I heard on KRMG this morning that the city is running a little short on cash.
What a brilliant time for Ms. Taylor's cronies at-will employees to get a raise and for the counselor's to seek the same.
That's some "CEO" we got there.
If you recall, the city was short on cash when LaFortuna was mayor, as well. It's a problem we've had for a while
That's just about the only reason we're talking about annexing the Fairgrounds. Sources for city revenue are somewhat limited. And for the last few years, some sources are not growing at the rate they normally would.
C'mon oklahoma lawmakers, let the city get a piece of the property tax pie..
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
If you recall, the city was short on cash when LaFortuna was mayor, as well. It's a problem we've had for a while
...Since the 70's apparently.
From yesterday's Tulsa World (//%22http://tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070311_1_A17_hTuls10071&breadcrumb=Article%20Search%22):
quote:
Official: City's income not meeting its need
Some may view the proposed annexation of the Tulsa County fairgrounds as a money grab by the city, Martinson said, but they'd be missing the point.
"I, too, feel taxed to death, but the city of Tulsa has been operating from the same revenue source since before I could drive," he said, highlighting that the 2 percent sales tax rate to fund operations has been in place since 1971.
Michael Bates has some additional analysis and a link to Martinson's Report: The Box We're In (//%22http://www.batesline.com/archives/003081.html%22)
It's pretty shocking stuff. The city gets hit from all sides. Since 1971, the Fed's have cut their funding by over 2/3rds...The county took the city's portion of property tax (and now won't give it back). Also, the State, which will be flush with oil and gas revenues for years if not decades, takes more than half of the city's 8.5% sales tax. Also, the State collects the sales tax and apparently they do a sh*tty job at that, too.
Whatever you think about raises, I don't think it would fix a problem this big. I believe the economics term is "macro-effed". There ain't a mayor in the world that can change this by his or herself. The State has to change some rules.
Could anyone explain to me about the County portion of the ad valorem tax that many claim the city should be entitled to? I don't quite understand that--did we turn over part of our ad valorem tax to the county? When did we ever get a portion of that tax? If municipalities are not entitled to use ad valorem tax, why are some asking the county to give us some?
And for all of the conservatives out there, while the republicans in the state house & senate continue to beat the drum for income tax reduction, why have we not heard a peep about state sales tax reduction? Instead of forcing cities to exempt items from sales tax, why not just remove the 4 cents across the board? Keep the income tax at 6.35, eliminate the state's portion of sales tax. The amount of money the average tax payer would save would be about the same.
From Martinson's report (//%22http://www.tulsacouncil.org/pdfs/website%20embedded/COT_Fiscal_Constraints.pdf%22):
(http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/2121/untitled1he3.jpg)
This chart does the work of 100 Davaz's.
Also from the Report:
Yet another way the State gigs Tulsa:
(http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/1847/untitled1qs8.jpg)
Drilled.
(http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/5240/untitled1us8.jpg)
Well, we have enough money to replace each mediocre streetlight with three worthless ones in parts of the city. How we're going to pay the 3X electric bill will probably be the next administration's problem.
(hey, the City Energy Policy (//%22http://www.cityoftulsa.org/ourcity/ordinances/Title12.asp#CHAPTER1%22) was under someone else's administration, anyway).
There is some inspiration (//%22http://www.calgary.ca/docgallery/BU/roads/streetlights/pamphlet.pdf%22), though.
Of course properly maintaining reflective roadway markings is another alternative to saving on your electric bill.
.
.
(http://www.reflectives.averydennison.com/images/hsdrpd.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Could anyone explain to me about the County portion of the ad valorem tax that many claim the city should be entitled to? I don't quite understand that--did we turn over part of our ad valorem tax to the county? When did we ever get a portion of that tax? If municipalities are not entitled to use ad valorem tax, why are some asking the county to give us some?
And for all of the conservatives out there, while the republicans in the state house & senate continue to beat the drum for income tax reduction, why have we not heard a peep about state sales tax reduction? Instead of forcing cities to exempt items from sales tax, why not just remove the 4 cents across the board? Keep the income tax at 6.35, eliminate the state's portion of sales tax. The amount of money the average tax payer would save would be about the same.
The story I've heard, two times now, is that the City and County both used to get a small allotment of property tax for retiring debt, i.e., a sinking fund. Back in the 80s, when the County was hurting, the City gave the County its half. Now they won't give it back.
Evidence? (http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/9569/untitled1po7.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
If you recall, the city was short on cash when LaFortuna was mayor, as well. It's a problem we've had for a while
And is that justification for these ill-timed pay increases at the top?
As I recall the short-fall was due to lower gross sales tax revenues due to the slump in the economy in '01 and '02.
There doesn't seem to be any shortage of new retailers collecting sales tax for the city these days, nor people spending money.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
That's just about the only reason we're talking about annexing the Fairgrounds. Sources for city revenue are somewhat limited. And for the last few years, some sources are not growing at the rate they normally would.
The city since WWll has never been a friendly city as the gap between the working poor and the aged in retirement whereas the dreams of the present city bureaucracies over shadow common sense.
Double dipping has a strangle hold on affordable infrastructure which has caused the cost of owning property to skyrocket faster than the space station. Not in one's wildest dreams can they justify the increasing cost of city operations that straddles the shoulders of the afflicted working poor. It seem the intent of the city administrators to turn over every rock to find if there is something beneath that can be taxable.
There are many opening for additional taxes that are waved before the public but like the sacred cow news papers and TV advertisement is an untouched source that could be explored.
The county cannot perform an accrete audit of the venders nor can OTC under pressure categorize the total sales subject to fair sales taxes, nor would traveling venders do more that a contribution as sales taxes. The city might install a use tax for those using the ground within the city limits. Renting to others ground they do not own.
Well that subjection possible bands me from this form .
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
That's just about the only reason we're talking about annexing the Fairgrounds. Sources for city revenue are somewhat limited. And for the last few years, some sources are not growing at the rate they normally would.
The city might install a use tax for those using the ground within the city limits. Renting to others ground they do not own.
Well that subjection possible bands me from this form .
Interesting idea, Shadow-man. Except that landlords would just pass that tax onto the renters, so it'd end up being just another poor tax.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
If you recall, the city was short on cash when LaFortuna was mayor, as well. It's a problem we've had for a while
And is that justification for these ill-timed pay increases at the top?
As I recall the short-fall was due to lower gross sales tax revenues due to the slump in the economy in '01 and '02.
There doesn't seem to be any shortage of new retailers collecting sales tax for the city these days, nor people spending money.
I don't think anybody is trying to justify raises one way or another.
Martinson's report, the KRMG story, the World story, etc. is about Tulsa getting ganged every year by these guys. Do you have an opinion about that?
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Could anyone explain to me about the County portion of the ad valorem tax that many claim the city should be entitled to? I don't quite understand that--did we turn over part of our ad valorem tax to the county? When did we ever get a portion of that tax? If municipalities are not entitled to use ad valorem tax, why are some asking the county to give us some?
And for all of the conservatives out there, while the republicans in the state house & senate continue to beat the drum for income tax reduction, why have we not heard a peep about state sales tax reduction? Instead of forcing cities to exempt items from sales tax, why not just remove the 4 cents across the board? Keep the income tax at 6.35, eliminate the state's portion of sales tax. The amount of money the average tax payer would save would be about the same.
The story I've heard, two times now, is that the City and County both used to get a small allotment of property tax for retiring debt, i.e., a sinking fund. Back in the 80s, when the County was hurting, the City gave the County its half. Now they won't give it back.
Evidence? (http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/9569/untitled1po7.jpg)
Not trying to take a side here, but still trying to understand--if what the city wants is a portion of the property tax allotment back to retire debt (ie, sinking fund), how is that going to help out with its operating budget? Is it really more of an issue that the city wants to issue more bonds for capital improvements? I would support that, but won't the city still be in the whole for operating expenses? How can we solve that issue?
I dunno. I would think it would be for projects, but in that article, Kier seemed to hint that it would help with operations. Perhaps he was making a general point about how bad things are and that's what the reporter picked up. But as I said, I dunno.
The county doesn't have the same restrictions regarding how property tax can be used. The county can and does use property tax for operations. It can also allocate a portion of its levy to one or more municipalities within the county to use for operations.
Glenpool, for example, used to and maybe still does get a portion of the county's property tax levy for EMSA operations there.
The problem with sales tax exemptions, is they just keep growing!
Some make sense. The widespread exemption of food, for example. However, as soon as you open that door they want prescriptions. Then diapers. Then all toiletries. Then beauty products. Then special interests kick in and we get products made in Oklahoma exempted. Then restaurants get mad because they are both made in Oklahoma and a food source - so shouldnt be taxed. And think of the children - school supplies and books should be exempted too. And farmers, we cant tax the American farmer for the tools he needs to survive. Then again, being a housewife is a fulltime job too, we shouldnt tax their tools either... that isnt fair.
Suddenly all we tax is oil, tobacco and beer.
- Jesse
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
If you recall, the city was short on cash when LaFortuna was mayor, as well. It's a problem we've had for a while
And is that justification for these ill-timed pay increases at the top?
As I recall the short-fall was due to lower gross sales tax revenues due to the slump in the economy in '01 and '02.
There doesn't seem to be any shortage of new retailers collecting sales tax for the city these days, nor people spending money.
I don't think anybody is trying to justify raises one way or another.
Martinson's report, the KRMG story, the World story, etc. is about Tulsa getting ganged every year by these guys. Do you have an opinion about that?
Ganged by which guys? I musta glossed over something else which was said.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Ganged by which guys? I musta glossed over something else which was said.
Martinson's report tells the story better than I could. In a nutshell, Tulsa's 2 cents sales tax for operations hasn't changed since 1971. Since then, the 2/3rds of the Fed money has dried up. Meanwhile, the State and County, which both have other sources of revenue, have pounced on sales tax. The County is over a penny sales tax and the State is 4.5 cents sales tax. The legislators have also exempted a ton of purchases because they don't depend on sales tax as heavily as cities. Tulsa needs sales tax. They don't get property tax, income tax, or oil and gas tax. You'd think that the State and County would recognize this, but they don't. They have been whittling away at sales tax for decades (county projects, exemptions, and poor collections). It's exploitive.
They have been backing Tulsa into a corner for a long, long, time. And constitutionally, the only solution is a freakin' income tax...which nobody wants.
Something's gotta give, or Tulsa will end up in the freakin' dustbin of history. Where do you think the State and County will be without the City? It's all a bunch of shortsighted bullsh*t, if you ask me.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Ganged by which guys? I musta glossed over something else which was said.
Martinson's report tells the story better than I could. In a nutshell, Tulsa's 2 cents sales tax for operations hasn't changed since 1971. Since then, the 2/3rds of the Fed money has dried up. Meanwhile, the State and County, which both have other sources of revenue, have pounced on sales tax. The County is over a penny sales tax and the State is 4.5 cents sales tax. The legislators have also exempted a ton of purchases because they don't depend on sales tax as heavily as cities. Tulsa needs sales tax. They don't get property tax, income tax, or oil and gas tax. You'd think that the State and County would recognize this, but they don't. They have been whittling away at sales tax for decades (county projects, exemptions, and poor collections). It's exploitive.
They have been backing Tulsa into a corner for a long, long, time. And constitutionally, the only solution is a freakin' income tax...which nobody wants.
Something's gotta give, or Tulsa will end up in the freakin' dustbin of history. Where do you think the State and County will be without the City? It's all a bunch of shortsighted bullsh*t, if you ask me.
That's a tough deal. Tulsa is #2 on the list of sales tax remitters to the state, yes? The state is seeing record oil/gas tax revenues.
The state and city should be looking into what programs are non-essential and how fat the agencies are that are providing those services. Problem is, both political parties like to be benevolent to their own pet projects with public funds. Cutting government spending is a pipe-dream.
I have been looking at it though not from the percent we get, but that consumption has grown exponentially since 1971. I do understand that with that consumption has come quite a bit of infrastructure improvements (i.e. the ever-expanding 71st St. retail corridor). My understanding is that the third penny sales tax has covered those infrastructure improvements.
Sounds like our Tulsa legislators in OKC need to take notice and try to make something happen on getting the state to drop a penny on the sales tax or remit it back to the city. However, to counter-balance, I'd guess they'd raise personal income tax.
The way I figure it, it's still going to be a tax increase for me, either they will get it based on my income or my consumption. I view consumption taxes as voluntary. If I save it, I don't get taxed on it, though I do get taxed on the interest.
Still doesn't change the point that the raise for at-will employees is very, very bad timing. Also pretty odd timing for a pay increase request from the couselors at a time when they are proposing a very controversial annexation of the fairgrounds.
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Still doesn't change the point that the raise for at-will employees is very, very bad timing. Also pretty odd timing for a pay increase request from the couselors at a time when they are proposing a very controversial annexation of the fairgrounds.
Probably an outside longshot.... but just possibly someone that works for the City knows more than we are aware of... Or is that in the realm of being possible Senor...? [}:)]
The state and city should be looking into what programs are non-essential and how fat the agencies are that are providing those services.
Amen! Did you hear the Mayor talk about the EMSA subsidy and say she may have to cut 'optional' programs? Optional programs like what? Why is government funding optional programs? Outside core services government is responsible for funding, optional programs simply opens the door for more optional programs.
Tulsa's 2 cents sales tax for operations hasn't changed since 1971.
Not really true. Tulsa used to fund everything out of that 2 cents. When the third penny was established, many of the capital projects were moved away from the 2 cents into the third cent, thus freeing up tons of money. Don't let someone tell you Tulsa doesn't have money for roads, when many road projects are put into the third penny packages. Additionally, those 2 cents grow every year. We certainly collect more with those 2 cents this year then in 1971. Plus, add on a third penny, then add on Vision money.........
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
The state and city should be looking into what programs are non-essential and how fat the agencies are that are providing those services.
Amen! Did you hear the Mayor talk about the EMSA subsidy and say she may have to cut 'optional' programs? Optional programs like what? Why is government funding optional programs? Outside core services government is responsible for funding, optional programs simply opens the door for more optional programs.
Tulsa's 2 cents sales tax for operations hasn't changed since 1971.
Not really true. Tulsa used to fund everything out of that 2 cents. When the third penny was established, many of the capital projects were moved away from the 2 cents into the third cent, thus freeing up tons of money. Don't let someone tell you Tulsa doesn't have money for roads, when many road projects are put into the third penny packages. Additionally, those 2 cents grow every year. We certainly collect more with those 2 cents this year then in 1971. Plus, add on a third penny, then add on Vision money.........
I always enjoy your stuff Wilbur...
I would be glad to see a report done by Martinson as to what he feels are the options, if any, to gathering additional revenue.
The State of Politics in Tulsa reminds me of Shakespeare's plays........
LaFortune did the same dance but kept most everyone guessing...
Taylor... Tells so many different versions of the same story.. I guess in her own way she keeps one guessing as well.
[}:)]
I think we ought to push RecycleMike into the Mayoral Arena next time round...
His Motto:
"Take the guesswork out of Tulsa Politics...!
If the money$ doesn't add up we will all go to lunch."
[8D]
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
The state and city should be looking into what programs are non-essential and how fat the agencies are that are providing those services.
Amen! Did you hear the Mayor talk about the EMSA subsidy and say she may have to cut 'optional' programs? Optional programs like what? Why is government funding optional programs? Outside core services government is responsible for funding, optional programs simply opens the door for more optional programs.
Tulsa's 2 cents sales tax for operations hasn't changed since 1971.
Not really true. Tulsa used to fund everything out of that 2 cents. When the third penny was established, many of the capital projects were moved away from the 2 cents into the third cent, thus freeing up tons of money. Don't let someone tell you Tulsa doesn't have money for roads, when many road projects are put into the third penny packages. Additionally, those 2 cents grow every year. We certainly collect more with those 2 cents this year then in 1971. Plus, add on a third penny, then add on Vision money.........
You are absolutely right, Wilbur. The city added the third penny in the 80s when sh*t started absolutely falling apart. It was an act of desperation. That third penny only goes for capital projects, i.e. fixing problems. The problem today is that the city could probably use a FOURTH penny to keep this town from caving in, and the County and State have already sucked up all the breathing room. Who the h*ll wants to pay 11 cents sales tax? People will shop in BA or Owasso.
Tulsa can't even keep up in this environment. How can we expect to get ahead? I don't want high taxes, either. But in the end, our "low-tax" option is to live in a sh*thole. That's just wrong. As the barbarian points out, Tulsa pays 1/3 of the bills in this frikkin' State. We pay the rent, just like OKC and the rest of the State. Why do we have to sleep on the porch?
quote:
That's a tough deal. Tulsa is #2 on the list of sales tax remitters to the state, yes? The state is seeing record oil/gas tax revenues.
The state and city should be looking into what programs are non-essential and how fat the agencies are that are providing those services. Problem is, both political parties like to be benevolent to their own pet projects with public funds. Cutting government spending is a pipe-dream.
I have been looking at it though not from the percent we get, but that consumption has grown exponentially since 1971. I do understand that with that consumption has come quite a bit of infrastructure improvements (i.e. the ever-expanding 71st St. retail corridor). My understanding is that the third penny sales tax has covered those infrastructure improvements.
Sounds like our Tulsa legislators in OKC need to take notice and try to make something happen on getting the state to drop a penny on the sales tax or remit it back to the city. However, to counter-balance, I'd guess they'd raise personal income tax.
The way I figure it, it's still going to be a tax increase for me, either they will get it based on my income or my consumption. I view consumption taxes as voluntary. If I save it, I don't get taxed on it, though I do get taxed on the interest.
Again, what I find frustrating is that every year, the conservatives yell for a
reduction in income taxes. This year some propose reducing income tax to 4.65% by 2009. http://www.normantranscript.com/statenews/cnhinsall_story_029091823.html.
If the state can afford to lose that much revenue, why not look to the sales tax? I am not advocating the reduction, I just am frustrated that the republican senators, who pride themselves on being anti-tax, are in reality only anti-income tax.
As for sales tax being voluntary, it's not voluntary when you have to buy food and clothing. On the other hand, when you have to buy an airplane, I understand the state doesn't ask for sales tax.
Again, what I find frustrating is that every year, the conservatives yell for a reduction in income taxes.
This great city was built many years ago on taxes that were far lower then they are today. We currently have sales taxes at an all time high, yet see all these people screaming for more money because of the poor position we're in.
As Dr. Phil would say, "How's that workin' out for ya?"
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
This great city was built many years ago on taxes that were far lower then they are today.
Do you mean a city that was 1 and a half square miles instead of the current 200 square miles, or the city that served 20,000 people instead of the current 400,000?
Do you mean when a handful of cops made a few thousand dollars a year, instead of 800 cops making 60-80 thousand per year -- and constantly demanding more?
Do you mean when health insurance was affordable instead of rising through the roof every year?
Do you mean when energy cost practically nothing instead of current record price spikes?
Which "optional" services would you cut? Parks? Fair enough -- put it on the table. Planning? Finance? Legal? Auditing?
Relatively speaking, something have gotten more expensive but not everything.
The city of 20K only had 20K people paying taxes. One could imagine an economy of scale kicking in and being able to SAVE money per capita.
Police back then made good money as police to today. Just because it was only a few thousand doesnt mean it wasnt a damn good wage at the time.
You get what you pay for in health care. It is still possible to get treatment without the latest and greatest for a fraction of the cost. But most American's insist on the newest machines and latest pills for whatever marginal or perceived benefit they will get. I dont think we can really cover health care costs as a side topic.
Energy costs are not at record levels. The Dollar amount paid for energy is at a record level, but the COST is not. Cost is a relative term and is the only true way to measure expenses (inflation has a way of making things more expensive over time, by definition). While energy in Tulsa was essentially free in the boom times, it was more expensive when the 'new' sky scrappers were going up in the 1970's.
Basically, no matter how much money you give a governmental body they are going to find a way to spend it now and budget it to be spent again in the future. Leaving them, yet again, short on cash and needing to raise taxes. Its so bad people actual view a tax 'refund' as a good thing - NO, they should not have taken the money to start with!
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
That's a tough deal. Tulsa is #2 on the list of sales tax remitters to the state, yes? The state is seeing record oil/gas tax revenues.
The state and city should be looking into what programs are non-essential and how fat the agencies are that are providing those services. Problem is, both political parties like to be benevolent to their own pet projects with public funds. Cutting government spending is a pipe-dream.
I have been looking at it though not from the percent we get, but that consumption has grown exponentially since 1971. I do understand that with that consumption has come quite a bit of infrastructure improvements (i.e. the ever-expanding 71st St. retail corridor). My understanding is that the third penny sales tax has covered those infrastructure improvements.
Sounds like our Tulsa legislators in OKC need to take notice and try to make something happen on getting the state to drop a penny on the sales tax or remit it back to the city. However, to counter-balance, I'd guess they'd raise personal income tax.
The way I figure it, it's still going to be a tax increase for me, either they will get it based on my income or my consumption. I view consumption taxes as voluntary. If I save it, I don't get taxed on it, though I do get taxed on the interest.
Again, what I find frustrating is that every year, the conservatives yell for areduction in income taxes. This year some propose reducing income tax to 4.65% by 2009. http://www.normantranscript.com/statenews/cnhinsall_story_029091823.html.
If the state can afford to lose that much revenue, why not look to the sales tax? I am not advocating the reduction, I just am frustrated that the republican senators, who pride themselves on being anti-tax, are in reality only anti-income tax.
As for sales tax being voluntary, it's not voluntary when you have to buy food and clothing. On the other hand, when you have to buy an airplane, I understand the state doesn't ask for sales tax.
I view sales tax as voluntary to the extent that you can choose to buy electronics or other goods like clothing via mail order where no tax is collected. Depending on what the item is, if your total tab is over $100, shipping is usually cheaper than sales tax and in the competitive world of on-line merchandising there are more and more free shipping offers.
Call me unpatriotic for buying from out of state and not contributing sales tax on some items, but it's my discretionary income and until the state figures out a way to truly enforce tax collection on out of state purchases, myself and thousands of other Oklahomans will continue to do so.
I can also choose to buy store brands vs. name brands or buy a cheaper meal at a restaurant, or choose to stay home and eat my store brand food and reduce the gross amount of sales tax revenue I'm turning over to the state.
A perfect example of what happens when taxes are too high... it becomes worth while to avoid them. If sales tax was 6% it probably would be worth avoiding. And when tax hits as high as it is on *some* items (tabacco, alcohol) true black market turn up. As much as 20% of cigarettes sold in Canada are on the black market because the tax is so high. High taxes end up funding criminals.
Hell, in many Nordic countries where tax rates are insanely high much work is done by barter. Now that's good for the economy...
Oh, yeah, thanks Conan. Internet Purchases...yet another bleed on Tulsa's revenue:
Tulsa relies heavily on sales tax. Since 1971:
1) The State has taken 4.5 cents
2) The County has jacked over 1 cent
So, these guys have effectively gobbled up any buffer that there may have been for the city to raise additional revenue.
Also,
3) The legislature has created hundreds of sales tax exemptions
4) People are buying more and more stuff on the internet
These are direct drains on sales tax revenue.
Start adding up the costs that have outpaced inflation (health insurance, energy, and costs of building materials like steel and concrete, [which have tripled in the last five years]), and it very much is not the same situation as it was in the past.
Finally, according to estimates, Tulsa has lost population since 2000. Yet they still have to try and maintain the infrastructure to those empty houses. If they can't, then more will leave. I believe they call that the "death-spiral". How bad can it get? Know anybody from Detroit?
Somebody's got to get a handle on this. Sure, trim all the fat you can, but in the end, it ain't even a fair fight.
Look at the news about the South Tulsa Toll bridge. I think the city now sees this as a quick money grab. Drooling over projections like "$900 million in tolls over the next 75 years" with the intent of financing some of today's problems at the exepense of having a toll on a road that should be free public infrastructure.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
Look at the news about the South Tulsa Toll bridge. I think the city now sees this as a quick money grab. Drooling over projections like "$900 million in tolls over the next 75 years" with the intent of financing some of today's problems at the exepense of having a toll on a road that should be free public infrastructure.
The city is getting desperate, no doubt about it. And every property owner and local business in town should be paying close attention to what happens next...or doesn't happen, for that matter.
As for the toll bridge, nothing's "free" in this world. In this case, I'd much rather have the users pay for the thing. If they don't want to pay the toll, then they should move to Tulsa.
The permanent Tulsa bureaucracies practice on the golden rule "Keep the public confused." They play this game with the voters every election. The bonds voted for capital improvements are assessed as property taxes and the more than 7 million dollars collected in sales taxes monthly, is quoted only as a 1 cent sales tax.
The some 14 million dollars monthly collection is referred to as a 2 cent tax for operations. There is the intertwining of more millions of dollars all being assembled in the general fund. Still the bottom line is refereed to as a little 3 cent sales tax the city collects.
The city councilor is quoted in the papers as saying " But I do think we need to take advantage of ever possibility for revenue". Now to those that look for simple statements this should have been reduced to words that explain to the public such as: "We need to take advantage of ever possible way to add to the tax burden on the working poor in support of non-essential city operations".
One should look at the Storm Water Fee on the water bill that was to be only $1.75 monthly as an illustration when the door is open just a little bit. Yes, we have not had a general rainfall over the water shed but we have had local flooding.
'Nuther question. Where do the hotel taxes go to which are collected in the city? The city, county, or state?
Lower population in Tulsa? Still people come to Tulsa from Owasso, Sand Springs, Sapulpa, Broken Arrow, Jenks and other outlying areas for dining and shopping. If it weren't for the stupidity of our city fathers, the aquarium and the retail development it spurred on the north side of the bridge might be collecting sales tax for the city of Tulsa instead of Jenks.
As far as retail shopping for the average schmoe, where are the sales tax exemptions? I get that there are exemptions for re-sellers (who will ostensibly collect sales tax on an item unless it is sold and shipped out of state), non-profits, and end-use for manufacturing (that one is basically an incentive for a company to have a larger payroll and to generate more corporate income).
Maybe I was brought up as too much of a pragmatist. I don't hit my boss up for a raise every time I decide I want a new good or service which is not in my present budget and which I really could probably live without. If I decided I want a butler and gardener, it's not incumbent upon my boss to indulge me.
The city needs to learn to live within it's means.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
'Nuther question. Where do the hotel taxes go to which are collected in the city? The city, county, or state?
Good question. Mostly to the Metro Chamber...and they spend it on metro stuff. That deal has always smelled like eggs to me. If it's Tulsa's money, it should be kept in Tulsa. You will hear no groaning from me if that deal were to be "modified".
quote:
Lower population in Tulsa? Still people come to Tulsa from Owasso, Sand Springs, Sapulpa, Broken Arrow, Jenks and other outlying areas for dining and shopping.
That's what the estimates say, and that's what shows up in Martinson's report, too. As for the outlying communities, surely you have noticed the trend. 20 years ago everybody had to come to Tulsa to shop, but now every suburban town has huge retail areas. Owassans have their own Target, Walmart, Home Depot, Lowes, Mervins...so they don't shop here as often. It worked for a long time, but now that model is history.
quote:
If it weren't for the stupidity of our city fathers, the aquarium and the retail development it spurred on the north side of the bridge might be collecting sales tax for the city of Tulsa instead of Jenks.
No argument here...you're right. It was shortsighted.
quote:
As far as retail shopping for the average schmoe, where are the sales tax exemptions? I get that there are exemptions for re-sellers (who will ostensibly collect sales tax on an item unless it is sold and shipped out of state), non-profits, and end-use for manufacturing (that one is basically an incentive for a company to have a larger payroll and to generate more corporate income).
Don't have a complete list, I'll look. But here's something (//%22http://www.oml.org/npps/story.cfm?ID=793%22) I Googled from the Oklahoma Municipal League. Just this year, there are five
new exemptions proposed. Two new 3-day sales tax holidays, an exemption for "Blue Star Mothers", over-the-counter drugs, and groceries. I don't think all of these are bad, but that's not really the point. These decisions are being made by legislators who aren't at all concerned about taking money out of cities' pockets.
quote:
Maybe I was brought up as too much of a pragmatist. I don't hit my boss up for a raise every time I decide I want a new good or service which is not in my present budget and which I really could probably live without. If I decided I want a butler and gardener, it's not incumbent upon my boss to indulge me.
The city needs to learn to live within it's means.
Pragmatist? Or masochist? There's another term for trying to live on dwindling means, it's called starvation. What, exactly, is
extravagent about having to pay three times as much for concrete as you did five years ago?
I drive by the retail sprawl in Owasso frequently, and I'm quite well aware of the growth in Broken Arrow. However, I don't see a whole lot of vacancy or hard times along the 71st Street corridor on Tulsa's side of the property line either. 96th & Delaware is experiencing it's own retail boom. Speaking of Broken Arrow, why didn't Tulsa annex all the property out to 145th E. Ave. years ago when B.A. still had a population of 10,000 and still hadn't grown very far east?
Randi Miller made a pretty valid point in the Tulsa Whirled this morning that the county has a $60mm budget and manages to balance it, the city has a $550mm budget and should be able to do the same. I understand the city has to supply much more in the way of manpower for water and sewer, law enforcement, and fire fighting/EMS.
It just frustrates the crap out of me hearing of politicians slipping in pay raises for trusted friends and advisors and other elected officials saying they are under-paid when they are asking hourly employees to sacrifice and they aren't managing the money they already have very well.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I drive by the retail sprawl in Owasso frequently, and I'm quite well aware of the growth in Broken Arrow. However, I don't see a whole lot of vacancy or hard times along the 71st Street corridor on Tulsa's side of the property line either. 96th & Delaware is experiencing it's own retail boom.
That's a pretty biased sample, don't you think? 71st is the busiest place in the region. I could similarly ask you to draw conclusions about Tulsa retail based on what's (not) happening at Eastland Mall. But the simple truth is that retail growth will chase population growth, and that population growth is moving further away from Tulsa. As the region spreads outward, the benefits of regional growth for Tulsa will diminish. Do you disagree with this?
quote:
Speaking of Broken Arrow, why didn't Tulsa annex all the property out to 145th E. Ave. years ago when B.A. still had a population of 10,000 and still hadn't grown very far east?
I dunno. Why did Tulsa build them the Haikey Creek Sewer Plant with our own money? That's what really allowed them to grow as quickly as they did. That's some old-school Good 'Ole Boy crap...Inhofe was mayor at the time...ask him.
quote:
Randi Miller made a pretty valid point in the Tulsa Whirled this morning that the county has a $60mm budget and manages to balance it, the city has a $550mm budget and should be able to do the same. I understand the city has to supply much more in the way of manpower for water and sewer, law enforcement, and fire fighting/EMS.
Speaking of Good 'Ole Boys. I'm starting to think that Miller couldn't find a feather in a hen house. She's not really the best person to be telling Tulsa, or anyone else, what they "should do".
quote:
It just frustrates the crap out of me hearing of politicians slipping in pay raises for trusted friends and advisors and other elected officials saying they are under-paid when they are asking hourly employees to sacrifice and they aren't managing the money they already have very well.
That is completely acceptable to me. In fact, I don't disagree with that sentiment. But beyond the empty rhetoric you get from people like Miller, there are some
very real and systemic problems with the way cities are funded in this state.
Miller has very little to brag about. A lot of people think the County keeps sloppy books (//%22http://www.batesline.com/archives/000586.html%22) and they've simply had enough surplus cash to cover up the blemishes.
Monty Python shows how the City of Tulsa operates:
(http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/3172/bingtm8.jpg)
Hospital Administrator: Ah, I see you have the machine that goes ping. This is my favorite. You see we lease it back from the company we sold it to and that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.
[Everyone in the room applauds]
Hospital Administrator: Thank you, thank you.
I view sales tax as voluntary to the extent that you can choose to buy electronics or other goods like clothing via mail order where no tax is collected.
So you're saying you don't submit your 'use' taxes to the city as required by law and you lie on your state income taxes when it asks about purchases made by phone or over the internet.
You might want to learn the phrase "hey bubba, pass the soap." It comes in handy in prison. I'm confident your tax accountant would tell you those are felonies. But, hey, no big deal because you saved a couple bucks!
The most misconstrued concept is that the tax code exempts sales on the internet. Even if you buy an item in China then you are required to pay the use tax in lieu sales taxes on it as the point of delivery. It is obligatory on the part of the purchaser to remit the use tax to the OTC on all purchases over the internet. We are taxing ourselves in bankruptcy and telling the citizens it is the open door to prosperity.
Revenue=taxes paid by the working poor. Government employees rebate to the taxing structure a portion of the taxes received (Wages) from the funds generated by the working poor.
The free lunch has been removed from the top of the bar long ago.
deleted
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
I view sales tax as voluntary to the extent that you can choose to buy electronics or other goods like clothing via mail order where no tax is collected.
So you're saying you don't submit your 'use' taxes to the city as required by law and you lie on your state income taxes when it asks about purchases made by phone or over the internet.
You might want to learn the phrase "hey bubba, pass the soap." It comes in handy in prison. I'm confident your tax accountant would tell you those are felonies. But, hey, no big deal because you saved a couple bucks!
Let's see, how do the state and city enforce these laws? How many people in Tulsa buy stuff off eBay and Amazon who don't report it? You'd have about 1/3 of the city population to prosecute. State-wide, our prison system would have to make way for about 500,000 new beds to account for everyone in the state of Oklahoma who doesn't report use taxes to local or state authorities. Those laws are total B.S.
I find it very hard to believe that there are many people with a computer who don't do mail order.
1/3 of folk may purchase online and 99.99% not report it, but if the law sez you are supposed to than you a tax cheat. Doing the right thing means doing the right thing even when no one is watching. Especially if you are doing so specifically to avoid paying City taxes.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
1/3 of folk may purchase online and 99.99% not report it, but if the law sez you are supposed to than you a tax cheat. Doing the right thing means doing the right thing even when no one is watching. Especially if you are doing so specifically to avoid paying City taxes.
Give that man a cigar!! What a novel concept. Doing the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do. Everyone else keeps government employees employed.
The simple way to make the majority of the city employees happy as well as putting new life in the economy would be raise all city employees salaries and cap them at $100,000 dollars yearly. With our asking budget of $550 million dollars we could spend the balance of 150 million dollars on budgeting it out for the necessities we cannot get along without. Then we would be helping the suburbs out where 40% of the employees live and can spend their hundred thousand dollars buying from their neighborhood merchants. In the meanwhile we take the strain off the heads of the trust of looking at ways to buy things we don't need.
My, my. Such self-righteous indignation. So Wilbur and Tim, are you reporting every single tangible good you have bought while out of state, that you brought back home with you and now resides in your residence? Did you file your use tax report by the 15th of the month when it was due?
According to the Oklahoma tax code, it's not just internet purchases. Here is a summary of the law:
"Use Tax: The Oklahoma Use Tax is a 4.5 percent levy on the purchase price of tangible personal property, including pre-paid transportation, purchased outside Oklahoma and stored, used, or otherwise consumed within the state. Oklahoma sales tax cannot be imposed on a sale, which occurred in another state, but the Use Tax applies when the taxable item is brought into Oklahoma for use.
Municipalities and counties that levy a sales tax are also authorized to levy use tax in addition to the 4.5 percent state use tax on out-of-state purchases on which Oklahoma sales tax has not been paid. The municipal or county use tax may not exceed an existing local sales tax. Effective January 1, 1999, counties can enact a county use tax if they already have a county sales tax in effect.
Use Tax reports and remittance to the Oklahoma Tax Commission must be postmarked on or before the 15th of the month in which they are due. A report that is not timely filed will be assessed interest and penalty from the 15th of the month."
Here's all 212 pages of it:
http://www.tax.ok.gov/rules/rule6505.pdf
Are you guys properly filling out the forms and submitting them by the 15th of the month? There is a good chance every Oklahoman could be a felon based on this law.
The way the law is written, not only does it apply to internet purchases, but even if you bring back nick-nacks from a vacation in Arizona, Branson, or where ever you are required to pay use tax.
If you paid a lower sales tax rate on that purchase, you are required to pay the difference in the tax rate it was purchased and what you would have paid if purchased in the city where the item now resides or is used.
(Derogatory commentary removed)
Civility, please.
So Wilbur and Tim, are you reporting every single tangible good you have bought while out of state...
I actually buy very little over the internet, and those few purchases I did make, the seller charged me the same amount of sales tax as if I purchased the item locally. As to how that seller remits the tax to the state/local entity, I don't know.
And I think (I'm not positive, so go easy on me if I'm wrong), but use taxes are not applicable to nick nack items a person buys on vacation. They are applicable to more tangible items.
Tangible goods are pretty much anything you don't eat or drink while you are on the road, or personal services. Tangible is basically anything you can hold in your hand. Quite literally, you could be expected to remit tax on a T-shirt, that is a tangible item.
It doesn't seem to be well-defined by reading the tax code so that could leave it up to the interpretation of the OTC.
Here's the point, before this discussion took off into a left turn:
The vast majority of Oklahoma citizens who buy something from Bass Pro Shops in Springfield don't think twice about remitting the difference to the state and the state knows it's not going to happen either.
Neither does the average person who buys a stereo receiver off eBay.
There are two reasons people shop online: convenience and to save money. Anyone who says not having to pay sales tax on an item wasn't a consideration isn't being honest.
Not trying to start a flame-out with you but I'm a bit skeptical of anyone collecting sales tax from you if you didn't live in the same state that item was sold in. I can honestly say I've never seen it happen.
I bought a pool cleaner from a guy somewhere out in western Oklahoma off eBay last spring. He's a commercial enterprise so he had to charge me sales tax which is all fine and good. However, had he shipped that same item to Kansas, Texas or wherever, he's not required to collect it.
I find the use tax to be one of the more un-enforceable parts of our tax code. With the massive explosion in e-commerce over the last ten years why are we writing tax laws which are difficult to comply with, impossible to enforce 100% compliance, and difficult for the average individual to understand the applicability to their own situation?
Instead of the income tax cut the legislature just passed, and instead of creating a bunch of new choice sales tax exemptions every year (I agree with exemption on purchasing for re-sale and to an extent for non-profits and materials for manufacturing), why put a reporting and accounting burden on people who might only have a total use tax liability of $50 or so a year?
Keep the income tax rate where it is or even raise it a 1/4 point and remit some of it back to the cities. E-commerce is only going to continue to flourish and more and more revenue that used to find it's way into brick-and-mortar stores is going to go out of state and with that, sales tax revenue.
Depending on over a million citizens to keep records and correctly report the money spent out of state is ludicrous.
from Tulsa World (//%22http://tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070318_1_A19_pItis10507%22):
quote:
Official: City switching to business mode
"The revenue game is written against the city. Those rules were set back in 1971 and have never been changed," Himelfarb said.
"If you were running a business and you were sitting in 2007 and operating under bylaws that were written in 1971 and working against you, I think there would be discussion on whether you should be revisiting the rules," he said.
Himelfarb said a business in the city's financial situation would try to redirect what it is doing economically.
"What you probably would do if you were a business is sell out or merge with the people who make the rules of the game, which is the state or county, because then basically you're generating the revenue they live off anyway, so what's the point?" he said.
There ya have it from the Mayor's own private-sector guy. If the City was a business, it would have sold out a long time ago. The County and State "fix" the prices, so there's really no way to compete. It wouldn't bother me a bit if the county and city merged...if that's what it takes for Tulsa to get out of this malaise and on track for a prosperous future.
Maybe that is actually what they are doing, piece by piece, with this Fire Department District proposal and now maybe this EMSA District, too. Hey, if that's what it takes.
I don't understand why the mayor doesn't propose a "Public Safety" tax that would go for police, fire and EMSA. That way all three split a penny. OKC did this and it worked well.
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
I don't understand why the mayor doesn't propose a "Public Safety" tax that would go for police, fire and EMSA. That way all three split a penny. OKC did this and it worked well.
You should read over Martinson's report from page one of this thread. The real problem with the city raising another penny is that, whether they need it or not, it will drive sales tax to 9.5%, which would be CRAZY high, like national laughing stock, high. That's because, between the State and County, they have already drive sales tax up an additional 5.5%.
In a perfect world, the State, which is enjoying record revenues because of other taxes like oil and gas, would remit a penny back to the cities for public safety. But instead, the legislators are slashing income tax...making the state even more dependent on sales tax in the end. I think that, in the long run, actions like this by the State are setting us up for a future disastor.
I really like your idea though...it has a politically palpable name. Dufus's on this board wouldn't respond to "save our cities" but save our cops...that's another story.
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
I don't understand why the mayor doesn't propose a "Public Safety" tax that would go for police, fire and EMSA. That way all three split a penny. OKC did this and it worked well.
That could have some traction with the voters, but the problem is that the sales tax rate is stretched to its limit. I don't think the people would go for a 9.5 cent sales tax.
This is one of the reasons why you hear complaints about the county getting in the sales tax business (they currently collect slightly more than a penny in sales taxes). The County is allowed by state law to levy property taxes for general operating revenue, but the City isn't. All the City has available to them for general operating revenue is the sales tax and utilities. So the County is muscling in on the City's potential revenue stream instead of funding their operations through a little bump in property taxes.
If the practical limit on sales tax that the voters will tolerate is around 8.5 cents, the County collecting their penny erodes the ability of the City to fund its services through one of the only two means available. Unless the voters decide to support a sales tax over 9 cents, the City will be stuck with the same 3 cent share for several years to come.
Of course, the bigger issue is that the City is getting 3% of a stagnant or decreasing retail sales base due to all the retail growth in the burbs. For that reason, I'd be hesitant to try to continue funding such critical services as police, fire and ambulance on something as volatile and mobile as sales taxes.
Heck, the paper reported this weekend that the sales tax remittance for March was down across the region because of the ice storms. People couldn't leave their houses to go buy things, so the city has 5% less to spend on police, fire and ambulance service than anticipated. That's a flawed system.
That's a nice way of saying it, AJ. The sales tax is already at its "practical limit".
the city should annex all county land and merge the county and city governments. That way there would be no more fighting over that penny that the county gets. It would all go to Tulsa. It would also turn the tables on BA, Bixby, et al who have been mooching off the county for things they don't want to provide on their outskirts.
Jacksonville Florida did this and it cut out the whole county vs city crap.
at the same time they should disband the Tulsa METRO chamber and create a TULSA Chamber. That way Tulsa could look out for ITS interests and not the "metro area's" interest.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
the city should annex all county land and merge the county and city governments. That way there would be no more fighting over that penny that the county gets. It would all go to Tulsa. It would also turn the tables on BA, Bixby, et al who have been mooching off the county for things they don't want to provide on their outskirts.
Jacksonville Florida did this and it cut out the whole county vs city crap.
at the same time they should disband the Tulsa METRO chamber and create a TULSA Chamber. That way Tulsa could look out for ITS interests and not the "metro area's" interest.
These are solid ideas with considerable merit. Incidentally, the city recognized the inherent problem with the metro chamber. That's why they resurrected the city's Economic Development Commission, the one headed up by Don Himelfarb.
Thanks for the info. Now I understand why adding a penny on the sales tax charged by the city would not be economically feasable. I do like the idea of annexing all the property in our fenceline. Mayor Lafortune tried to annex all of the land in North Tulsa but decided not to because people protested. Now, with the new law, an area has to be surrounded by three sides or has to vote for annexation.
Nobody wants to pay any taxes, let alone any more taxes. The city already employs lots of creative and fair fees like stormwater management fees based on impervious area. It is no wonder that we are discussing a toll bridge when already you can't go anywhere without paying a toll. When someone gets creative like annexing the fairgrounds, neanderthals like Dan Hicks scream that they are raising taxes (I am not for nor against annexation, but to call it a tax increase is wrong).
The need is for money for salaries. The needs of the citizens continue to escalate and the city responds by hiring more people, then sales taxes don't grow at the pace needed to fund them. Salaries account for 80% of the general fund revenue and police and fire personnel costs are two thirds of that. The citizens demand that the city hires more police and fire employees and pay them more then don't buy enough stuff to meet the budgetary needs.
The elected officials are stuck with limited options then end up cutting budgets for non-safety personnel instead. The Tulsa Parks department is a shell of what was during the Mayor Savage years.
What is the easiest answer that allows the elected officials the luxury of not being blamed for raising taxes? Have more people buy more stuff in Tulsa.
BUY TULSA. It is the easiest way to pay for the city we want. Stop going to Broken Arrow for dinner just because you like Buffalo Wild Wings (my favorite new restaurant). Stop buying used golf balls on E-Bay (got 30 Nikes for $13). Don't go to the fairgrounds flea market, go to the one on Admiral instead (they got more booths and don't charge admission).
BUY TULSA. It is the easiest way to fix this problem.
"Buy Tulsa" has a nice sound to it, but it is wishful thinking.
It may have been in the same article as the coming income tax cuts, aside from the drop in sales tax revenue from the inclement winter weather, payroll tax reciepts were hit as well according to the state. Ostensibly, from people staying home.
The way I see it, there are only two ways for the city to prosper:
Get our leader to quit squandering money on personnel searches for job candidates from outside the city when you have three certified candidates; quit squandering money on studies for moving city hall; and no raises for un-elected executive-level personnel. Identify all non-essential spending and cut it off.
Then the state needs to repeal the income tax break and remit one of their pennies back to municipalities.
Cut spending first, see where we wind up, then if we need additional revenue let's talk about other revenue streams.
A 9.5 cent sales tax rate would prove to be a huge dis-incentive for companies to re-locate here and I would think stunt growth in the convention and events market that we are trying to tap into with the BOK Center.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
the city should annex all county land and merge the county and city governments. That way there would be no more fighting over that penny that the county gets. It would all go to Tulsa. It would also turn the tables on BA, Bixby, et al who have been mooching off the county for things they don't want to provide on their outskirts.
Jacksonville Florida did this and it cut out the whole county vs city crap.
at the same time they should disband the Tulsa METRO chamber and create a TULSA Chamber. That way Tulsa could look out for ITS interests and not the "metro area's" interest.
Louisville and Jefferson County merged in 2002
Here's some stuff:
2002 USA Today Artice (//%22http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-11-03-louisville-usat_x.htm%22)
Article in Pittsburgh Post Gazette (//%22http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20030907louisville0907p3.asp%22)
Wikipedia entry on the new Louisville Metro Police (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisville_Metro_Police_Department%22)
Article in Congressional Quarterly (//%22http://www.governing.com/archive/2002/dec/louis.txt%22)
Louisville Metro has shown other regions how mergers can change balance of power
(//%22http://www.citymayors.com/government/louisville.html%22)
I think RM is onto something here.
I mean, you can bi*ch and moan about the mayor's raises to fewer than two dozen employees all you want. But it's one drop in really gigantic bucket -- especially since she isn't even taking a salary herself (a fact that seems to be conspicuously ignored).
I'm less inclined to bi*ch especially since Mayor Taylor is taking a more proactive approach than the amiable but do-nothing slug that was her predecessor.
Tulsa residents who complain about the city's shaky finances and/or lack of service, then go out of town for shopping, are part of the problem and not the solution. If you can't find the product anywhere else, fine. But otherwise, there is no excuse.
After watching a documentary called "Independent America" a few months ago, I'm also much more inclined to buy products from mom-and-pop stores than national chains, because more money circulates in the region and thus helps the local economy more.
http://www.independentamerica.net/
^Looks like an interesting documentary. Has it ever been shown in Tulsa? Maybe something TulsaNow should consider hosting.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
I think RM is onto something here.
I mean, you can bi*ch and moan about the mayor's raises to fewer than two dozen employees all you want. But it's one drop in really gigantic bucket -- especially since she isn't even taking a salary herself (a fact that seems to be conspicuously ignored).
I'm less inclined to bi*ch especially since Mayor Taylor is taking a more proactive approach than the amiable but do-nothing slug that was her predecessor.
Tulsa residents who complain about the city's shaky finances and/or lack of service, then go out of town for shopping, are part of the problem and not the solution. If you can't find the product anywhere else, fine. But otherwise, there is no excuse.
After watching a documentary called "Independent America" a few months ago, I'm also much more inclined to buy products from mom-and-pop stores than national chains, because more money circulates in the region and thus helps the local economy more.
http://www.independentamerica.net/
Commie! Just kidding. Good site, BTW. It's people like Dan Hicks who use any means necessary to avoid paying any and all taxes who have contributed to Tulsa's decline. Then they have the nerve to turn around and demand vouchers to send their kids to private schools or demand their religion be injected into all these public places that they evade paying for.
I just gave my DVD of "Independent America" to the Tulsa Library. It may not be in the system yet, but it will be in the next couple of days so you can check it out yourself.
Reminds me of the series "Feasting on Asphalt" that Alton Brown did for the food network last year.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
The need is for money for salaries. The needs of the citizens continue to escalate and the city responds by hiring more people, then sales taxes don't grow at the pace needed to fund them. Salaries account for 80% of the general fund revenue and police and fire personnel costs are two thirds of that. The citizens demand that the city hires more police and fire employees and pay them more then don't buy enough stuff to meet the budgetary needs.
What is the easiest answer that allows the elected officials the luxury of not being blamed for raising taxes? Have more people buy more stuff in Tulsa.
I've been looking at issue and reading other's posts. So far, very few seem to be convinced that we need to trim government expenditures, but that we can buy our way to prosperity and give a hungry government more money to feed on.
Going with population trends and modern buying trends, the sales tax is rapidly becoming archaic in the city of Tulsa, at least as far as keeping up with government expenditures.
Also, as a percentage of total family income, the sales tax hits lowest income families the hardest.
An aging population starts easing out of the acquisition phase of life. They start spending money on college tuition for their kids, and sending money for their kids to spend at schools often outside the Tulsa area. Next, they start planning more seriously for retirement, taking more money out of local circulation by investing in retirement plans and a variety of savings options rather than to acquire and consume items. Wealthy Tulsan's spend extended vacation time at their second homes out of state (including our mayor), and with that goes sales tax revenue.
My position is, buying more to support a local government encourages less savings and more debt. It's not a solution for a bloated city government.
As well, the Tulsa City Council sees that we need to be less reliant on sales tax as per their Tulsa City Council Compendium of Needs 2007-08 Budget & Policy Priorities: "Find ways to increase revenues and move away from a heavy reliance on bonds
and the sales tax."
Let's take a look at the county in 1971- Broken Arrow, Jenks, and Owasso were all still sleepy little burgs. I believe B.A.'s population in 1971 was about 12,000.
Owasso appears to have had about 5000 or so residents in 1970, in 2003 they had 22,700, and they are projecting over 60,000 by 2030.
Owasso has seen sales tax revenue increase from about $3mm in 1994 to about $9mm in 2004.
Tulsa was the commerce hub of the county at that time. Now it is de-centralized, shopping centers have sprung up in the suburban cities, they have scored well with attractions like the aquarium and River Crossing, Bass Pro, etc. Projects which could have just as easily been built in Tulsa. Tulsa has done well with it's own retail growth, however, I don't believe it has been invested wisely.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I've been looking at issue and reading other's posts. So far, very few seem to be convinced that we need to trim government expenditures, but that we can buy our way to prosperity and give a hungry government more money to feed on.
Your premise that Tulsa is bloated is grounded in conservative rhetoric, not reality. The reality is that the Tulsa has been bled for over a decade by the very things you noted, especially expanding retail in suburban areas. They haven't had much "spare" revenue for way over a decade. Private sector guys like Himelfarb are saying that their system is already lean, anemic really, and that will hurt us all in the long run.
This is a serious question, really, how fat can you be after a decade of a calorie restricted diet? "Very few" are advocating trimming expenditures because most of us who pay attention to the city we live in recognize that the trimming has already gone beyond fat and is deep in the muscle in places like parks, streets, and code enforcement. Our town looks and works worse than it used to, and when they try to plug the leaks on things like public safety, it means that everything else is going to fall apart faster.
I certainly think that there are things that the city
should give up, like lopsided support of regional organizations that aren't even remotely interested in Tulsa's future. That's crazy insane to support people who actively try to put you out of business, but in the end, it won't save that much money.
Which councilor was saying that Tulsa has a backlog of $4
Billion in things to fix? Things have to change.
like I said, merge with the county and gobble up the remaining county property, force the ankle biting suburbs to look outside the county for land and revenue.
This is @conan... I didn't quote his post to save space.
I'll add a twist to CL's post -- where would you suggest the City cut from? 80% of the city's general fund goes to personnel costs and 2/3 of that goes to police and fire. You want to cut the police force? LaFortune did that by eliminating an academy and crime shot up (we're just now recovering from that and getting the force back up to 800 officers). Fewer firemen?
The City has already cut non-safety departments just about to the bone. The Parks Department is practically a ghost. Code enforcement and neighborhood inspections - way down. There's no fat left to cut, it was all cut during the budget crunch the past 7 years.
So again, where would you cut? Let's hear it.
Terminate Tulsa's contract with INCOG. The city has a planning department, use it. The role INCOG has played in facilitating most of the problems mentioned above at Tulsa's expense is too huge to ignore. It would be criminal to allow this to continue, especially during the Comprehensive Plan Update that is so vital to the future prosperity of Tulsa.
The federal help is drying up, too. From today's Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070320_1_A9_pTuls73175%22):
quote:
Doing More with Less: Block grants shrinking as demands keep rising
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2007/070320_A9_pTuls73175_money20.jpg)
This is exactly what Councilor Martin was saying in his report on the city's revenue (//%22http://www.tulsacouncil.org/pdfs/website%20embedded/COT_Fiscal_Constraints.pdf%22) last week.
The city's federal revenue has dropped by over 2/3rds since 1977, and almost 1/3rd since 2002, at a time when Tulsa could have really used that money the most. In the same period, federal Medicare reimbursements to EMSA have dropped by at least 1/3rd and sometimes as much as 58%. That drove EMSA into a tailspin, why would the city would be any different?
This "trim the fat", "let's run gov't like a business" claptrap is just plain silly in this case. What business can succeed in an environment where partners and competitors are manipulating prices willy-nilly?
Moreover, government is not a business, it's a public trust. Tulsans need somebody to keep the roads fixed, etc., in order for private enterprise to succeed. At this point, I don't really care who does it, so long as the unit of government is small, i.e. the city or county. I do not believe that the feds and state can run cities efficiently, it's not in their job description. But that's what will happen if the city ends up in receivership.
"...Moreover, government is not a business, it's a public trust. Tulsans need somebody to keep the roads fixed, etc., in order for private enterprise to succeed. At this point, I don't really care who does it, so long as the unit of government is small, i.e. the city or county. I do not believe that the feds and state can run cities efficiently, it's not in their job description. But that's what will happen if the city ends up in receivership."
Someone tell that to our city "CEO".
Do we really need a director of film & music or a film & music office in the first place?
Ms. Taylor created a new position of director of economic development. What the hell is a chamber of commerce for? (Let's not take off on a left turn over our inept C of C.) Himelfarb being quoted in the Tulsa World at least once a week hasn't equated to thousands of jobs being created in Tulsa so far, nor large companies moving here.
Do we really need the newly created communications department? Aside from the director of this department, how many people work in this area?
Why does the mayor have a general counsel aside from the city legal department?
How many "support" people with nebulous job titles and mysterious job responsibilities do we need to administrate our city government and departments of city government?
Oh yes, almost forgot, how about a study for an Amtrak line between Tulsa and St. Louis, or Tulsa to OKC and Ft. Worth. I believe that is one of the initiatives on the city council or mayors list. Rail transit works in densely populated areas like the east coast and west coast, not so well out where major cities are spaced 250+ miles apart. It's a folly for this area.
There is no "director of film and music" under this administration. That was under the last Mayor. I had no idea where that title came from.
This person no longer works in the Mayor's office. She is now employed in the Urban Development office as a planning manager.
Came from the COT web site:
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/OurCity/Business/FilmandMusic/Index.asp
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Ms. Taylor created a new position of director of economic development. What the hell is a chamber of commerce for? (Let's not take off on a left turn over our inept C of C.)
You may have answered your own question as to why the Mayor wanted her own economic development function.[;)]
As for the other stuff, sure, the Mayor should stand up and say why each of those things is important...maybe the Communications Dept. can help with that.
I think we are still talking past each other. Even if you took every person and idea you mentioned out of the equation, it still wouldn't resolve this long-term revenue issue. At the end of the day, the state and the county will still have their hands in the city's till.
Does your ideaology prevent you from seeing the bigger picture? Is it just more
fun to take shots at politicians? Or, possibly, do you have problems with multi-tasking? Me? I'm guilty of all of the above from time to time. But, in this case, the problem seems pretty clear.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Do we really need a director of film & music or a film & music office in the first place?
This was an added title tagged on by Bill LaFortune to this person's job. It's not what she does on a day-to-day basis, and it never was the only thing she did.
Ms. Taylor created a new position of director of economic development. What the hell is a chamber of commerce for? (Let's not take off on a left turn over our inept C of C.) Himelfarb being quoted in the Tulsa World at least once a week hasn't equated to thousands of jobs being created in Tulsa so far, nor large companies moving here.
I don't take issue with your question about the Chamber and its role, but Mr. Himelfarb appears to be quite effective. He's much more than just a "deal-maker," as you seem to portray him. He's also a manager -- overseeing the work of several deparments (airports, planning - in part, TDA, board of adjustment, development services, etc.) But, even if you strike his $113k salary (a big chunk of which is funded by the Mayor's deferred salary), he's just 1/4250th of the city's workforce.
Do we really need the newly created communications department? Aside from the director of this department, how many people work in this area?
This is actually the result of consolidating communications personnel from the various departments. Several departments, such as police and public works, need people to communicate with the public about crime, notify residents of public works projects in their neighborhoods, etc. The mayor has found efficiencies and coordinated the work of some of these people across departments.
Why does the mayor have a general counsel aside from the city legal department?
How many "support" people with nebulous job titles and mysterious job responsibilities do we need to administrate our city government and departments of city government?
Regardless of their specific titles, all mayors (and all executives) have deputies and advisors. The current mayor's deputies also oversee the work of specific departments. For example, the mayor's legal counsel also oversees the municipal courts. In practice, it would be impossible for the mayor herself to attend to the details of every department's work -- though that's what the charter compels her to do. She needs trusted people to act as her proxy when it comes to the day-to-day work of departments.
Oh yes, almost forgot, how about a study for an Amtrak line between Tulsa and St. Louis, or Tulsa to OKC and Ft. Worth. I believe that is one of the initiatives on the city council or mayors list. Rail transit works in densely populated areas like the east coast and west coast, not so well out where major cities are spaced 250+ miles apart. It's a folly for this area.
This study would be done at the national level, perhaps with some state funding -- not local funding.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Ms. Taylor created a new position of director of economic development. What the hell is a chamber of commerce for? (Let's not take off on a left turn over our inept C of C.)
You may have answered your own question as to why the Mayor wanted her own economic development function.[;)]
As for the other stuff, sure, the Mayor should stand up and say why each of those things is important...maybe the Communications Dept. can help with that.
I think we are still talking past each other. Even if you took every person and idea you mentioned out of the equation, it still wouldn't resolve this long-term revenue issue. At the end of the day, the state and the county will still have their hands in the city's till.
Does your ideaology prevent you from seeing the bigger picture? Is it just more fun to take shots at politicians? Or, possibly, do you have problems with multi-tasking? Me? I'm guilty of all of the above from time to time. But, in this case, the problem seems pretty clear.
No, I'm not just into lampooning politicians, though I do enjoy it. [;)]
When they are talking about revenue short-falls while at the same time wanting more compensation it goes right through me. They are trying to spend money they don't even have available yet. Annexing the fairgrounds is short-sighted on the part of the city and from anything I've gleaned out of these two threads, the annexation would just about cover the pay raises our counselors want and I don't know if anyone has figured out how much law enforcement would cost there.
The most viable discussion I've heard on here is revenue-sharing from the state and county.
One in particular came to mind when I was reviewing the budget info that CF posted. When oil and gas revenues are up for the state, that means municipalities are likely suffering with added costs to their budget that they may not have been able to forecast, like $3.29 a gallon gasoline and $11 per mcf natural gas in Sept. of '05. That additional revenue should be spread around to help out municipalities who have vehicles to keep on the road and public facilities to keep heated and lighted.
Second, Let the state keep the income tax rate where it is at, raise it a little if necessary and give us back a penny.
Hoping the buying habits of Tulsans is going to change and work us back into prosperity is a fairy tale.
quote:
Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE
This is @conan... I didn't quote his post to save space.
I'll add a twist to CL's post -- where would you suggest the City cut from? 80% of the city's general fund goes to personnel costs and 2/3 of that goes to police and fire. You want to cut the police force? LaFortune did that by eliminating an academy and crime shot up (we're just now recovering from that and getting the force back up to 800 officers). Fewer firemen?
The City has already cut non-safety departments just about to the bone. The Parks Department is practically a ghost. Code enforcement and neighborhood inspections - way down. There's no fat left to cut, it was all cut during the budget crunch the past 7 years.
So again, where would you cut? Let's hear it.
i would start by cutting her $130k a year secreteries....er "Assistants"
I would also put the city doctor on a per patient pay basis instead of the $161k he makes now.
Download the spreadsheet and start looking through all the salary bloat. Shave off a few of those salaries and hire some grunts to get the city's business done.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070306_Ne_A11_Cityo66558
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
i would start by cutting her $130k a year secreteries....er "Assistants"
Who's a secretary making anywhere near $130,000?
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
I would also put the city doctor on a per patient pay basis instead of the $161k he makes now.
You would be able to hire Dr Nick Riviera and nobody else.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaSooner
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
I would also put the city doctor on a per patient pay basis instead of the $161k he makes now.
You would be able to hire Dr Nick Riviera and nobody else.
then it sounds like the position isnt needed.
"But, even if you strike his $113k salary (a big chunk of which is funded by the Mayor's deferred salary), he's just 1/4250th of the city's workforce."
When one reads through these post it comes to their minds to how many time one can budget the mayor's deferred salary or is it only a noble justification to answer money distribution over and over.
The question that should be answered is: " What amount of taxes should be collected from each citizen to maintain the ageless bureaucracies that occupy city hall?" Lets set a dollar amount so the citizens can quit guessing.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
The federal help is drying up, too. From today's Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070320_1_A9_pTuls73175%22):
quote:
Doing More with Less: Block grants shrinking as demands keep rising
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2007/070320_A9_pTuls73175_money20.jpg)
This is exactly what Councilor Martin was saying in his report on the city's revenue (//%22http://www.tulsacouncil.org/pdfs/website%20embedded/COT_Fiscal_Constraints.pdf%22) last week.
The city's federal revenue has dropped by over 2/3rds since 1977, and almost 1/3rd since 2002, at a time when Tulsa could have really used that money the most. In the same period, federal Medicare reimbursements to EMSA have dropped by at least 1/3rd and sometimes as much as 58%. That drove EMSA into a tailspin, why would the city would be any different?
This "trim the fat", "let's run gov't like a business" claptrap is just plain silly in this case. What business can succeed in an environment where partners and competitors are manipulating prices willy-nilly?
Moreover, government is not a business, it's a public trust. Tulsans need somebody to keep the roads fixed, etc., in order for private enterprise to succeed. At this point, I don't really care who does it, so long as the unit of government is small, i.e. the city or county. I do not believe that the feds and state can run cities efficiently, it's not in their job description. But that's what will happen if the city ends up in receivership.
Community Block Grants do not fund day-to-day operations of city government. Community non-profits submit program proposals for funding to the City, who then decide, with Council approval, what community programs get funded with block grants.
A decline in block grants simply means less programs are funded by block grants. And it does not mean the city picks up where the block grants stopped.
^And Tulsa is worse off because of it. Wouldn't you agree?
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
A decline in block grants simply means less programs are funded by block grants. And it does not mean the city picks up where the block grants stopped.
OK, copper. What about Local Law Enforcement Block Grants, which have dried up altogether? Has the city assumed any of those program costs, or is the city doing without important law enforcement programs?
The salary spreadsheet is interesting. There are some positions we have on city payroll I'm curious about. Why don't we contract out things like photographers and graphic designers? There are some job titles which just make you go "huh?"
For instance, there is a photographer on the Gilcrease payroll for $39.5K
There is a graphic designer in the Parks Dept. at $41K.
A workforce development manager in urban development for $80K.
I counted just over 250 employees in the telecommunications department and right at 100 in Urban Development. I'm not an IT guy, but doesn't that sound like a lot of people in telecom? I understand having to pay Sr. IT people what their market value is, but how many support people are needed?
17 district fire chiefs for what 35 or so fire stations?
Ben Stout, listed as a "mayors assistant" is paid $30K more than what the mayors salary is listed at.
I'm assuming these salary figures are the gross salary and don't take into account the actual payroll costs for employees.
Charles Hardt at $171K a year likely earns every penny he's paid. I've often heard him referred to as the person who "runs" the city.
Maybe every last position is needed in all departments, but coming from the private sector and having worked for companies both large and small, I question the size of a lot of these staffs.
I could be wrong, but I believe the 911 staff is part of the Telecomm Dept and would make up a decent piece of those 250 staff members.
That's not to say the IT part isn't overstaffed, just saying that I think that's part of the number.
quote:
Originally posted by Kiah
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
A decline in block grants simply means less programs are funded by block grants. And it does not mean the city picks up where the block grants stopped.
OK, copper. What about Local Law Enforcement Block Grants, which have dried up altogether? Has the city assumed any of those program costs, or is the city doing without important law enforcement programs?
The old 'law enforcement block grants' were rolled into the now called 'community block grants'. Police submit proposals right along with other non-profit agencies. Most of the police proposals deal with hiring officers on an overtime basis for special programs, and obviously the officers' work has to be within the scope of the proposal, so it doesn't take away from day-to-day operations, it takes away from the extra hiring.
I have no idea how much the police have decreased in the amount of block grants, if any at all. Those decisions are made by the Mayor and council.
In addition, we now have JAG grants, but I don't know where the funding comes from (but I can guess).
Sounds like a few "Meetings with the Bobs" are in order.
(http://mike.kruckenberg.com/images/meet_with_bobs.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
Sounds like a few "Meetings with the Bobs" are in order.
(http://mike.kruckenberg.com/images/meet_with_bobs.jpg)
Bob Slydell: You see, what we're actually trying to do here is, we're trying to get a feel for how people spend their day at work... so, if you would, would you walk us through a typical day, for you?
Ben: Yeah.
Bob Slydell: Great.
Ben: Well, I generally come in at least fifteen minutes late, ah, I use the side door - that way Taylor can't see me, heh heh - and, uh, after that I just sorta space out for about an hour.
Bob Porter: Da-uh? Space out?
Ben: Yeah, I just stare at my desk; but it looks like I'm working. I do that for probably another hour after lunch, too. I'd say in a given week I probably only do about fifteen minutes of real, actual, work.
Do you mean that he doesn't stop at the coffee shop and eat his breakfast after he slips into City Hall to start his 15 minute work week?
Governments are like planting a new forest. When the trees are small saplings one can see through the forest. When the forest is grown then one can only see the outer part of the forest. Governments like the forest needs to be trimmed where they can become more open. They become overgrown and reach a point of saturation in taxing their supporters.
From the local to the national we are rapidly reaching that point.
Is it not time to do some trimming?
trimming? hell I was thinking of installing a chip mill and doing some clear cutting.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Do you mean that he doesn't stop at the coffee shop and eat his breakfast after he slips into City Hall to start his 15 minute work week?
Governments are like planting a new forest. When the trees are small saplings one can see through the forest. When the forest is grown then one can only see the outer part of the forest. Governments like the forest needs to be trimmed where they can become more open. They become overgrown and reach a point of saturation in taxing their supporters.
From the local to the national we are rapidly reaching that point.
Is it not time to do some trimming?
For once, one of your metaphors I can understand...and agree with.[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
trimming? hell I was thinking of installing a chip mill and doing some clear cutting.
But not in the parks or street rights-of-way. Funding for that has been cut. Seriously, do you think there is no relationship at all between cuts in municipal funding and quality of life?
Quoted:
"Seriously, do you think there is no relationship at all between cuts in municipal funding and quality of life?"
I believe there is a relationship between the three. (cutting, increasing and poverty)
The cuts in funding is hidden so far behind the nonessential increases under the pretense that those will improve the "quality of life" on the selected few and place a further burden on the majority that are struggling to live at and below the poverty level..
City governments that are run by billionaires do not address the needs of the working poor in their struggle to maintain a livelihood. .
Shadows, well said. Would you consider running for mayor next time around? [;)]