horse racing, gamming at the fair grounds race track, etc. The profits that was to be created seems to have evaporated in thin air.
The figures used of a little less than $400,000 dollars in sales tax losses could be near right but the 1.1 million dollars should be moved to the other side of the profit/loss line because that could be the amount the taxpayers would be assessed for to collect the $400,000 dollars in sales taxes.
Let the sleeping dog lie and in the end he will not eat as much.
I am completely unconvinced. Riddle me this, if sales taxes are such a event killer at the fairgrounds why does the County collect sales taxes there? If the County is so worried about a new sales tax from the annexation negatively impacting events, they can choose to stop collecting their portions of sales taxes at the fairgrounds to offset the city sales tax.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
I am completely unconvinced. Riddle me this, if sales taxes are such a event killer at the fairgrounds why does the County collect sales taxes there? If the County is so worried about a new sales tax from the annexation negatively impacting events, they can choose to stop collecting their portions of sales taxes at the fairgrounds to offset the city sales tax.
You're leaving out the word "additional" taxes. Sure, the county should just collect taxes for the city and offer them up as tribute to the almighty council. Get real.
Look, price affects sales. WalMart built a dominant position in retailing based on that principle. How's your poll going?
Super, thanks for asking. I'd guess that would be pretty close to numbers it would pass by if it came to a vote. If the County wants to keep sales low at the fairgrounds, all they have to do is stop collecting their portion, problem solved.
Waterboy quoted: "You're leaving out the word "additional" taxes. Sure, the county should just collect taxes for the city and offer them up as tribute to the almighty council. Get real."
I am unaware even if the county collects sales taxes. Sales taxes are collected by the business and submitted to the OK Tax Commission who remits to the city 97% of their share of city sales taxes. There is to be displayed at the business a OTC tax permit with a number showing they must collect the tax.
One could go to the county commissions office and see if they even have a permit to collect taxes and then check with the OTC to see the amount of taxes that was submitted on the county permit if it exist which I believe they are exempted.
It is required by the statute that the amount of the product purchased and the taxes collected be separated on the invoice or receipt. At that point the sales taxes collected is held in trust by the seller and must be remitted to the Oklahoma tax commission.
Sales taxes collected and remitted from roving venders for the city would not, unless authority is changed, be obligatory on the county.
The state statutes by their authority grants the city's budget to increase 10% yearly but it must reduce it's budget by the amount of unspent funds from the previous year. I cannot remember when the city ever had unspent budget funds
Is there anyone with the assumption that in time the city's income will outdistance the demanded budget, now is the time to come forward and explain. You will be given 5 minutes to explain to the councilors any protest to the spending of some $500,000,000 [500 million] dollar budget.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Super, thanks for asking. I'd guess that would be pretty close to numbers it would pass by if it came to a vote. If the County wants to keep sales low at the fairgrounds, all they have to do is stop collecting their portion, problem solved.
So listen to Shadow. They don't collect anything now and won't be doing that. Lame idea anyway.
Last time I saw your poll on this forum it was all "no". Haven't seen it lately. But for goodness sakes, get it on a ballot and lets see if we can spend some more $ to re-arrange the deck chairs.
From Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/NewsStory.asp?ID=070302_To_A1_Mayor13610%22)
quote:
Mayor Kathy Taylor has offered a deal to the county -- she will try to delay the fairgrounds annexation for a year if the county agrees to four of her ideas on how they can work together.
Two of the three county commissioners had serious reservations about aspects of the deal.
County Commissioners Randi Miller and Fred Perry said after a City Council meeting Thursday that if the 12-month delay isn't significantly extended, they can't agree to any of the mayor's deal.
"We can't fight this issue every year," Miller said.
Perry agreed, saying the delay should extend through Taylor's term, which expires in April 2010.
Commissioner John Smaligo did not attend the council meeting.
The council voted unanimously Thursday to hold a March 22 public hearing on annexation.
Councilor Roscoe Turner said scheduling the hearing starts the annexation process, which can be stopped at any time.
The 230-acre fairgrounds is county property that is surrounded by the city between Louisville and Yale ave nues and 21st and 15th streets.
The annexation would allow the city to collect its 3 percent sales
tax there, but it would not change the county's ownership or operation of the facilities.
Taylor briefly mentioned her proposed deal at the beginning of the council meeting and then left. She had sent letters detailing the deal to the County Commissioners earlier in the day.
Miller and Perry said that besides the one-year postponement, they cannot agree to publicly support a Tulsa vote on a fire district, one aspect of the mayor's proposed deal.
She told the council she wasn't sure what the fire district or the joint city-county review committee had to do with the annexation issues.
The two commissioners said they could agree to another of the mayor's proposals -- working together on a city-county committee, if both entities have equal representation on it.
The two commissioners said they agree with another of the mayor's proposals -- hiring an auditor to ensure that sales taxes are being remitted on items purchased at the fairgrounds and delivered inside the city limits.
They also said they are willing to negotiate financial support to the Tulsa Convention and Visitor's Bureau for the marketing of the fairgrounds, another of the mayor's proposals.
Taylor states in her letter to the commissioners that the annexation issue has "become increasingly a source of contention" and that a consensus needs to be reached.
She said the city has suggested many ways it and the county "can move forward together, but has been rebuffed by the county at every turn."
She said she believes that her compromise "would be a great step in showing our mutual constituencies that we indeed want to work together for the greater good of our community."
Perry and Miller pointed out after the meeting that Taylor "rebuffed" them on the creation of a river development authority. They suggested that perhaps a river authority should be added to the mayor's "compromises."
For nearly two hours the council heatedly debated annexation issues ranging from policing to finances with Perry, Miller and others.
A letter from the chairman of the U.S. National Show Commission for the Arabian Horse Association raised a concern that an additional city sales tax could have ramifications for its long- term contract with Expo Square.
The county was asked to provide information on when that contract was signed and when the Four-to-Fix and Vision 2025 county sales taxes were enacted to see how they affected the contract.
Councilor Bill Martinson said the commissioners' responses to councilors' questions made a case for supporting Taylor's deal.
"How do you know you're not having revenue leakage?" he said. "You're not able to provide us with numbers on your sales."
Taylor's deal sucks IMO.
After the pay raises given for the mayor staff at this time when we are discussing the collection of sales taxes on the fair grounds under a very complex tax code, thus requiring the city to audit the taxable sales. Murphy Inc possibly has the permit for his venders which the auditor would have to travel hundreds of miles to check his return when it was ready. The local venders have their tax numbers thus remit their sales on that form already.
The city is looking for additional revenue but a squad of auditors checking the tax permits could be unprofitable. Then the part time councilors maybe ready to vote themselves another pay raise for performing a job they are not required to attend.
Seems that the commodity most exchanged in the complaining councilors districts are street drugs. These are subjected to the tax code. If we are going to hire a passel of auditors to make sure the city sales taxes are paid on the sales we could see what the cost/ratio would be in collecting the taxes. Since this would be easer to test than the collecting of the sales taxes at the fair grounds it could be Tulsa would not want the annexing.
I had a vision of what the Fairgrounds would look like if it were taken over by the City, and it do not look nice. Stuff broke. Events cancelled. IMO the City would use any revenue gained and blow it in any number of ways other than upgrading the Fairgrounds.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
I had a vision of what the Fairgrounds would look like if it were taken over by the City, and it do not look nice. Stuff broke. Events cancelled. IMO the City would use any revenue gained and blow it in any number of ways other than upgrading the Fairgrounds.
For the 4,072 time --
the city will not own or operate the fairgrounds if it is annexed, any more than the city owns or operates Cloud 9, though it's (I'm told) inside city limts.
Oh. Must've been the shrooms.
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Medlock
quote:
Mr. Medlock is that you...?
Nope...not me. And you can call me Chris.
A nickle for your thoughts...Chris....heh..
The city may not operate the fair grounds but in the recent past they were able to get a bill passed whereas they would annex the county by forming a metro government. Although it was declared flawed by the high court it would have opened the door for the city to control all the functions of the county. Public meeting were held throughout the city/county. The new generation in city hall of the strong millionaire mayor and the weak part-time council, as provided by the charter amendments, has a tendency to change daily. To say they do not want to control the fair is like the typical pre-election political promises.
Did I read that correctly?
Michael Bates' most recent Urban Tulsa article (//%22http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A15993%22), suggesting the Fair Board has been charging a "Use Tax" equivalent to what would be the normal City of Tulsa tax the whole time?
IOW, they've been collecting the same amount of tax as though the City were already taxing them, just keeping it for themselves.
Boy, does that shed some new light on things.
Now I see Ms. Miller (again back in the debate) appears to be offering to collect and pay the City a 3% "tax" (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070309_1_A9_hTheC63781&breadcrumb=government%22) in lieu of annexation. Sort of a royalty arrangement, I guess.
Nice try.
...now, how 'bout all those ordinances?
Here's a great overview (//%22http://www.tulsacouncil.org/news.php%22)(click on the link under financial restraints) that dispells the shadowy misinformation rehtoric regarding the city finances and tax collections.
County Commissioners formally respond to the Mayor's requests:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070310_1_A1_hTheC37312
Ms. Miller does not want an auditor to review the fairgrounds tax collections, because an auditor "couldn't enforce state laws."
Instead, she wants to promise to send the vendors a LETTER. Yes, letters are much more effective at enforcing laws.
Here's a great overview(click on the link under financial restraints) that dispells the shadowy misinformation rehtoric regarding the city finances and tax collections.
Don't you just love the spin.
I was at a community luncheon with a bunch of city leaders and the Mayor was the featured speaker. She came in a said that personnel costs consume 80% of the city's operating budget. Everybody's jaws dropped wide open believing that personnel costs consumed 80% of city expenditures. A table mate of mine looked at me and said "Is that true? That seems really high."
Did the Mayor lie? Not really. Do personnel costs consume 80% of the operating budget? I'll believe they probably do. Do personnel costs consume 80% of total city expenditures? NO WAY! Not even close.
The city's operating budget is made up of 2 cents of the sales tax, which is a far cry from what the city actually receives in income (total taxes, fees, permits, grants, ...) and a far cry from what they spend. You might as well say salaries consume 100% of the salary budget, because it makes about as much sense.
What was the last figure I heard? The city projected 6% growth from last year, so budgeted accordingly, which means they budgeted a 6% growth in spending. If revenue has only grown 5%, that still means 5% higher then last year, not 1% lower because they budgeted 6%. Remember, the city has record income, which turns into record spending.
You have to look at total dollars, not just one section of the city's spreadsheet. The operating budget is just one section of the spreadsheet.
County not sharing property tax revenue with city
By SUSAN HYLTON World Staff Writer
7/17/2003
Tulsa County will not be sharing any property tax revenue with the city of Tulsa.
The three-member county Excise Board unanimously rejected the the city's proposal Wednesday to get a portion of the money, voting to use 100 percent of the county's property tax to fund the county's general operations.
City Finance Director Mike Kier said the city needs a share of the property tax stream to stem a municipal budget hemorrhage.
"We've been going through a number of ways to reduce expenses," Kier said. "We've eliminated jobs, positions. We have a number of employees that have taken salary reductions, both last year and this year."
Tulsa has gone from a $216 million budget in 2001-02 to a $193 million budget for the current fiscal year, he said.
But the property tax plan struggled even to get a hearing with the Excise Board. Members of the board complained that the city didn't give them enough information or even a specific proposal for how much of the money the city wanted.
"If the city is making such a serious request on the way ad valorem taxes should be distributed, I need some prior warning that you're going to be here and that I am going to hear something why the city thinks that's important and the amount of millage
they want and how that relates to their budgeting process," board member Ted Kachel said.
Kier said the city has a "standing ongoing request" that the board consider sharing a portion of the tax collections with the city.
Kachel told Kier that the board was not aware of the city's standing millage request.
"I don't know who needs to be held accountable for that, but we have not received it until you appeared today," he said.
Assistant District Attorney Linda Greaves said she didn't believe that there was any authority for a standing request.
"Standing or otherwise, it remains the city's ongoing request for consideration in that split of the levy," Kier said.
The county's property tax revenue is reserved for cities and counties, but Tulsa County's government has received all of the money since the city began relying more heavily on sales taxes.
Kier didn't say what share of the county's property tax revenue the city would like to receive. It's up to the Excise Board to decide how the millage is divided, he said.
"Why do we have to make your request? I don't understand that," board member Robert Mayes said.
Kier said the Excise Board has determined millage splits in past decades.
The city has not received any property tax revenue since 1978. In 1960, the city collected 3 mills for its general fund. It continued to collect from 0.5 to 3 mills until the funding stopped.
Board member Warren Morris said the city didn't present any evidence to the panel.
Kachel said there should have been some level of consultation on the question between the city and the county before the issue came to the board.
Southward Ho the wagons go! With them go the Tulsa citizens that can no longer tolerate the city /county relationship with their duties implied between the statutory county and its subordinate chartered city, who's theme is add more employees and increase taxes. It is quite easy to find data to make a point as the city has a warehouse of studies that are never implemented
There is a long standing on sharing property taxes among the archives but before one can gain control of the facts they must wade through the trusts (little kingdoms) and conciliate those facts obtained from those in charge.
All these summaries of what should be once was taught in the 4th grade civic classes are available under FOI. To day we should dedicate a Friday afternoon (If you look for someone of Friday afternoon in city hall you are told they are in a meeting) at such time the department heads introduce themselves to each other. This will eliminate the constant bickering on number of employees and their wage scales that each department needs.
Don't tell me that this is done in the meeting on submitting their needs for the coming year. [I have attended those meetings.] At this time they should establish a standard wage scale (eliminate back door wage promotion to favorites) which the citizens are required to raise additional taxes to pay for.
If one is a young person they should, as many have, take a job at the city hall, be on the job early, speak "good morning to all departments heads as you open the door for them, get their morning coffee and make your preparations for a lifetime job without a defined duty. No place in public industry can you get such opportunity of
retirement.
quote:
Originally posted by akupetsky
County Commissioners formally respond to the Mayor's requests:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070310_1_A1_hTheC37312
Ms. Miller does not want an auditor to review the fairgrounds tax collections, because an auditor "couldn't enforce state laws."
Instead, she wants to promise to send the vendors a LETTER. Yes, letters are much more effective at enforcing laws.
I watched the entire meeting...
My jaw dropped open when they said "No; we do not even look at the gross receipts from the major events.."
I believe this was prompted by Mister Wanamacher, (sp?) giving his short, enthusiastic? talk as to "why the fairgrounds should stay just the way they are."
The receipts are what dictates how much money is made by the County, State... and who else would benefit by this amount...??? oh yeah that pesky little group known as the IRS....
No reason to have an Auditor look at those numbers either... That's the way I've always felt.
I'm almost certain that Phil Wood had a bag of popcorn and a soda watching that show.
[}:)]
More from the report:
(pg 12) The city is just beginning to rebound from significant revenue declines, which followed the loss of approximately 28,000 area jobs from 2000 to 2003. As the cost of municipal services have continued to rise, the city today has the same "purchasing power" it had ten years ago.
Shadows is full of sh#*t.
so, mind bomber, how come you didn't post Ken Neals Sunday editorial. guess anyone who sees all sides of the issue is full of s**t, huh?
Ken Neal also wrote glorious editorials promoting Great Plains. Ken Neal has 0 credibility as far as I am concerned. Keep drinking the Kenny Kool Aid, waterbuoy.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Ken Neal also wrote glorious editorials promoting Great Plains. Ken Neal has 0 credibility as far as I am concerned. Keep drinking the Kenny Kool Aid, waterbuoy.
So you don't disagree with what he has to say? Simply don't like his background? At least he explains in detail both sides of the issue. Look at the big picture like he did and you'll gain some credibility yourself.
Hey Waterboy- what happened to the boat project? Here you are slumming with us catfish again...tsk tsk. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Hey Waterboy- what happened to the boat project? Here you are slumming withs catfish again...tsk tsk. [;)]
Yeah,I know, but AlAnon (Aa) is getting away with murder. Just couldn't stands no more. This is it. Really. This is really the last post. Kind of like giving up smokes...
Remember when the Whirled "eDITTOrialized" for the at-large charter change? The interesting thing about that was it turned out the same illegal out of state paid professional signature gatherers circulating the TABOR petition were working the at-large petition, too. Can you guess who donated to the group that paid for that (//%22http://www.batesline.com/archives/002370.html%22)?
Me? Getting away with murder? Nah, it's the folks pouring the the Kool Aid that are killing Tulsa and getting away with it. It seems waterbuoy drank up and his bloated corpse is floating in a river of it.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v246/mistymountainhop/koolaidfreetulsa.jpg)
Cute. Meaningless. Typical. Attack the messenger, not the message. Although I am close to you politically, your tactics are frustrating to me.
Of course we'll annex the fairgrounds. It won't accomplish much. Keep officials busy I guess. The deck chairs will be re-arranged then a new plan for increasing revenues will emerge and fail. The structure of tax collections in the state is killing the city and to a lesser extent the county. Thats where the battle belongs.
Good luck.
So someone set me straight on this. How would this be any different as far as creating new revenue than someone building a new shopping mall with 60 stores to collect sales tax? From the other posts, what tax would be assessed on sounds a little convoluted.
If'n the city annexes the fairgrounds and five years down the line we are still running short on cash then what? A local income tax?
Some of the posters sees the tax structure on the fair grounds as a value added tax on the exchange of money. The only tax available to the city by annexing the grounds would be a very limited and complex sorting of what is the sale of a commodity and eliminating that which is exempted. The OTC would have very little interest because of the time/cost ratio it would consume if they felt they were obligated to perform the service for the city.
It would not be cost-effective for the county to furnish the city data that is sent to the OTC designated as being collected at the fair grounds which they never look at. The data is available on the taxes from the OTC and can be reviewed by a person if they can show cause.
The primary source subject to sales taxes designated as to be paid to the city by the OTC would be on food if there was a way to collect as a auditor stood by and made sure that the 6 cents was dropped in a special bank and sent to the tax commission at the end of each day. Thus the $2,00 hot dog would cost the children and parents $2.06 cents. The crony cost of providing this service by the city would I am sure be welcomed by the OTC. The cost would out distant the benefit's the city would gain. Course Phil could make the collections of the little banks at the closing each day.
The other solution would be take the advice given in some of these reports that says "reduce department heads salaries". But their response will be " We'll have to lay off some Police Officers and Firemen".
Could we tax the politicians because so many people wants to give them money?
I went to a motorcycle swap meet at the OKC fairgrounds a few years ago and set up as a vendor. Someone either from OTC or Oklahoma City's revenue department walked around handing out sales tax remittance forms.
There were perhaps 100 vendors from about a four state area. Out of that, I'd bet less than five were incorporated, the rest were individuals who were selling out of private collections.
Once the tax official was out of sight, most everyone ripped up the tax form or went to the bathroom to wipe with it. IOW, when you are talking about gun shows, flea markets and the like, enforcement of proper sales reporting and tax collection would be next to impossible without a bunch of added manpower to see to it all sales tax due is collected.
Council greed risks Tulsa prosperity
http://www.tulsatoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1196&Itemid=2
Gee David.
Since the county pays your salary, it is no wonder that you take their side in this issue.
Did you forget to disclose this fact?
Let's play "let's make a deal"
The county gives up to the city one of the following:
A. A cut of property tax revenue
B. The fairgrounds
C. Door #3
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Let's play "let's make a deal"
The county gives up to the city one of the following:
A. A cut of property tax revenue
B. The fairgrounds
C. Door #3
If the following is "Door #3".....
Let's quit while we are ahead..(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/RMiller.jpg)[}:)]
Michael,
Again with personal attacks you waddle onto the scene.
I am not paid by Tulsa County. My day-job and the news service I own are two different things and I have clearly noted the relationship many times. In your defense of the Mayor's daughter's DUI you did not note that your wife and, by all accounts, yourself worked hard and were paid by the Mayor during and after the campaign. Shall I go on, or is that enough for a two-faced socialist party hack to get through his extremely thick skull.
By the way, I made the editorial decision not to run a story on the Mayor's daughter – even had her mug shot – because Tulsa Today is a place we write about public policy issues and being young and foolish is not a public issue.
Boys, enough. Either rastle or kiss and make up. Either way, y'all both have made your opinions known, now hush and let the people talk.
(http://www.rogersbasement.com/images/oldtoys/toy/rok.jpg)
OK...David just gets on me...it is a long story and I won't forget his past attacks on me and my wife. I apologize to the forum folk.
Let me just discuss his facts.
He says the county spent $500,000 above what they had to just to upgrade their stormwater system. Stormwater standards are a good example of how the city and county differ on operations. The City has the best stormwater program in the country and the county just keeps building rooftops and parking lots that help cause the problem of runoff. The County recognized their contribution to the problem and spent more than was required of them, but still less than they would be charged if they received a city utility bill.
Any other business in Tulsa would be paying a monthly charge equivalent to their total square footage of impervious area the fairgrounds total would be thousands of dollars per month.
The article also uses an example of how the County "sends a trash truck specifically into Expo Square" to pick up trash and says the reason is that city costs are higher. First, why wouldn't any operation be responsible for the trash they generate? Secondly, the reason that costs are lower is that the County takes their trash to a landfill that doesn't meet the standards required. Their landfill has been under closure orders from the state DEQ for some time now, but the County is still taking trash there because it is cheaper. The city doesn't cut corners like that.
These are both reasons why annexation of county land by the city is a very complex decision. I still haven't made up my mind on what I think is the best choice for both of them and all of us.
quote:
Originally posted by David Arnett
Michael,
Again with personal attacks you waddle onto the scene.
I am not paid by Tulsa County. My day-job and the news service I own are two different things and I have clearly noted the relationship many times. In your defense of the Mayor's daughter's DUI you did not note that your wife and, by all accounts, yourself worked hard and were paid by the Mayor during and after the campaign. Shall I go on, or is that enough for a two-faced socialist party hack to get through his extremely thick skull.
By the way, I made the editorial decision not to run a story on the Mayor's daughter – even had her mug shot – because Tulsa Today is a place we write about public policy issues and being young and foolish is not a public issue.
Most people I talk to consider Arnett to be a hack and a walking, talking, bad joke. My hypothesis is his development was arrested somewhere on the evolutionary scale. I think Paul Tay gets(and deserves) more respect in Tulsa than this guy. At least Tay doesn't take himself seriously or believe his own hype.
Socialist party? As opposed to the party that you belong to that would turn government over to
churches and business interests, the very definition of fascism. Please retreat to your cave now and finish evolving, knuckle dragger.
(http://www.oldamericancentury.org/fascism_not_us_store_promo.jpg)
Annexation worries downplayed
Many projects wouldn't be adversely affected, officials say.
By KEVIN CANFIELD World Staff Writer
3/18/2007
Those concerned that city annexation of the fairgrounds would create a hornets' nest of zoning, permit and construction problems at the 230-acre site need not worry, officials say.
Things wouldn't change nearly as much as some people might think.
For starters, it's unlikely that ongoing construction projects at Expo Square would be affected by annexation, Jack Page, Tulsa's director of development services, said last week.
"It's a real possibility that we can work with the county to permit their own projects," Page said.
About $80 million in Vision 2025 and 4 to Fix the County sales tax revenues has been designated for the construction of new buildings and the renovation of existing structures at the fairgrounds.
Flintco Inc. is currently working on about 10 major projects, including construction of a new Exchange Center, that must be completed by next fall, when the U.S. Arabian and Half-Arabian Championship Horse Show comes to town.
"We see no problems why they couldn't finish those projects," Page said.
The issue, he said, is not who does the permitting and inspections but that they are done -- and done properly -- by an authorized government agency.
"If they (the county) want to do their own, we don't have a problem with that because they're a qualified agency," he said.
Tulsa County Engineer Ray Jordan agreed.
"It's really not an issue," he said. "The building codes and electrical codes are basically the same."
It is not unusual for the city to work with other government entities on permitting and inspections, Page said.
For example, the city has done inspections for Tulsa Public Schools and for some state facilities, he said.
"We're just concerned that they are safe buildings to occupy," Page said.
In addition to the building projects, the fairgrounds hosts about 400 events a year, some of which require permitting and inspections.
Page said it is unlikely those kind of day-to-day operations would be influenced by annexation, either.
Permitting and inspection costs would not be affected by annexation because the city and the county both waive fees for those services when doing work for other government entities.
Zoning: The fairgrounds is currently zoned for agriculture, and the city's plan for annexation calls for it to stay that way.
But the governing body that oversees zoning issues at the fairgrounds will change.
The City Board of Adjustment -- not the County Board of Adjustment -- would have jurisdiction over zoning matters if annexation occurs.
Existing development at the fairgrounds would be grandfa thered into the city zoning codes, said Duane Cuthbertson of the Indian Nations Council of Governments.
Future plans for construction that are not permissible under agricultural zoning would need to go through the proper city processes, he said.
Noise ordinance: The county does not have a noise ordinance, according to Jordan; the city does.
Dewayne Smith, interim director of the city's Working in Neighborhoods Department, said annexation won't change how the city handles nuisance issues at the fairgrounds.
"The uses would be grandfathered into the (city) zoning code as long as it was a lawful use" currently, Smith said.
He added that he could not recall a time the city has enforced its nuisance ordinance at the fairgrounds. Problems related to noise are addressed first by the police as potential disturbance of the peace violations, he said.
Michael,
Obviously you and David have some long standing issues that only a couple of time zones seperation might cure... but with the net I doubt it.
With respect to your "facts" presented.
Yes, Tulsa has one of the best storm water ordnances and master plans in the country and has done wonders in many arrears however in the basin around EXPO all that exists is a plan. One much which like many others that shows significant improvements necessary yet there is no implementation. At the onset of its master plan EXPO hired an expert hydrologist to dust off and review the City's plan (for that basin) and their developing master plan for improvements at EXPO. With this analysis EXPO and the County made the decision, without any fanfare whatsoever, to essentially double the size of the storm water detention facility they would need to build (based on using the city's formula on net added impervious area - if they were governed by the City's regulation) because there are residences downstream of EXPO that regularly had storm water difficulties (flooded streets and in the house) and the City had no schedule to make the needed improvements. The end result is that the EXPO not only voluntarily followed the City's criteria and their own criteria for unincorporated areas, the County went well beyond both and partially solved a long standing problem within the City's existing collection system (undersized lines from distant observation it seems should have been addressed when 15th street was reconstructed) that it did not create because that was the right thing to do for the residents.
Michael not that you suggested it in your post: My problem with any opinion that EXPO should be paying a storm water fee to the City is the same for EXPO as wioth any other unserved donor in that as I recall that fee is for maintenance, and provides little or no funds for capital improvements to the system and the long planned improvements downstream in that particular basin (and many others) don't exist and likely in this case may never ever exist as a result of what the County did yet somehow EXPO needs to contribute to maintaining a City wide system with essentially non-existent improvements in the area where the fee comes from. Sorry I can't go with you on this one as I believe it is a failing of the overall implementation to have such a magnitude of unfunded improvements this late after implementation of such a tremendous plan.
You state that the County in effect allows for unregulated storm water impact in the unincorporated areas... You are simply incorrect and in my opinion making an unfounded inflammatory statement which by your heading are presenting as fact. When the fact is, Tulsa County aggressively pursues proper storm water planning, enforcement, and implementation for development. In addition the County is correcting some long past sins in the unincorporated areas. For this Tulsa County utilizes a state of the art planning system with full GIS mapping and modeling tools developed by the Corps of Engineers just for that purpose.
With respect to refuse, EXPO typically collects the refuse generated with its own equipment and takes it to a privately operated and state permitted sanitary landfill all at a ridiculous savings when compared to the tipping fees at the burner. You may not like the landfill it goes to but it is permitted and regulated by the state and continues to operate and expand therefore in the interest of delivering service at a practical cost EXPO is in my opinion doing the right thing. Do I support recycling and many "green" efforts YES. I have personally designed and implemented many projects and programs but the burner is not one of them and from my observations what started as a potentially great solution for the community ended up as an economic and environmental white elephant that hopefully is about to go away.
Kirby
Ps. I am David's day job employer and with a couple of minor exceptions believe he researched and drafted an very opinionated (imagine that) but otherwise good piece on the issue, and before anyone posts up otherwise... he did this all on his own time.
Yeah, ICE and the County Sheriffs never locked down the BOK Center site during Operation Return to Sender looking to serve a warrant on a criminal illegal alien working for a sub-contractor there, either.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Yeah, ICE and the County Sheriffs never locked down the BOK Center site during Operation Return to Sender looking to serve a warrant on a criminal illegal alien working for a sub-contractor there, either.
And they found no-one.
yep, the guy they were looking for wasn't there that day, but ole kirby denied they ever even paid a visit to the site in another thread. Just be weary of taking this guy at his word.
Please discuss the topic and not each other or this whole thread will be locked. Unless the arena moved to the fairgrounds, it is not topical.
From KTUL (//%22http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0307/407957.html%22)
quote:
The battle over the fairgrounds is getting more complicated. A new group is circulating petitions asking the City not to annex the land. As News Channel 8's Bill Mitchell shows us, petitions are being passed around in the neighborhoods that surround the fairgrounds.
Organizers of the Stop the Annexation Petition says in the short time they've circulated this eight out of ten people they've talked with to sign on. They're saying to the city don't annex the fairgrounds.
People who have signed the petition are saying the city....don't go looking for new taxes at the fairgrounds balance your own budget by cutting costs.
Liz Garrison signed the petition, "As a person I have a budget myself. And the way for my budget balance is to cut some of what I spend. Instead of trying to rob Peter to pay Paul. "
The Stop the Annexation organizer is Dan Hicks. "I'm surprised how many people who live right down the street are saying the county has been a good neighbor. And they're concerned that if the city took over there would be more problems."
Hicks says he's circulating this petition so city councilors know that the people who live here don't want an additional tax at their fairgrounds.
City Councilor John Eagleton says he's undecided about his annexation vote. But the petition could affect that vote. "The people who have a direct interest in the fairgrounds, who live, are neighbors of the fairgrounds, the citizens of Tulsa. I care deeply about their best interests."
County Commissioner Randi Miller fears annexation might keep some events from coming to Tulsa. "I'm absolutely against it. I see no reason at all to annex us. The analysis clearly shows it's not in the best interest of any constituent."
Opponents of the plan to annex the fairgrounds by the city say they've got a very short time to battle the proposal. That's because the meeting to annex is scheduled for April 5th. That meeting will take place in the usual council meeting room at City Hall at 6pm.
Dan Hicks is an "anti-tax" guy who is opposed to the South Yale Toll Bridge, and a long time proponent of "Creationism" displays at the Tulsa Zoo.
Randi Miller sets a meeting on the fairgrounds to purposefully exclude city councilors. (As a former city councilor, she knows well that the council meets at 6 on Thursdays.)
Forum to focus on fairgrounds
By Staff Reports
3/25/2007
County Commissioner Randi Miller will hold a public meeting at 6 p.m. Thursday to discuss issues related to the fairgrounds.
The meeting will be in the cafeteria at the east end of the Exposition Center.
Among the topics for discussion will be the city's proposed annexation of the fairgrounds, ongoing con struction at the site and parking.
Miller said members of the Tulsa County Public Facilities Authority, which operates the fairgrounds, will be in attendance, as well as state Rep. Jeannie McDaniel, D-Tulsa, and Expo Square President and CEO Rick Bjorklund.
Miller, who is chairwoman of the fair board, began holding the quarterly meetings late last year to get the public's input on operations at the fairgrounds and to update people about activities there.
The meeting is not limited to residents who live near the fairgrounds, she said, and the public is free to address any issue related to the fairgrounds.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
yep, the guy they were looking for wasn't there that day, but ole kirby denied they ever even paid a visit to the site in another thread. Just be weary of taking this guy at his word.
When you posted I had no information whatsoever on a "visit" and still don't officially.
Kirby
Christainsen to oppose annexation.
From KTUL (//%22http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0307/408964.html%22)
quote:
Tulsa - A Tulsa City Councilor is voicing his opposition to the City of Tulsa annexing the Tulsa County Fairgrounds.
District 8 Councilor Bill Christiansen says it's his intention to vote against the annexation of the Tulsa County Fairgrounds. The idea was first addressed in November as a plan to save Bell's Amusement Park. But, since then, Bell's has already begun moving out and the plan is now seen as a way to allow the city to share in tax revenues.
"After wrestling for months with the issue of annexation from the perspective of a city councilor, I decided to step back and view the situation with the eyes of a citizen," Christiansen says. "The people want their leaders to work together, but annexation has become a divisive issue that threatens the cooperative working relationship we desire with our friends at the county."
Christiansen says it's his opinion that any benefit the city might get from the annexation of the fairgrounds isn't worth risking that relationship.
"Many of my constituents have expressed concern that they already pay more than enough in taxes and they view annexation as a backhanded tax increase on those who enjoy making purchases at the fairgrounds free of city sales tax."
Christiansen adds those who come to the fairgrounds make other purchases at surrounding restaurants and stores and that annexation would 'remove that enticement' and that businesses would suffer as a result.
As we told you last week, a petition is being circulated by a group called "Stop Annexation". Organizer Dan Hicks says he circulated the petition so city councilors know the people who live here don't want an additional tax at their fairgrounds.
We also spoke with Councilor John Eagleton, who told us that petition could affect the vote.
"The people who have a direct interest in the fairgrounds, who live, are neighbors of the fairgrounds, the citizens of Tulsa, I care deeply about their best interests," Eagleton said.
Councilors are scheduled to meet April fifth to discuss the annexation plan.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Christainsen to oppose annexation.
From KTUL (//%22http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0307/408964.html%22)
quote:
Tulsa - A Tulsa City Councilor is voicing his opposition to the City of Tulsa annexing the Tulsa County Fairgrounds.
District 8 Councilor Bill Christiansen says it's his intention to vote against the annexation of the Tulsa County Fairgrounds. The idea was first addressed in November as a plan to save Bell's Amusement Park. But, since then, Bell's has already begun moving out and the plan is now seen as a way to allow the city to share in tax revenues.
"After wrestling for months with the issue of annexation from the perspective of a city councilor, I decided to step back and view the situation with the eyes of a citizen," Christiansen says. "The people want their leaders to work together, but annexation has become a divisive issue that threatens the cooperative working relationship we desire with our friends at the county."
Christiansen says it's his opinion that any benefit the city might get from the annexation of the fairgrounds isn't worth risking that relationship.
"Many of my constituents have expressed concern that they already pay more than enough in taxes and they view annexation as a backhanded tax increase on those who enjoy making purchases at the fairgrounds free of city sales tax."
Christiansen adds those who come to the fairgrounds make other purchases at surrounding restaurants and stores and that annexation would 'remove that enticement' and that businesses would suffer as a result.
As we told you last week, a petition is being circulated by a group called "Stop Annexation". Organizer Dan Hicks says he circulated the petition so city councilors know the people who live here don't want an additional tax at their fairgrounds.
We also spoke with Councilor John Eagleton, who told us that petition could affect the vote.
"The people who have a direct interest in the fairgrounds, who live, are neighbors of the fairgrounds, the citizens of Tulsa, I care deeply about their best interests," Eagleton said.
Councilors are scheduled to meet April fifth to discuss the annexation plan.
The worst part about this petition is Dan Hicks is out there basically lying to people saying the city is levying a new tax.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
The worst part about this petition is Dan Hicks is out there basically lying to people saying the city is levying a new tax.
The problem is that anyone who isn't some kind of nut, isn't going to circulate a petition. Now, if someone were to circulate a pro-annexation petition, councilors would have something to look at.
Better yet, talk to the Secretary of State, get annexation organized into a referendum. It's costly and time consuming, but I believe there's a good chance it would pass.
Ooh, snap (//%22http://www.chrismedlock.com/2007/03/annexation-hicks-creates-mock-press.html%22)!
Now that OTC has revealed it would work out to about $338K (based on $11mm + in sales) in new revenue for the city it's not looking like that great a deal. Especially if the figure of $500K for TPD to provide security for the fair is accurate.
Somehow though, Roscoe still seems to think it's going to be a $1.1mm bonanza. His whole point is (loosely paraphrasing) "No one really knows how much it makes." Well, if the county and state are having a hard time figuring that little question out I don't think the city is going to do much better.
I think Roscoe needs to slink away from this one and let it die.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Now that OTC has revealed it would work out to about $338K (based on $11mm + in sales) in new revenue for the city it's not looking like that great a deal. Especially if the figure of $500K for TPD to provide security for the fair is accurate.
The city lawyer determined that it was up to the County to provide it's own security. It's not up to the city, the city won't have to pay for it, the County is spreading misinformation.
The county will still own the property, the county will still run the events, it's no different than a private entity.
From Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070330_1_A10_hThec63710%22)
quote:
The council's lawyer says the $500,000 estimated cost should not factor into any annexation decision.
The city would not be obligated to provide security during the Tulsa State Fair if Expo Square were annexed, a cost the city had thought would be about $500,000, city officials say.
City Councilor Roscoe Turner said that means the city would not lose money if it annexed the county fairgrounds, based on a recent estimate from the Oklaho ma Tax Commission that collection of the city's 3 percent sales tax there would amount to only $338,000.
"The county has been telling us from day one that we would have to provide security for their event, and we know that is not true," Turner said.
The $500,000 cost for security was included in a January report commissioned by Mayor Kathy Taylor. The report estimated sales-tax collections ranging from $389,000 to $1.1 million without figuring in the $500,000 for security during the fair.
Budget Director Pat Connelly said the cost for security was included in the report because Tulsa County Sheriff Stanley Glanz said it would be the city's responsibility.
The report stated that the issue of security would have to be resolved
by elected officials.
Turner said it is clear that there is no security cost and that "the $500,000 is really a phantom figure."
He said the $500,000 actually should be looked at as possible additional funds if the county decided to contract with the city for police security.
Council Attorney Drew Rees said he found that the city has no special obligation to provide security for any event at the fairgrounds, including the two-week Tulsa State Fair held each fall.
There has to be some sort of cost-shift to the city on this. I get the point the county will not lose any revenue at all. They will still get their taxes and event fees, but this can't possibly be a free-ride for the city.
I'm just envisioning this: the city pushes through annexation, relying on the city attorney's opinion on security. Then there is a protracted court battle and the city winds up stuck with security after-all.
The County has been spreading misinformation about this from day one. I saw the newscast last night, (I would have been there, but I had a prior commitment) it looked like a really low turnout, maybe the County is misrepresenting the opposition to this, too.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
There has to be some sort of cost-shift to the city on this. I get the point the county will not lose any revenue at all. They will still get their taxes and event fees, but this can't possibly be a free-ride for the city.
I'm just envisioning this: the city pushes through annexation, relying on the city attorney's opinion on security. Then there is a protracted court battle and the city winds up stuck with security after-all.
Why would they? Does the city provide security (
security, not law enforcement -- there's a difference) at Promenade Mall? At St. Francis Hospital? They're both within city limits.
quote:
Originally posted by Kiah
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
There has to be some sort of cost-shift to the city on this. I get the point the county will not lose any revenue at all. They will still get their taxes and event fees, but this can't possibly be a free-ride for the city.
I'm just envisioning this: the city pushes through annexation, relying on the city attorney's opinion on security. Then there is a protracted court battle and the city winds up stuck with security after-all.
Why would they? Does the city provide security (security, not law enforcement -- there's a difference) at Promenade Mall? At St. Francis Hospital? They're both within city limits.
Kiah, that's what I get for taking a news story hook-line-&-sinker w/o fully checking it out. It's not my normal M.O.
Seems like in the past at the fair, I see sherrif's deputies out in full force patrolling the fair. Maybe I am mistaking them for security guards. Maybe the news story made me hallucinate.[;)]
Perhaps some clarification is in order, does the TCSD not presently provide security for the fair? Or is that the point that Tulsa County puts on the fair, and they are responsible for security and they have used the TCSD in the past for that responsibility?
Even if that is the case, somehow, I just don't see how this is a complete free-ride for the city. If it is, $338K would just about cover the requested raises for our city council and the attendant payroll costs associated with it. Zero sum gain for the citizens of Tulsa.
If there was $1.1mm hiding out there on the fairgrounds for the taking I'd think the OTC would have been able to identify it.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Kiah
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
There has to be some sort of cost-shift to the city on this. I get the point the county will not lose any revenue at all. They will still get their taxes and event fees, but this can't possibly be a free-ride for the city.
I'm just envisioning this: the city pushes through annexation, relying on the city attorney's opinion on security. Then there is a protracted court battle and the city winds up stuck with security after-all.
Why would they? Does the city provide security (security, not law enforcement -- there's a difference) at Promenade Mall? At St. Francis Hospital? They're both within city limits.
Kiah, that's what I get for taking a news story hook-line-&-sinker w/o fully checking it out. It's not my normal M.O.
Seems like in the past at the fair, I see sherrif's deputies out in full force patrolling the fair. Maybe I am mistaking them for security guards. Maybe the news story made me hallucinate.[;)]
Perhaps some clarification is in order, does the TCSD not presently provide security for the fair? Or is that the point that Tulsa County puts on the fair, and they are responsible for security and they have used the TCSD in the past for that responsibility?
Even if that is the case, somehow, I just don't see how this is a complete free-ride for the city. If it is, $338K would just about cover the requested raises for our city council and the attendant payroll costs associated with it. Zero sum gain for the citizens of Tulsa.
If there was $1.1mm hiding out there on the fairgrounds for the taking I'd think the OTC would have been able to identify it.
Don't back down Conan. You're correct. The city attorney made an "opinion". He also made the "opinion" that the Native Americans have no legal interest in the river. They don't buy it either. Expect lawsuits to clarify both issues. Legal opinions are like the weather reports.
Nice try comparing Promendade with the fair Kiah. But no donuts for you. The police do provide regular law enforcement to a private entity. The Fairgrounds is not private and won't be private when the city annexes it. It is effectively owned by the taxpayers. Now if the city (taxpayers) owned the land Promenade operates on you may have a closer comparison.
The crux is that the city does not think they have to provide the same level of security that the county has found necessary for the fair crowds. [B)] They would cost shift that security cost to the promoters of the fair and other events like they do for events on city property. The result? The promoters will either reduce the quality of their production or increase the cost to the consumer. Bet on that. It then becomes obvious that the annexation will indeed be a subtle form of tax increase passed off as a "cost shift".
Here's another fact that is at play. When you produce a festival on public property, lets say...River Parks, a city-county property...you are required to provide your own security at your own cost. They strongly encourage you to use the security they always use because of their familiarity with practices & procedures. Otherwise they will have to pass scrutiny by the authority meaning more time & money. Who are these security personnel? Off duty city police and county deputies. Oh.
Do you all even know what annexation is? It's not in any way a transfer of ownership. If the city annexes the fairgrounds, it will simply come within city limits. It will still be owned by the county and operated by the Tulsa County Public Facilities Authority. It would be in precisely the same situation as the Promenade - relative to the city.
I think you may be confusing annexation with eminent domain (condemnation).
quote:
Originally posted by Kiah
Do you all even know what annexation is? It's not in any way a transfer of ownership. If the city annexes the fairgrounds, it will simply come within city limits. It will still be owned by the county and operated by the Tulsa County Public Facilities Authority. It would be in precisely the same situation as the Promenade - relative to the city.
I think you may be confusing annexation with eminent domain (condemnation).
Do you know what patronizing means? Why do you keep saying it doesn't change ownership when no one is asserting that? The Promenade is indeed within the city limits but is not owned by a public authority therefore is quite different than the annexation of the fairgrounds. It is private property. Don't fuzz it up with eminent domain talk. Obviously different and again, patronizing. Please stop assuming, like AA, that everyone is simply uninformed, poorly educated or just plain wrong. It might be you who misunderstands.
Most people on this forum thought it was a slam dunk, obvious proposition. Now the idea may not even pass muster with the council itself. I guess they all just don't understand.
Well H2O.... Seemed like you were on a roll there...
Keep rollin..
One note.... that does not even amount to a single donut..
The City Attorney that gave the "Opinion on River Ownership" and the City Attorney giving this opinion... are not one in the same...
For a fair comparison that is......
quote:
Originally posted by ricecake
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Kiah
Do you all even know what annexation is? It's not in any way a transfer of ownership. If the city annexes the fairgrounds, it will simply come within city limits. It will still be owned by the county and operated by the Tulsa County Public Facilities Authority. It would be in precisely the same situation as the Promenade - relative to the city.
I think you may be confusing annexation with eminent domain (condemnation).
Do you know what patronizing means? Why do you keep saying it doesn't change ownership when no one is asserting that? The Promenade is indeed within the city limits but is not owned by a public authority therefore is quite different than the annexation of the fairgrounds. It is private property. Don't fuzz it up with eminent domain talk. Obviously different and again, patronizing. Please stop assuming, like AA, that everyone is simply uninformed, poorly educated or just plain wrong. It might be you who misunderstands.
Most people on this forum thought it was a slam dunk, obvious proposition. Now the idea may not even pass muster with the council itself. I guess they all just don't understand.
Let's use a county owned & operated property that is already annexed into the city - say, LaFortune Park - for a hypothetical example.
If a jogger running along the park path gets mugged, then obviously, the Tulsa Police has jurisdiction and responsibility to respond and enforce the law.
But say the county wants to hold a massive jog-a-thon at LaFortune. The Tulsa Police would have jurisdiction and be required to respond to emergencies; but there is nothing that would force them to automatically provide free security for this county sponsored event. It would be the same if any other organization were holding a jog-a-thon at LaFortune.
After annexation the TPD would have jurisdiction over the fairgrounds, but security for special events - whether it is the Tulsa State Fair or a gunshow - rests on the producer of the event.
And isn't it TPD that would be on the news when "disturbances" happened at Bells?
And doesn't the city maintain all the streets around the fairgrounds?
The city deserves the taxes and the effort to stop annexation is just sour grapes by Randi Miller who is bitter she isn't mayor and doesn't have Bob Dick's pull.
quote:
Originally posted by Kiah
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
There has to be some sort of cost-shift to the city on this. I get the point the county will not lose any revenue at all. They will still get their taxes and event fees, but this can't possibly be a free-ride for the city.
I'm just envisioning this: the city pushes through annexation, relying on the city attorney's opinion on security. Then there is a protracted court battle and the city winds up stuck with security after-all.
Why would they? Does the city provide security (security, not law enforcement -- there's a difference) at Promenade Mall? At St. Francis Hospital? They're both within city limits.
The City does not provide security to the Promenade the officers work for the theatre and are paid by them....They are allowed to wear their uniforms while woking security jobs for private companies....
quote:
Originally posted by Kiah
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
There has to be some sort of cost-shift to the city on this. I get the point the county will not lose any revenue at all. They will still get their taxes and event fees, but this can't possibly be a free-ride for the city.
I'm just envisioning this: the city pushes through annexation, relying on the city attorney's opinion on security. Then there is a protracted court battle and the city winds up stuck with security after-all.
Why would they? Does the city provide security (security, not law enforcement -- there's a difference) at Promenade Mall? At St. Francis Hospital? They're both within city limits.
You have to look at 'events' this way. Does the event close a city street? If so, the event sponsor submits an application to the city's special event committee, who approves or disapproves (usually approves), then the event application goes to the Mayor and finally the city council for approval. Part of that process makes the event sponsor responsible for police necessary to close the streets (police are hired, then the city sends a bill to the sponsor). Two events usually get their police services waived (or paid by the city, however you want to look at it); MLK Parade and the Vets Day Parade.
Events that don't close a road are responsible for their own security. I'm not aware of any law that says an event, whether it be a book fair at Holland Hall or Octoberfest, must hire their own security. Most events do just to put on a safer event.
While the event sponsor is responsible for their own event security, police will still be responsible for law enforcement both inside and outside the event. If an arrest needs to be made, an on-duty law enforcement person must still make the arrest.
And talking about event security/law enforcement, look at the upcoming PGA. The city will be giving untold numbers of police officers dedicated to the streets around the event, all at no cost to the PGA (The PGA hires their own 'inside the fence' security). Just depends how much stroke your event has as to how much city services you will be given.
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
Well H2O.... Seemed like you were on a roll there...
Keep rollin..
One note.... that does not even amount to a single donut..
The City Attorney that gave the "Opinion on River Ownership" and the City Attorney giving this opinion... are not one in the same...
For a fair comparison that is......
That would be fairer. Does the city attorney serve at the pleasure of the Mayor? Hmmm.
Regardless of the reasoning for why this effort is happening at this time, the motivations of the personalities involved and the fairness of tax collections, no one has effectively refuted the claim that Conan and I have made:
"The crux is that the city does not think they have to provide the same level of security that the county has found necessary for the fair crowds. They would cost shift that security cost to the promoters of the fair and other events like they do for events on city property. The result? The promoters will either reduce the quality of their production or increase the cost to the consumer. Bet on that. It then becomes obvious that the annexation will indeed be a subtle form of tax increase passed off as a 'cost shift'."
Its not that they legally have to provide that level of security, obviously they don't, its that they don't feel it necessary in order for the events on the fairgrounds to be successful. They see it as a freebie given by the county that should be charged to the promoters. But operationally, as Kiah notes, that isn't their decision to make. Granted this is all fomented by the County Sheriff's determination that they need not provide that level of security since the city is jumping into their "swimming pool". Throw the man a bone. Or a preserver as the analogy demands.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
Well H2O.... Seemed like you were on a roll there...
Keep rollin..
One note.... that does not even amount to a single donut..
The City Attorney that gave the "Opinion on River Ownership" and the City Attorney giving this opinion... are not one in the same...
For a fair comparison that is......
That would be fairer. Does the city attorney serve at the pleasure of the Mayor? Hmmm.
Regardless of the reasoning for why this effort is happening at this time, the motivations of the personalities involved and the fairness of tax collections, no one has effectively refuted the claim that Conan and I have made:
"The crux is that the city does not think they have to provide the same level of security that the county has found necessary for the fair crowds. They would cost shift that security cost to the promoters of the fair and other events like they do for events on city property. The result? The promoters will either reduce the quality of their production or increase the cost to the consumer. Bet on that. It then becomes obvious that the annexation will indeed be a subtle form of tax increase passed off as a 'cost shift'."
Its not that they legally have to provide that level of security, obviously they don't, its that they don't feel it necessary in order for the events on the fairgrounds to be successful. They see it as a freebie given by the county that should be charged to the promoters. But operationally, as Kiah notes, that isn't their decision to make. Granted this is all fomented by the County Sheriff's determination that they need not provide that level of security since the city is jumping into their "swimming pool". Throw the man a bone. Or a preserver as the analogy demands.
If the county so decides, since they will retain ownership of the fairgrounds, they still can be the security force for any or all events there, that does not change. Just like the county is the security force in the County Courthouse, which is also inside (annexed) the city but is owned by the county. The jail is run just the same way.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Rico
Well H2O.... Seemed like you were on a roll there...
Keep rollin..
One note.... that does not even amount to a single donut..
The City Attorney that gave the "Opinion on River Ownership" and the City Attorney giving this opinion... are not one in the same...
For a fair comparison that is......
That would be fairer. Does the city attorney serve at the pleasure of the Mayor? Hmmm.
Regardless of the reasoning for why this effort is happening at this time, the motivations of the personalities involved and the fairness of tax collections, no one has effectively refuted the claim that Conan and I have made:
"The crux is that the city does not think they have to provide the same level of security that the county has found necessary for the fair crowds. They would cost shift that security cost to the promoters of the fair and other events like they do for events on city property. The result? The promoters will either reduce the quality of their production or increase the cost to the consumer. Bet on that. It then becomes obvious that the annexation will indeed be a subtle form of tax increase passed off as a 'cost shift'."
Its not that they legally have to provide that level of security, obviously they don't, its that they don't feel it necessary in order for the events on the fairgrounds to be successful. They see it as a freebie given by the county that should be charged to the promoters. But operationally, as Kiah notes, that isn't their decision to make. Granted this is all fomented by the County Sheriff's determination that they need not provide that level of security since the city is jumping into their "swimming pool". Throw the man a bone. Or a preserver as the analogy demands.
If the county so decides, since they will retain ownership of the fairgrounds, they still can be the security force for any or all events there, that does not change. Just like the county is the security force in the County Courthouse, which is also inside (annexed) the city but is owned by the county. The jail is run just the same way.
Exactly right. The operative word is "can". It was the county sheriff's determination that this case of annexation would preclude him from providing, at county expense, that level of security. I was never clear on what state law he based that on. But, I believe there is a sense of personalities clashing here rather than law. The sarcastic remarks that Turner made, such as, "we'll be glad to show you how to get those details..." etc. implying dishonesty or malfeasance were enough to raise the hackles of any self respecting public entity. And they did.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Its not that they legally have to provide that level of security, obviously they don't,
Period.
quote:
its that they don't feel it necessary in order for the events on the fairgrounds to be successful. They see it as a freebie given by the county that should be charged to the promoters. But operationally, as Kiah notes, that isn't their decision to make. Granted this is all fomented by the County Sheriff's determination that they need not provide that level of security since the city is jumping into their "swimming pool". Throw the man a bone. Or a preserver as the analogy demands.
Outside of the normal police and fire protection that any other square block of Tulsa is entitled to, Expo would have no special status that requires the City to do anything in regards to security at Expo, or at Expo events. They don't provide security for Mayfest or Octoberfest (on city property), yet security in some form exists. Either the County is furnishing security as part of it's current events structure at Expo (already figured in to rental fees, usage fees, taxes, normal Sheriff's Dep't Operating Expenses, etc), or they are contracting themselves to provide security (in one lump sum).
Annexing the property does not allow the County to abdicate all responsiblity for it's property and it's events. If the County is trying to say they plan on letting Expo go to hell if it's annexed, so be it.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Its not that they legally have to provide that level of security, obviously they don't,
Period.
quote:
its that they don't feel it necessary in order for the events on the fairgrounds to be successful. They see it as a freebie given by the county that should be charged to the promoters. But operationally, as Kiah notes, that isn't their decision to make. Granted this is all fomented by the County Sheriff's determination that they need not provide that level of security since the city is jumping into their "swimming pool". Throw the man a bone. Or a preserver as the analogy demands.
Outside of the normal police and fire protection that any other square block of Tulsa is entitled to, Expo would have no special status that requires the City to do anything in regards to security at Expo, or at Expo events. They don't provide security for Mayfest or Octoberfest (on city property), yet security in some form exists. Either the County is furnishing security as part of it's current events structure at Expo (already figured in to rental fees, usage fees, taxes, normal Sheriff's Dep't Operating Expenses, etc), or they are contracting themselves to provide security (in one lump sum).
Annexing the property does not allow the County to abdicate all responsiblity for it's property and it's events. If the County is trying to say they plan on letting Expo go to hell if it's annexed, so be it.
One wonders if it is worth posting if no one reads them. Read my posts without defensiveness, in other words, an open mind. The only thing you seem to have understood is that the security level provided is most likely figured into fees.
The annexing does not "allow" them to abdicate responsibility? Neither does it preclude them from doing so. Its simply a business decision with business ramifications. It is obvious the city does not have to provide extra security for private festivals, they force the promoters to pay which is passed on in the form of increased booth rent, concessionaires fees etc. YOU pay for that increase. Off duty officers are paid for providing it.
The county provides that security level for the fair and if they decide that they won't in the case of annexation, well, they won't. Their budget, their choice. The city can provide it or if forced to, the promoters will, but it will be passed on to the consumer and have an effect on profitability.
Look for the subtext of what's going on. The legal details are beyond this forum.
Again: If the County is trying to say they plan on letting Expo go to hell if it's annexed, so be it. That's your entire argument waterboy, that the County is so demented that it will just take a big dump on itself possibly in order to spite the City.
How does one argue that the County is NOT in to ritualistic suicide? Call BS on it? That's all I'm seeing so far, a very weak "shotgun" anti-annexation attack throwing out hypotheticals that assume zero County responsibility, and zero concern on the County level for their own events and property.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Look for the subtext of what's going on. The legal details are beyond this forum.
You've already stated that "obviously" the City will not be obligated to provide security. Whatever other legal ramifications you can think of, feel free to bring them up.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Again: If the County is trying to say they plan on letting Expo go to hell if it's annexed, so be it. That's your entire argument waterboy, that the County is so demented that it will just take a big dump on itself possibly in order to spite the City.
How does one argue that the County is NOT in to ritualistic suicide? Call BS on it? That's all I'm seeing so far, a very weak "shotgun" anti-annexation attack throwing out hypotheticals that assume zero County responsibility, and zero concern on the County level for their own events and property.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Look for the subtext of what's going on. The legal details are beyond this forum.
You've already stated that "obviously" the City will not be obligated to provide security. Whatever other legal ramifications you can think of, feel free to bring them up.
Not just that, but the county is not a business.
If they abdicate responsibility then as citizens the solution is to vote the bastards out.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Again: If the County is trying to say they plan on letting Expo go to hell if it's annexed, so be it. That's your entire argument waterboy, that the County is so demented that it will just take a big dump on itself possibly in order to spite the City.
How does one argue that the County is NOT in to ritualistic suicide? Call BS on it? That's all I'm seeing so far, a very weak "shotgun" anti-annexation attack throwing out hypotheticals that assume zero County responsibility, and zero concern on the County level for their own events and property.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Look for the subtext of what's going on. The legal details are beyond this forum.
You've already stated that "obviously" the City will not be obligated to provide security. Whatever other legal ramifications you can think of, feel free to bring them up.
Not just that, but the county is not a business.
If they abdicate responsibility then as citizens the solution is to vote the bastards out.
Listen up boys. Back during the 80's everyone jumped on the bandwagon to have government run more like business using people with business experience. That is what happened and now you think they should act like public servants? They operate like businessmen because most of them are.
Michael, you make an assumption of what the county is going to do, "let the fairgrounds go to hell..." and then attack them and me for something neither one of us assert. Nice. That is not my argument at all but if it was, I wouldn't have the skills necessary to write this sentence. The rest of your remarks are akin to yelling from the grandstands.
Using the word abdication is a red herring. Swake, you know that. There is no legal responsibility by either city or county to provide the LEVEL of security presently afforded to the fair without extra fees. Note the tepid response by TPD on this issue? The officers stand to make some good freelance pay if the city succeeds and the county holds firm on not providing the LEVEL of security the public is used to. This is a struggle between two powerful public entities, neither one of which looks very professional at the moment. And for such a meager return as per both city and state predictions.
Imagine for a moment that you are a director of a government bureau and the director of another bureau, who's budget is shrinking, makes a play to grab off some of your budget because he thinks you:
a. Can't ably defend yourself
b. Are not in good standing with the public
c. May not be in complete control of your operation
Both parties are public servants with healthy ego's and capable. Do you:
a. Admit your weaknesses and for the good of the public bend over and take one for the team
b. Question the motives and operations of your attackers with some measure of defensiveness
c. Use all that you have learned in politics to defend your territory and send the attacker away with tail between legs
Well, what do you do?
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Again: If the County is trying to say they plan on letting Expo go to hell if it's annexed, so be it. That's your entire argument waterboy, that the County is so demented that it will just take a big dump on itself possibly in order to spite the City.
How does one argue that the County is NOT in to ritualistic suicide? Call BS on it? That's all I'm seeing so far, a very weak "shotgun" anti-annexation attack throwing out hypotheticals that assume zero County responsibility, and zero concern on the County level for their own events and property.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Look for the subtext of what's going on. The legal details are beyond this forum.
You've already stated that "obviously" the City will not be obligated to provide security. Whatever other legal ramifications you can think of, feel free to bring them up.
Not just that, but the county is not a business.
If they abdicate responsibility then as citizens the solution is to vote the bastards out.
Stick a fork in Randi Miller, she's done. Too bad there won't be a Medlock/Miller Republican primary. I'd buy tickets to that.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Stick a fork in Randi Miller, she's done. Too bad there won't be a Medlock/Miller Republican primary. I'd buy tickets to that.
Has Miller always been this way? I don't remember her being so media hungry during LaFortune's term.
Let the posters sit in the Jury Box. Sort out the intertwining of which is obligatory on both taxpayer holdings [city and county] that has other effects on who is in control of all areas within the city limits. The right of private ownership is protected by many laws. The rights of private ownership is not to be taken likely whereas it is extended into the lease agreements.
The business has the responsibility of security within the confines of the building they own or lease. This could also include private parking areas owned and patrolled by the owner or leasers of the building or areas that is used for business purposes. The easement extends from the property line to the middle of the street. That part of the easement that is used for sidewalks and street purposes is obligatory on the city to secure that area for the citizen as an obligation of the charter issued by the state officers. It becomes duty for the city to maintain the streets as well as any parking area on public owned lands within the city.
The city annexes the fair grounds. Security will be furnish by the leaser within building or area the same as if it were a shopping center. It will become an obligation of the city to maintain all the parking area and streets within the fence that is for public use. Due to the fact there no residents inside the fence, then the city will not receive money from the road tax fund.
Due to it being a public domain the cost will revert to the city to secure and maintain the roads/ streets/ parking areas in the fair grounds. This can and possibility be decided by the courts. The reporters have many records of case law of obligation in the same area.
When we annex the fair grounds we take on many obligations or if possible we must suspend nearly all the ordinances that cover the areas that are in the Tulsa public domain. Nuisance control to inspections to RV's, to camp trailers, to live stock will become obsolete. The standing ordinances will become an infringement of the rights of all the county residents.
When the fence line it taken down, that separates the two governmental domains, the city says they do not want to control the fair grounds but the conflict of interest of who will furnish what will be the starting point for litigation through the courts that cost the taxpayers millions of dollars.
Tulsa only wants the sales taxes but they do not want the obligation that goes with the collection. In the end it could have standing in the court but when we take the fence down the expense to the taxpayer could and possible will outdistance any income Tulsa will get or is entitle too. It would only take another $2 dollars on the water billing to run the fair grounds sales tax collection as we are hell bent on annexing.
The city attorney has an opinion but why do we have to hire outside attorneys to do their work when the city goes to court?
Perhaps my paradigm is too entrenched in "There is no free lunch."
The council is trying to fast-track this deal and that concerns me. I just don't think it's going to turn into this free, huge revenue bonanza that Roscoe keeps saying it is. Even if it's worth $1mm+ in new revenue as Roscoe believes, that works out to .2% of our annual budget.
OTC seems to believe it will be a third of Roscoe's projections. Sales tax enforcement at trade shows and the fair is going to be very difficult, especially at a gun show like this last weekend with hundreds of vendors. The only thing easily traceable is concessions sales. Either that, or put a tax on every admission to an event.
Attorneys get taken to task in court every day over their legal opinions and are frequently proven wrong.
Maybe I'm just too obtuse to be able to see the great benefit as others are seeing in this. I just fail to see how this is such a great no-strings attached deal.
I actually agree there. Sales tax enforcement could be somewhat difficult. I would suspect that the OTC numbers are based on known figures, rather than "pie in the sky figures", but who knows. I suspect that currently, there is far more money being exchanged there, than is being taxed.
Of course, quite frankly, many small businesses already inside city limits can get away with it, and do. I don't know how much that argument is worth, since enforcement is already a likely issue in this City.
As for the "no free lunch" deal, it's not much different from annexing a shopping center, like Sapulpa did with Town West. They did indeed build a fire department closer to the area, taxes went considerably higher (they're higher in Sapulpa than here), and even though business owners complained a bunch, Town West seems to be managing just fine.
About the only way to be able to enforce the collection of tax from vendors at trade shows is to make an assessment based on the size of booth space. That being said, it's unfair to vendors who don't have a good weekend, whilst the biggest grossers are assessed the same amount as the ones who made less revenue.
Getting 700 vendors to track and properly account for mostly cash sales would be a huge enforcement cluster-f#$%.
This is exactly the same issue that the City faces as it tries to collect sales tax from many businesses currently inside city limits. It's not a new concept. Cash is not easily traceable.
Sales tax is the vendor's responsibility, not the County's. Outside of doing something completely arbitrary and illegal, there's no real way for the City to impose it's will on the County to enforce sales tax. The City will get what it gets, just like always.
I'm not sure what the run in to enforcement is about, because it really doesn't change anything.
In Townwest the parking and building are private property which is subject to annexing. The fair grounds is of another breed as a public domain established under the Oklahoma Constitution where the city is established as a approved public domain subject to regulations of the OSS on what its responsibilities are.
It is assumed that the governor when approving a charter would also retain the authority to suspend or revoke or dissolve the charter should the city become insolvent or corrupt, thus the county through regimental progression would take over the administration of the vacated city domain. At present we have two authorities, of a very similar breed, where the lesser is invading the domain of the other.
The county receives a little over ½ of the amount of sales taxes from the area that the city wants to collect under the guise of a no obligation compact.
The caving in of the black councilors on the EMSA tax would indicate a deal is underway to insure the annexing of the fair grounds. Let the Gladiators enter the field of battle.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
This is exactly the same issue that the City faces as it tries to collect sales tax from many businesses currently inside city limits. It's not a new concept. Cash is not easily traceable.
Sales tax is the vendor's responsibility, not the County's. Outside of doing something completely arbitrary and illegal, there's no real way for the City to impose it's will on the County to enforce sales tax. The City will get what it gets, just like always.
I'm not sure what the run in to enforcement is about, because it really doesn't change anything.
It's not incumbent on the city to collect it. The OTC does and remits a check to the city and county for their shares. OTC doesn't employ near enough people to police proper tax collection.
Large retailers aren't the problem, it's smaller proprietorships that tend to skirt sales taxes with cash sales.
<Conan wrote:
Large retailers aren't the problem, it's smaller proprietorships that tend to skirt sales taxes with cash sales.
<end clip>
Bingo. I have little doubt that the Tulsa State Fair alone is a sales-tax cash cow. You've got a million people visiting there, for Pete's sake.
But when you have a bazillion merchants to keep track of, who's gonna enforce the tax collections?
Didn't this whole thing get started when Bell's lease got cancelled?
I can't understand why they are still going to do this.
More taxes and gunshows and less visible law enforcement at the fair are what I am hearing on radio ads.
I sure hope that's not true. Why are they doing this? You know, if it ain't broke...
--
BTW, is this going to pass? Are there any councilmembers opposed?
Sorry if these are redundant questions, but I don't have time at the moment to read this entire thread.
The Bell's thing and annexation issue are not related.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawkins
BTW, is this going to pass?
I'd give it a 50/50 chance of happening. But I haven't really been keeping up with it all too much.
quote:
Are there any councilmembers opposed?
Yes, Christiansen says he'll oppose it, the same Christiansen that called annexation a "no brainer" a few months ago. He jumped around like a pair of froglegs on a hot skillet as soon as a few people (some from outside city limits) started circulating petitions and putting the pressure on.
Not certain on anyone else. I'd assume there will be more, maybe enough to kill it. The longer this takes, the more likely it is to die.
I thought Bell's was the reason Roscoe initially approached the idea.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
The Bell's thing and annexation issue are not related.
I could of swore that originally this idea came up as an idea to save Bell's, but then developed into a 'hey, why don't we do it anyway--for the tax money' sort of thing.
The County came out fighting at the idea of annexation. Annexation came up at the same time the County was kicking Bell's out, and the County made a major attempt to connect the two. Stating that "the City is only trying to save Bells", and that "Annexation wouldn't change anything in regards to Bell's".
If Turner was under the impression that this had anything to do with Bell's, that impression was stomped within a few days after the idea of annexation surfaced. They've gone on for over a year I believe on this issue, knowing full well it has nothing to do with Bell's.
Yeah, I couldn't imagine what annexation would have to do with Bell's anyway. Even if the city annexed the fairgrounds, it wouldn't affect the county's lease with Bell's. At the very best, it was nothing more than a nonrelated wedge issue.
I wonder if the individuals in the city administration are trying to level the playing field between the new arena and convention center and the fair grounds. Once the arena and convention center are done, they may try and compete for some of the events that are currently held at the fair grounds.
quote:
Originally posted by ricecake
The current motel on the Expo Square property presently does not pay the 3% city sales tax nor the 5% city hotel/motel tax. An 8% advantage.
Or an 8% disadvantage to the City, depending on how you look at it.
The County could build Woodland Hills Freakin Mall out there, plunder the city, and you guys would still love it.
To read an interview with Tulsa County Sheriff Stanley Glanz click on the link below.
http://www.tulsatoday.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1209&Itemid=2
Tulsa has every interest in ongoing affairs of the fairgrounds. Besides being wholly well within the City, surrounded by literally miles of City in all directions.
What gets built there, on the old Bell's site and potentially at the Drillers' site (if they move downtown) means the City should have some say it whether it a strip club or a casino, a highrise hotel or a auto race track.
Without being part of the City, the City would have NO input at all.
Annexation is correct, even if potential revenues are minimal.
W quoted
Tulsa has every interest in ongoing affairs of the fairgrounds. Besides being wholly well within the City, surrounded by literally miles of City in all directions.
________________________________________________
The fair grounds that established as the Rural farmer fair and was well outside the city. The city surrounded the grounds long after it was built as a county farmer fair At the time no one ever thought the city would extend to the east that far.
Let Tulsa build themselves a city fair grounds .
Come to think of it they are building a glass arena. They have a hangup on glass in tornado alley ,
d
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Tulsa has every interest in ongoing affairs of the fairgrounds. Besides being wholly well within the City, surrounded by literally miles of City in all directions.
What gets built there, on the old Bell's site and potentially at the Drillers' site (if they move downtown) means the City should have some say it whether it a strip club or a casino, a highrise hotel or a auto race track.
Without being part of the City, the City would have NO input at all.
Annexation is correct, even if potential revenues are minimal.
It becomes incorrect though if expenses outstrip the revenue, it just becomes another sink-hole for our tax dollars. Only time will tell, and I'll be happy to say I was wrong on it, if it does turn into a boon.
I'd go so far as to suggest it appropriate even with a negative cash flow.
However, I fully expect that is not nearly the case.
It will make for some interesting politics, however. County now has to play by many of the same rules the rest of the citizens of Tulsa must conform.
County has always assumed a superior position between City and State when they are really parallel. Or, should be, at least in this case when they're so integrated into the City.
I wonder if the county and some of the show operators, the gun shows for example, are not afraid so much of extra sales taxes being charged, but of city (police) oversight of things like tax collections at all and the validity of sales at gun shows.
The counties cries never made sense and when placed in context with the treatment of Bells and the no-bid contract with Murphy Brothers for the fair for ten years it may be it's Tulsa Police jurisdiction they may be most fearful of.
^ Bingo.
Being an infrequent patron of the smaller and larger gun shows at the fairgrounds, I don't think there is less enforcement of gun laws under county auspices. The Sheriff's department has a presense at the shows and has just as much obligation and authority to enforce state and federal gun laws as the TPD would. Now whether or not there are separate city firearms ordinances which would need to be enforced under annexation, I don't know.
Gun dealers seem to call in for background checks on purchasers, private collectors don't.
Not being a vendor at those shows, I can't speak as to enforcement of sales tax collection. I do know when I've bought a gun, "sales tax" was figured into the price. Whether or not that vendor properly reported the sales price and remitted the tax to the appropriate authority is another issue.
As an observer, the enforcement of proper and accurate sales tax collection would be a daunting task when you have a show with 500+ vendors and a lot of the business is done in cash.
That goes back to my point of payroll for tax enforcement. What's a reasonible work-load per officer to audit every last vendor prior to leaving the building at the end of the show? Do you have 10 officers or agents to each audit 50 vendors, or 20 to audit 25, or????
^^^^
What's the County doing now to assure proper tax collection for their taxes?
I don't think the City would expect anything more (or much more) than is currently being done by the County.
...at least, if they're doing what would be considered proper in the first place.
This isn't a new problem.
That's been my whole point all along in disputing Councilor Turner's dream of un-told riches. By Roscoe's logic of $1.1mm in tax revenue the city will raise, that means that there would be over $33mm in taxable sales a year at the FG. Three times what the fair board, county, and OTC seem to agree is there now. Roscoe's revenue forcast is based on it being easy to track and collect taxes on all sales.
Enforcement of sales tax on transient vendors (i.e. anyone other than contract concessionaires on the FG) is difficult to assess and enforce. Every sale at a snack bar in the Expo building is rung through a cash register, there's a paper trail. I believe that's the case at Driller's stadium, Pavillion, and the flea market snack bar. Not so with individual vendors at various shows and markets.
Why does the city think it's going to do a better job of collecting these taxes from transient vendors than the county is without additional expendidtures to collect it? Without having an officer or agent for the tax-collecting authority assigned to each vendor to observe every sale, it's impossible to collect all revenue which is taxable. Same problem with brick and mortar small business, it's an honor system that many flaunt and with cash sales, there's no paper-trail.
Having say in what is built on the fairgrounds is one thing. Creating another place for the city to spend money is quite another. Jumping to annexation without thoroughly studying what the city's obligations will be seemed awful premature to me. I guess we will find out in another year if it is a boon or boondoggle. I hope I'm wrong and it is a great bonanza for the city.
Fine then.
We can also take some comfort in the fact that dis-annexation is as easy as annexation.
If in the course of a year or two, there arise insurmountable issues, post it twice to the Council Agenda and vote it out.
Case closed.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
^^^^
What's the County doing now to assure proper tax collection for their taxes?
I don't think the City would expect anything more (or much more) than is currently being done by the County.
...at least, if they're doing what would be considered proper in the first place.
This isn't a new problem.
It is neither the County nor the City's responsibility nor charge to oversee the collection of sales tax by vendors. By statute, that task falls to the Oklahoma Tax Commission.
The good councilor Turner possibly will suggest that we annex the Oklahoma Tax Commission then we could find all that money that is hidden by adding another 100 inspectors.
Having filed the sales tax forms separating the city of delivery and rural areas for 3% compensation, became an overwhelming obligation.
The weekend, semi-yearly or yearly vender that unloads and loads the items he wants to sell, would welcome a free-be collector standing by to collect the tax.
We could annex the city cited in the morning paper and appoint the councilor as a committee of one to operate it before the county, as a superior governing body, revokes their city status.
quote:
It is neither the County nor the City's responsibility nor charge to collect sales tax. By statute, that task falls to the Oklahoma Tax Commission.
Of course, that is, except where the County itself is obligated to collect sales tax on it's own sales.
We do know for sure whatever process it is isn't so encumbering as to prevent the County from assessing their $0.01+, so for three times the money it should be 1/3rd the effort.
quote:
We could annex the city cited in the morning paper and appoint the councilor as a committee of one to operate it before the county, as a superior governing body, revokes their city status.
They already tried that with the bridge. It didn't fly then either.
BTW, the County isn't a 'superior' anything.
If you're referring to the Tullahassee deal, it's the State in charge and State violations. The County, like Cities, are subdivisions of State government.
Not to mention Tulsa is a Charter City. Logic is the first casualty of desperate minds.
The County may need to be more worried our Mayor may initiate a gun ban altogether, thus, eliminating Gun Shows with it.
While I doubt this could ever happen, I do know, from our Mayor's participation in The Bloomberg Bunch that her mindset is more that direction.
Then, of course, sooner or later they're going to have to come up with a use for that big arena. If they start stealing shows from the County, I'd be disappointed. Hard to tell what this bunch will do when they get desperate, though.
The counties were established by the State Construction and the Cities are created by the pleasure of the State by Charter to operate as a governing body within the State which does not create the 78th county. Course some believe that Tulsa/Williams State was created as the 51st State.