The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

seriously, where is it?
what the hell are we doing here?
where is the grand plan?
where is the future?

i know the comp plan is out there but c'mon...
this is all starting to look like status quo.

okc is on to maps3, while we've got what? community/county pet projects via v2025, a dead downtown and crumbling infrastructure...

for crying out loud, do something!

before you flame me, i'm just sick and tired of waiting and starting to fear that we are not going to ever catch up... this sucks.

The deer-in-the-headlights look after being confronted about voting twice in the same election was all I needed to know.  I would have voted for her up to that point.  I also felt her keeping the "single mother" thing up in her campaigning whilst ignoring she is married to one of Tulsa's wealthiest men was another turn-off.  

Quite frankly, her management style has been no surprise to me.

It sucked with the only alternative being Mayor Bill.

I know that things take a long time to work through the system in government.  So I am still giving the Mayor some leeway.  I figure we should see the start of things during the second year of her term.

My main hopes have been for some development along the river across from downtown. Its amazing how convoluted a process it is just to get the dam thing figured out. (pardon the pun) They have to do an environmental impact study that will take a year, you need funds for that. Then the type and height of dam will have to be decided upon.  Then if federal funds do not come through, which appears they wont, we will have to set up a vote for some type of funding for the dam and hardening of the shoreline. That will take time too. No matter how hard any mayor pushes, the process doesn't seem like it can be rushed all that much. Perhaps in 4 or 5 years at best we will see a dam and shoreline hardening so that we can really get the ball rolling on development.

However in the second year we should see some progress on paper for many things.  I would like to see some type of "2025 part deux" talked about.  River development goals, light rail, and other things could be on that vote. The figures are starting to be laid out for how much these things will cost.  We need to start thinking about when we can have a vote so that we can have a time table to work towards and a list of items to be voted on.  

The comprehensive plan is going to take a while to get underway and I think we should be considering action on some obvious "wants" even before it is completed.  We shouldnt wait for the comprehensive plan to be completed. The comprehensive plan is not something we are going to vote on to fund like a maps or 2025 project. All the focus shouldn't shift to the comprehensive plan leaving behind those items we already have been pushing for. The comprehensive plan isnt going to suprise us with the revelation that people want something done with the river, schools, light rail, etc. Surely we can do 2 things at once.

Perhaps too if there were major issues of concern that people are wondering about progress on.  There could be a list of steps that have to be taken for that subject to be completed and monthly updates on where in the process we currently were.  That way people wouldn't just hear about something that was supposed to be done then not hear about it and not know if anything at all was being done.  Just seeing the process laid out step by step and knowing progress was being made would be a big help and would answer a lot of questions.

Maybe she's a vegan.

Seriously, I can appreciate and share your impatience, but one year with all the problems we've grown over the last 30 isn't much time. Especially when she faces entrenched hatred from opponents who smell a liberal at every turn. Forced to operate among the old cops, the old guard, the luddites, the anti-arena, anti-river, anti-anythings, the county and the county haters she doesn't have much wriggle room. And my gawd, people here felt comfortable criticizing her alleged non-photogenic qualities at length rather than her substance!? Well at least she's not a know it all UT writer/politician/columnist/engineer/radio co-host who panders to our worst instincts. Stale baits seem to attract flies.

High expectations for a mere business lawyer. Mostly I believe that she simply is more of a functional business person than a visionary. Creative people rarely lead and business leaders are rarely creative.

quote:

---

Originally posted by daddys little squirt

Maybe she's a vegan.

Seriously, I can appreciate and share your impatience, but one year with all the problems we've grown over the last 30 isn't much time. Especially when she faces entrenched hatred from opponents who smell a liberal at every turn. Forced to operate among the old cops, the old guard, the luddites, the anti-arena, anti-river, anti-anythings, the county and the county haters she doesn't have much wriggle room. And my gawd, people here felt comfortable criticizing her alleged non-photogenic qualities at length rather than her substance!? Well at least she's not a know it all UT writer/politician/columnist/engineer/radio co-host who panders to our worst instincts. Stale baits seem to attract flies.

High expectations for a mere business lawyer. Mostly I believe that she simply is more of a functional business person than a visionary. Creative people rarely lead and business leaders are rarely creative.

---

Nice comment, DLS...welcome.  I tend to agree with you.  In my opinion, she's doing some good.  But Tulsa is a financial wreck on the revenue side, and there is only so much one mayor can do about it.  The State is an impediment to solutions and it will take regional cooperation to overcome that.  Nevertheless, and unlike her predecessor, she is trying.  I can't imagine we'd be better off is Mr. Bates had had his way and LaFortune was still mayor.

For instance, she tried to regionalize and stabilize the fire department and the idea was flat out rejected by the Oklahoma legislature.  Until the Tulsa region, i.e., the City, County, and surrounding communities start acting like a region, this area is going to struggle.  

FYI, acting like a region means, start cooperating and pooling resources, stop fighting over table scraps, and start holding our legislator's accountable for making sure that this 1/3 of the State gets its due.  

That's right, the Tulsa region pays a third of the bills in this state and we don't get back our third...not nearly.  That money is used disproportionately to subsidize failing rural economies and the State Capitol.  We'll never shed this millstone unless we form a bloc and demand change.

You Republicans aren't going to be happy with anything Taylor does, but it looks to me like she is a centrist that governs by consensus and leads by example.  I'm unhappy with her interest in moving City Hall, but hey, She's done a lot of things right, like standing up to the TPD.  Go Taylor!

I have a problem with her lack of transparency, use of private attorneys so that things will remain opaque to the public, etc.  What DID happen to public forums which were going to be a part of her reign?

FWIW, if she were a Republican and were running it the exact same way, I would still say the same thing, and still would not have voted for her for reasons previously mentioned.  Hers is not a management style that agrees with me.  There is a certain trust she lacks in my eyes.

I will admit up front that anybody who replaced Bill LaFortune can hardly do any worse (lets hope).  And when you follow someone like LaForture, you should look great to the electorate.  LaFortune was way too hands off.  Unfortunately, the opposite is true of our current Mayor.  She is a horrible micro-manager.

That being said:

quote:

---

Nice comment, DLS...welcome. I tend to agree with you. In my opinion, she's doing some good. But Tulsa is a financial wreck on the revenue side, and there is only so much one mayor can do about it. The State is an impediment to solutions and it will take regional cooperation to overcome that. Nevertheless, and unlike her predecessor, she is trying. I can't imagine we'd be better off is Mr. Bates had had his way and LaFortune was still mayor.

---

I can only take some much talk of the City being in a "financial wreck."  Remember, Tulsa is working on it's largest budget in City history.  It only boils down to how you prioritize spending.

quote:

---

For instance, she tried to regionalize and stabilize the fire department and the idea was flat out rejected by the Oklahoma legislature. Until the Tulsa region, i.e., the City, County, and surrounding communities start acting like a region, this area is going to struggle.

---

Now I may be wrong, but I don't believe there was any talk of "regionalizing" the Tulsa Fire Department, nor am I aware of any "stabilization" effort needed.  She wanted a tax increase, pure and simply.  That way she could redirect current fire department money someplace else.

quote:

---

I know that things take a long time to work through the system in government. So I am still giving the Mayor some leeway. I figure we should see the start of things during the second year of her term.  

---

I agree!  Unfortunately, government does not move very fast.  I've been a government employee my entire adult life and nothing ever happens very fast.  While many people don't like the term "ureaucracy ", it does keep things fair for everyone, but it is terribly slow.

quote:

---

However in the second year we should see some progress on paper for many things. I would like to see some type of "2025 part deux" talked about. River development goals, light rail, and other things could be on that vote. The figures are starting to be laid out for how much these things will cost. We need to start thinking about when we can have a vote so that we can have a time table to work towards and a list of items to be voted on.

---

Do you mean like a vote on another Vision 2050 or something?  I suggest we wait.  I served on a non-profit board prior to 2025 implementation.  The City was already taking proposals from groups (our board was one of them) for left over 2025 money prior to it starting its 13 year collection.  I would rather support something along the lines of how are we going to spend the overage that WILL be collected.

And no more River study.  We have studied the crap out of that place.  If we can't do it after 25 years of study, go someplace else.  The only prosperity happening with the River are people who study the river.

quote:

---

I have a problem with her lack of transparency, use of private attorneys so that things will remain opaque to the public, etc. What DID happen to public forums which were going to be a part of her reign?

---

You aren't alone, brother!

quote:

---

You Republicans aren't going to be happy with anything Taylor does, but it looks to me like she is a centrist that governs by consensus and leads by example. I'm unhappy with her interest in moving City Hall, but hey, She's done a lot of things right, like standing up to the TPD. Go Taylor!

---

"Governs by consensus" only as long as the consensus agrees with her.  It is more like leading with an iron fist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by brunoflipper

seriously, where is it?
what the hell are we doing here?
where is the grand plan?
where is the future?

i know the comp plan is out there but c'mon...
this is all starting to look like status quo.

okc is on to maps3, while we've got what? community/county pet projects via v2025, a dead downtown and crumbling infrastructure...

for crying out loud, do something!

before you flame me, i'm just sick and tired of waiting and starting to fear that we are not going to ever catch up... this sucks.

---

Bruno, I couldn't agree with you more.. There seems to be no such thing as fast track in Tulsa.

One thing I see lacking in Tulsa is the "partnerships in the private sector" that should be happening to propel Tulsa forward..

Look at this Board as an example. We have one of the most important topics being "tailpipes on motorcycles and the noise they create"...

We need desperately as we did prior to Kanbar some people to put their wallets where their mouths are... An example..

People want to see things happen Downtown yet I do not see pools of venture capital forming to make a private investment..

And yes.... Global and the other fellows such as Williams, that is the front guy for big blue, are "venturing" ...

The result being we are on the sidelines waiting for the "Tax Money" to finance nirvana...
and complaining endlessly that the City has not done enough..

To me... and this is just me....

Kinda beginning to sound like a socialist state wondering why the bread line is so long..

Look no further than this thread... The question you pose is in regards to "the grand plan and development... the slow growth" immediately you have everyone and their cousin jumping in to question why "Big Brother or Sister" ,as the case may be, isn't doing more..

I challenge every member of Tulsa Now to take a look at what they have contributed in the way of action to "Make It Happen"........!?

That is other than become full time development and political consultants on this Board.

Rico,

Kaiser is a good example of private/public involvement with his gift for the river.

Warren Foundation, et. al. (The Channels) is a poor example.

We need more Kaisers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rico

quote:

---

Originally posted by brunoflipper

seriously, where is it?
what the hell are we doing here?
where is the grand plan?
where is the future?

i know the comp plan is out there but c'mon...
this is all starting to look like status quo.

okc is on to maps3, while we've got what? community/county pet projects via v2025, a dead downtown and crumbling infrastructure...

for crying out loud, do something!

before you flame me, i'm just sick and tired of waiting and starting to fear that we are not going to ever catch up... this sucks.

---

Bruno, I couldn't agree with you more.. There seems to be no such thing as fast track in Tulsa.

One thing I see lacking in Tulsa is the "partnerships in the private sector" that should be happening to propel Tulsa forward..

Look at this Board as an example. We have one of the most important topics being "tailpipes on motorcycles and the noise they create"...

We need desperately as we did prior to Kanbar some people to put their wallets where their mouths are... An example..

People want to see things happen Downtown yet I do not see pools of venture capital forming to make a private investment..

And yes.... Global and the other fellows such as Williams, that is the front guy for big blue, are "venturing" ...

The result being we are on the sidelines waiting for the "Tax Money" to finance nirvana...
and complaining endlessly that the City has not done enough..

To me... and this is just me....

Kinda beginning to sound like a socialist state wondering why the bread line is so long..

Look no further than this thread... The question you pose is in regards to "the grand plan and development... the slow growth" immediately you have everyone and their cousin jumping in to question why "Big Brother or Sister" ,as the case may be, isn't doing more..

I challenge every member of Tulsa Now to take a look at what they have contributed in the way of action to "Make It Happen"........!?

That is other than become full time development and political consultants on this Board.

---

I agree with that sir. Lots of blowhard consulting and serious critiquing around here. "Little less talk and a lot more action..." is good advice.

Odd that a city that has been described as the last bastion of capitalism should have such difficulty recognizing startup potential in areas outside of real estate, restaurants and oil. Lots of navel contemplating and political activism but little of that oil money lubricating city growth. Seems like its always some politicians fault too. Better get some bad pics and get the P-Shop working. That's helpful.

Lots of fat, contented cows around here and you know what happens to cows eventually. Sorry for the nattering negativity. Life is good, life is good, life is good.[:D]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilbur

I can only take some much talk of the City being in a "financial wreck."  Remember, Tulsa is working on it's largest budget in City history.  It only boils down to how you prioritize spending.

---

You are kidding, right?  To say that Tulsa has its "largest budget in City history" is either naive or misleading.  
(http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z60/twass_2007/budget.jpg)

As you can see from Councilor Martinson's report, "Municipal Revenues and Fiscal Constraints" (//%22http://www.tulsacouncil.org/pdfs/website%20embedded/COT_Fiscal_Constraints.pdf%22), March 2008, the city's inflation adjusted budget is exactly where it was 10 years ago.

Note that certain personnel costs have outpaced inflation, e.g., health insurance, public safety salaries, etc.

I'm not saying that you guys don't deserve raises, or that the need for additional officers wasn't there...I'm only noting that the revenue to keep pace with this growth is simply not there.

quote:

---

Now I may be wrong, but I don't believe there was any talk of "regionalizing" the Tulsa Fire Department, nor am I aware of any "stabilization" effort needed.  She wanted a tax increase, pure and simply.  That way she could redirect current fire department money someplace else.

---

She proposed the formation of a fire district to be funded by property tax.  It's essentially the same structure as a the City/County Library System and Health Dept.  At no point did she say she wanted to raise taxes...she simply wanted to shift the burden onto a more stable, and steadily growing revenue source, i.e. property tax.  Over time, as the district matures and gains value, the district fire department could keep pace.  The State legislature said no, not because they thought it would cost Tulsans more, but because granting cities the ability to form fire districts would take away power from counties, and in all but about 2 of our 77 counties, the county government reigns supreme.  It's a crooked deal.

Isn't that amazing?

75 of 77 counties can fund fire departments this way, but the two urban counties can't.

Rural Oklahoma politics is what is hurting Oklahoma.

When All Is Said And Done......

More Is Said Than Done.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

Rico,

Kaiser is a good example of private/public involvement with his gift for the river.

Warren Foundation, et. al. (The Channels) is a poor example.

We need more Kaisers.

---

I respectfully disagree with you sir...

We need many Kaiser's on a much smaller scale..

Partnerships, Co Operative investments, groups of individuals that have only so much money to invest.... but have Great ideas.

Take twenty people with a business plan.. each has say !0K.. Venture capital..
Just an example but you can see the possibilities.

Someone on another thread faulted ypTulsa and TYpros for having drinks a lot of talk and no action...

Tulsa Now could be a catalyst for the formation of many limited partnership investments...Not so long ago the membership on this forum was below 400 people. Last I looked it was approaching 1600. (and yes that is subtracting 10 or so in the event Davazz has been cloned).

Maybe you invest 10K and only get back 10.5K... But you have been a part of building what you feel belongs here.

Big Brother i.e. Kaiser, Warren, Zarrow, Siegfried.. Are not busy making plans to spend all their money to benefit individuals that do not have the "moxie" to get off their behinds and take a chance on things......

Wilbur,

You should read Councilor Martinson's report, "Municipal Revenues and Fiscal Constraints" (//%22http://www.tulsacouncil.org/pdfs/website%20embedded/COT_Fiscal_Constraints.pdf%22) (March 2008).

quote:

---

As the previous slide clearly shows, we've maintained our focus on public safety, but this has forced us to eliminate services in other areas.

I don't want anyone to miss the point that our realneeds exceed our resources. The budget balances because it has to.

In some cases we have cut beyond the fat and are deep into the muscle. We are working on implementing LEAN processes, but they will take time and will not cover the entire gap.

People talk about tax increases, but the last time the City of Tulsa had a tax increase was with the first 3rd penny in 1980. The 3rd Penny is a temporary tax, approved by the voters, and is essentially restricted to fund capital projects.

The City has relied on a 2% sales tax since 1971 to fund operations. Granted, sales taxes rise with the price of goods purchased, but as those prices increase, so do our costs. We could probably maintain services in such an environment, but other factors are working against us as you will soon see.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rico

Tulsa Now could be a catalyst for the formation of many limited partnership investments...

---

I respect your respectful disagreement sir.

Why on earth would we ever want TN to become something more productive than trading barbs and insults, and a place to rate your favorite restaurant???  Oh, the nerve!!! [;)]

My point may not have been real coherent about the difference of approach.  To me, the "Stakeholders" was a turn off because they were willing to put money where their mouth was on public land, but I also saw it as an "our way or the highway" approach.  May not have been reality but that was my perception and why it really left a bad taste in my mouth.  The whole presentation seemed very elitest to me.

Kaiser's gift had fewer strings attached and didn't leave me feeling like myself and other Tulsan's are too big of boobs to know what they want or what is good for public development and enjoyment.

FWIW, on the TYpros/YPT thread the question was posed about who has done the most.  As far as young professionals, the Jaycees have done more tangible for this community than anyone will ever know and have been doing it for ages.  There's a difference between talking and doing.  Aa5drvr isn't far off the mark.

Wilbur, As I remember it Mayor Taylor held neighborhood meetings throughout the city to get citizen input on what they want in a new chief of police.  She developed a consensus from that input and she is now acting on the consensus.  

I also have a family member at City Hall that continues to say she is an excellent manager.  No one knows a boss like the folks that work for the boss.

In regards to her use of private attorneys, I would say this woman is a smart cookie.

Good gawd I'd hate to wake up and face what she faces everyday.  You go girl.  It's not easy being a Democrat in a Republican era in a Republican-controlled town.

Rico:

I do not have lots of money. Nor do I have the means to get lots of money.

However, if someone had the ambition to start a Tulsa venture capitalist fund I would do everything I could to buy in.  Make it a LP with a $1K buy in or something and you could attract people that have an entrepreneurial spirit but not the resources nor perhaps the time (or stomach) to lay it all on the line.

Interesting concept anyway.

I checked with a friend about Venture Funds for Tulsa start ups a couple of years ago and he said there are already several.

I would be a venture capitalist if I had more money.

I annually get a seven figure salary... unfortunately, there is a decimal point involved.

quote:

---

Originally posted by recyclemichael

I would be a venture capitalist if I had more money.

I annually get a seven figure salary... unfortunately, there is a decimal point involved.

---

Point of humor taken.. from the VIP from the MET...

Correct me if I am wrong RM but in the "good ole days" when the President of Tulsa Now completed a calendar year of service....There was a letter from the President kind of highlighting the accomplishments and challenges faced during the year... Then a summation of hopes and the direction of things to come..

One such letter; addressed the need for Tulsa Now to be able to hire or pay an individual to manage and coordinate future plans of action....etc.

I attended a meeting at Harwelden, two years ago, where there was an idea put forth for a "revolving fund"...The purpose of this fund; to be able to step in if there were to be future demolitions... Such as Skelly and the Auto Hotel..

How might a LP, as suggested by cannon, be that far from what has been suggested in the past...

Oh wise one with the ear of the Queen and many, many, a boardroom.

  I know this can not destroy any plans to make Tulsa Now a non profit..

For Pete's sake Southern Hills is a non profit..


So, as you are enjoying your Stilton on Water Cracker and fine Merlot, perhaps you can see if there is anything other than a "decimal point"
of interest?

quote:

---

Originally posted by recyclemichael

Isn't that amazing?

75 of 77 counties can fund fire departments this way, but the two urban counties can't.

Rural Oklahoma politics is what is hurting Oklahoma.

---

OMG, we agree on something!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hometown

I checked with a friend about Venture Funds for Tulsa start ups a couple of years ago and he said there are already several.

---

So what have they done for us lately...?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chicken Little

Wilbur,

You should read Councilor Martinson's report, "Municipal Revenues and Fiscal Constraints" (//%22http://www.tulsacouncil.org/pdfs/website%20embedded/COT_Fiscal_Constraints.pdf%22) (March 2008).

quote:

---

As the previous slide clearly shows, we've maintained our focus on public safety, but this has forced us to eliminate services in other areas.

I don't want anyone to miss the point that our realneeds exceed our resources. The budget balances because it has to.

In some cases we have cut beyond the fat and are deep into the muscle. We are working on implementing LEAN processes, but they will take time and will not cover the entire gap.

People talk about tax increases, but the last time the City of Tulsa had a tax increase was with the first 3rd penny in 1980. The 3rd Penny is a temporary tax, approved by the voters, and is essentially restricted to fund capital projects.

The City has relied on a 2% sales tax since 1971 to fund operations. Granted, sales taxes rise with the price of goods purchased, but as those prices increase, so do our costs. We could probably maintain services in such an environment, but other factors are working against us as you will soon see.

---

---

To say the Mayor's proposal to raise money through a fire protection district is not a tax increase is just flat wrong.  And for the good councilor to say taxes haven't been raised in Tulsa since 1980 is just flat wrong.

An increase in revenue to a government through new fees or an increase in existing fees is a tax increase, regardless if you say those fees will be used for a specific purpose or you don't call it a tax.  That raise in my water/sewer rates equals a tax increase.  That new EMSA subsidy added to my water bill (I opted out - don't forget to opt out by June 30) equals a tax increase.  That 911 subsidy added to my phone bill equals a tax increase.  The increase in sales tax for Vision 2025, of which the majority of the money goes to the City, equals a tax increase.  That temporary Whirlpool tax equals a tax increase.  All of these have happened since 1980.  Shall I go on?

The problem with the spin that comes out from City Hall is they only quote ONE section of the City's total budget picture, and that is the operating budget.  Problem is, there are lots more budgets, such as the capital budget and others.  I will totally agree that 2 cents of our sales taxes goes to fund the operating budget and no other taxes are identified to operating expenses.  But whose fault is that?  We add taxes on top of taxes but always specifically say those new taxes can't be used for operating expenses.  Nothing says Third Penny can't be used for operating expenses, it's just that is how Third Penny is offered up to the tax payers.

Like I have said before, you must look at total city expenditures, not just one section of the budget.  I will stand by my previous statement, the city is spending record amounts of money.

You mention the City's budget is flat when compared to inflation.  I agree the operating budget is flat when compared to inflation.  And personnel costs, health care costs, fuel costs, all go into inflation, just as it does for every citizen in this town.  That is what inflation is.  Additionally, a budget that keeps up with inflation, such as Tulsa's, is what many people want.  They don't want new programs creeping up every time government finds new money to spend.

I agree with everyone at City Hall that employee costs are the majority of city expenditures in the operating budget (but not the total budget picture).  Government is strictly non-profit, we don't sell a product, so as with any non-profit agency, the majority of our expenditure will be on personnel.  I also agree public safety is the majority of the operating budget (but not the total budget picture), as it is with every government agency.  Fire trucks, ambulances, police cars, ........ are expensive.

I get tired of hearing how poor the City SAYS they are, but we seem to have plenty of money to buy a new City Hall, or some other pet project depending on who the mayor is.  Again, it all comes down to priorities in spending.

What have venture capitalists done for Tulsa lately?  Apparently not much.

Take a drive over to NW Arkansas or down to Texas to see what prosperity looks like.

Taylor's a good leader but she's not a miracle worker.

Tulsa is a study in what happens to a company town when the company leaves.

I always hear the "Dragnet" theme when I see Hometown has added to a thread: "Dum de dum-dum, dum de dum-dum dum"

Here's a little gift for you my old friend:

(http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/217108/2/istockphoto_217108_nerd_glasses.jpg)

It's a long-shot, but I'm hoping these will help with your myopia.

My dear friend Conan, you weren't here when Tulsa was the Oil Capital of the World.  I was.

Some day we are going to have to talk about who was in charge when the oil industry bailed on Tulsa (Inhofe) and why they let the industry leave without putting up a good fight.

Meanwhile, Kathy Taylor is just about the best mayor we can hope for, but she can't turn things around by herself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hometown

My dear friend Conan, you weren't here when Tulsa was the Oil Capital of the World.  I was.

Some day we are going to have to talk about who was in charge when the oil industry bailed on Tulsa (Inhofe) and why they let the industry leave without putting up a good fight.

Meanwhile, Kathy Taylor is just about the best mayor we can hope for, but she can't turn things around by herself.

---

Yes, I know HT, you are so old you taught Jesus carpentry. [;)]

So it was that creep Inhofe's fault.

And here all along I've always believed what my petroleum geologist (former) step-father and grandfather, who was in the biz, were telling me at the time:

The bottom fell out of oil prices, consolidation of operations was necessary for survival, large volume oil fields in Oklahoma and Kansas were playing out, U.S. exploration was shifting from the continental U.S. to the Gulf of Mexico, and Houston was 500 miles closer to the Gulf, ICW, and refineries;  more direct airline transportation to foreign countries where oil exploration had gone, etc.

I guess my step-dad and grandfather really were lying bastards after-all.  Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Have you ever seen a town fight to keep a business that was considering leaving?  I certainly have.  The fact that Inhofe let the oil industry abandon Tulsa without so much as a whimper makes one question his loyalties, who he was serving and where his bread was buttered.  I think most of us know the answer to those questions.

I'm certainly no spring chicken Conan.  I guess you could say I have the long view.  If you were from Tulsa you would know to show some respect for your elders.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilbur


To say the Mayor's proposal to raise money through a fire protection district is not a tax increase is just flat wrong.

---

Wow.  Asking to switch a funding stream from sales tax to property tax change is not the same as a tax increase.  That's not spin, that's logic.  If the ability for the City to form a fire district were granted, then I presume the voters would have been given a chance to decide.  Maybe they would have demanded an offset; maybe Tulsa would have lowered its sales tax.  I don't know and neither do you.  All I know is that the state legislators denied us this opportunity for self-determination because they want to preserve an archaic county government power structure that does Tulsa no good.  It's all a moot point now, but at least Taylor tried...and I hope she keeps trying until we have a way to prosper in the future.

quote:

---

And for the good councilor to say taxes haven't been raised in Tulsa since 1980 is just flat wrong.  

An increase in revenue to a government through new fees or an increase in existing fees is a tax increase, regardless if you say those fees will be used for a specific purpose or you don't call it a tax.  That raise in my water/sewer rates equals a tax increase.

---

 No, water and sewer is fee-for-service.  It's a different revenue stream.  Water and sewer fees can only be used to maintain those systems.  But if you insist that clean water is a tax, then have your water shut off and give yourself a tax break! [;)]

quote:

---

That new EMSA subsidy added to my water bill (I opted out - don't forget to opt out by June 30) equals a tax increase.

---

 By definition, taxes are involuntary payments demanded by government.  This is not compulsory and therefore not a tax.  It's a fee, if you are okay with a lower level of service, then you can opt out.

quote:

---

That 911 subsidy added to my phone bill equals a tax increase.

---

Yes, it is because it's compulsory. But it's also targeted.  911 fees go to support 911, not the general operations of the City.  

quote:

---

The increase in sales tax for Vision 2025, of which the majority of the money goes to the City, equals a tax increase.

---

 It's a county tax.  Per capita, surrounding communities got far more than Tulsa.  I never liked the arena either, but don't obfuscate by saying that the arena money is being spent only for the benefit of Tulsans.

quote:

---

That temporary Whirlpool tax equals a tax increase.

---

Tax abatements s*ck, you'll get no argument from me, but again, that was a county thing.  

quote:

---

All of these have happened since 1980.  Shall I go on?

---

Yes, you'd better, because, of the four examples you have cited, not of your "taxes" could have been used to support police salaries, fire salaries, and other general operations (Streets, Parks, Finance).  That funding source has been the same 2% since 1971.  And that's why our streets are cruddy, our parks are overgrown, and our public safety folks are fighting everyone and every thing in order to get what they need to protect us.  There's no place left to cut.

Think about how this city has changed since 1971.  It is more spread out, meaning, in order to keep response times down, you need more fire stations, ambulance crews, policemen, patrol cars, and gasoline per capita to maintain the same level of service.

Now consider all of those personnel and capital costs that have outpaced inflation:  education, health care, energy (gas and electricity), and even concrete and steel (thanks, China).    

The City changed but the revenue hasn't.  

quote:

---

The problem with the spin that comes out from City Hall is they only quote ONE section of the City's total budget picture, and that is the operating budget.  Problem is, there are lots more budgets, such as the capital budget and others.  I will totally agree that 2 cents of our sales taxes goes to fund the operating budget and no other taxes are identified to operating expenses.  But whose fault is that?  We add taxes on top of taxes but always specifically say those new taxes can't be used for operating expenses.  Nothing says Third Penny can't be used for operating expenses, it's just that is how Third Penny is offered up to the tax payers.

Like I have said before, you must look at total city expenditures, not just one section of the budget.  I will stand by my previous statement, the city is spending record amounts of money.

You mention the City's budget is flat when compared to inflation.  I agree the operating budget is flat when compared to inflation.  And personnel costs, health care costs, fuel costs, all go into inflation, just as it does for every citizen in this town.  That is what inflation is.  

---

I know what inflation is.  I also know that the city doesn't buy groceries, clothes, plama tvs, and sports equipment.  Globalization, for better or worse, has made lots of these things cheaper since the 1970s.  On the other hand, costs associated with personnel, energy, and facilities have gone up.  The city skews towards these things and they have outpaced inflation.

quote:

---

Additionally, a budget that keeps up with inflation, such as Tulsa's, is what many people want.  

---

Yes, but it doesn't keep up.

quote:

---

They don't want new programs creeping up every time government finds new money to spend.

I agree with everyone at City Hall that employee costs are the majority of city expenditures in the operating budget (but not the total budget picture).

---

 Tell us what you'd cut, then.  Martinson showed us that things like Parks and Finance have been severely cut already.  Where's the fat?  

quote:

---

Government is strictly non-profit, we don't sell a product, so as with any non-profit agency, the majority of our expenditure will be on personnel.  I also agree public safety is the majority of the operating budget (but not the total budget picture), as it is with every government agency.  Fire trucks, ambulances, police cars, ........ are expensive.

I get tired of hearing how poor the City SAYS they are, but we seem to have plenty of money to buy a new City Hall, or some other pet project depending on who the mayor is.  Again, it all comes down to priorities in spending.

---

We're not that far apart on many things, Wilbur.  You recognize the problems, but your "solution" is grounded in rhetoric, not reality.  Tulsa is pretty efficient right now; several rounds of cuts will do that to a bureaucracy.  And the mayor keeps looking for new ways to save money.  Should we combine the City, County, Riverparks Systems and share personnel and equipment?  Why the h*ll not...it's worth a look anyway?  What about fire departments? Police forces?  Let's keep looking.  
Does it make sense to consolidate in a new city hall in a spanking new building and sell off several older properties for redevelopment.  We're all waiting on the numbers, but it, too, was worth a look.  If it makes financial sense over the long haul, is it really a "pet project"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chicken Little

Wilbur,

You should read Councilor Martinson's report, "Municipal Revenues and Fiscal Constraints" (//%22http://www.tulsacouncil.org/pdfs/website%20embedded/COT_Fiscal_Constraints.pdf%22) (March 2008).

quote:

---

As the previous slide clearly shows, we've maintained our focus on public safety, but this has forced us to eliminate services in other areas.

I don't want anyone to miss the point that our realneeds exceed our resources. The budget balances because it has to.

In some cases we have cut beyond the fat and are deep into the muscle. We are working on implementing LEAN processes, but they will take time and will not cover the entire gap.

People talk about tax increases, but the last time the City of Tulsa had a tax increase was with the first 3rd penny in 1980. The 3rd Penny is a temporary tax, approved by the voters, and is essentially restricted to fund capital projects.

The City has relied on a 2% sales tax since 1971 to fund operations. Granted, sales taxes rise with the price of goods purchased, but as those prices increase, so do our costs. We could probably maintain services in such an environment, but other factors are working against us as you will soon see.

---

---

To say the Mayor's proposal to raise money through a fire protection district is not a tax increase is just flat wrong.  And for the good councilor to say taxes haven't been raised in Tulsa since 1980 is just flat wrong.

An increase in revenue to a government through new fees or an increase in existing fees is a tax increase, regardless if you say those fees will be used for a specific purpose or you don't call it a tax.  That raise in my water/sewer rates equals a tax increase.  That new EMSA subsidy added to my water bill (I opted out - don't forget to opt out by June 30) equals a tax increase.  That 911 subsidy added to my phone bill equals a tax increase.  The increase in sales tax for Vision 2025, of which the majority of the money goes to the City, equals a tax increase.  That temporary Whirlpool tax equals a tax increase.  All of these have happened since 1980.  Shall I go on?

The problem with the spin that comes out from City Hall is they only quote ONE section of the City's total budget picture, and that is the operating budget.  Problem is, there are lots more budgets, such as the capital budget and others.  I will totally agree that 2 cents of our sales taxes goes to fund the operating budget and no other taxes are identified to operating expenses.  But whose fault is that?  We add taxes on top of taxes but always specifically say those new taxes can't be used for operating expenses.  Nothing says Third Penny can't be used for operating expenses, it's just that is how Third Penny is offered up to the tax payers.

Like I have said before, you must look at total city expenditures, not just one section of the budget.  I will stand by my previous statement, the city is spending record amounts of money.

You mention the City's budget is flat when compared to inflation.  I agree the operating budget is flat when compared to inflation.  And personnel costs, health care costs, fuel costs, all go into inflation, just as it does for every citizen in this town.  That is what inflation is.  Additionally, a budget that keeps up with inflation, such as Tulsa's, is what many people want.  They don't want new programs creeping up every time government finds new money to spend.

I agree with everyone at City Hall that employee costs are the majority of city expenditures in the operating budget (but not the total budget picture).  Government is strictly non-profit, we don't sell a product, so as with any non-profit agency, the majority of our expenditure will be on personnel.  I also agree public safety is the majority of the operating budget (but not the total budget picture), as it is with every government agency.  Fire trucks, ambulances, police cars, ........ are expensive.

I get tired of hearing how poor the City SAYS they are, but we seem to have plenty of money to buy a new City Hall, or some other pet project depending on who the mayor is.  Again, it all comes down to priorities in spending.

---

The move of City Hall would only happen if the city would realize cost SAVINGS by consolidating offices into one facility. As someone who appears to be anti-tax, small-government, you should support the motivation behind the effort. Unless you're just against everything.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chicken Little

QuoteOriginally posted by Wilbur


  And the mayor keeps looking for new ways to save money.  Should we combine the City, County, Riverparks Systems and share personnel and equipment?  Why the h*ll not...it's worth a look anyway?  

---

Give that man a cigar! Not just equipment. There are plenty of savings to be had with this idea as well as the added benefit of unified planning. All the sacred cows need to be herded together and culled. The lunacy of city parks, county parks and river parks all within the same trade area with different budgets, different goals, security etc is the very definition of wasteful duplicative government. Go after that one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hometown

Have you ever seen a town fight to keep a business that was considering leaving?  I certainly have.  The fact that Inhofe let the oil industry abandon Tulsa without so much as a whimper makes one question his loyalties, who he was serving and where his bread was buttered.  I think most of us know the answer to those questions.

I'm certainly no spring chicken Conan.  I guess you could say I have the long view.  If you were from Tulsa you would know to show some respect for your elders.

---

Heh, heh, heh.

That makes as much sense as saying "Who was buttering Mayor Savage's muffin when Texaco finally packed up and Amoco finally closed their research center?" or "Was Bill LaFortune smoking pot with Hugo Chavez when CITGO left Tulsa?"

I really don't recall more than token efforts by those mayors either.  I don't hold them accountable for it, it boils down to corporate economics.

Like it or not, companies frequently move operations for the sake of convenience, efficiency, and economic considerations.  Corporations are beholden first to share-holders not local politicians or legislators.

Large-scale migration and consolidation of the oil industry to Houston was already happening back when Inhofe and his brother Bud were still scheming on time-shares down on Padre` Island before he was in elected office.  What happened during his tenure was inevitable, regardless of who was in office or what incentives were thrown toward oil companies.

Just because the downtown skyline no longer has titles like "Texaco", "Cities Service", Amoco, or "Occidental" on building caps doesn't mean we aren't still a player in the oil industry.  Williams, SEM, Samson, and OneOk are just a sampling of well-respected players who still call Tulsa their HQ.  There is an oil patch fabrication industry which is kicking donkey in Tulsa right now.  

FWIW, Forbes Magazine (whoops, there's another hateful capitalist) in 2006 ranked Tulsa as second in the nation in income growth.

Yeah, Inhofe is really keeping Tulsa from bringing home the bacon these days.

It's not all politics HT.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hometown

My dear friend Conan, you weren't here when Tulsa was the Oil Capital of the World.  I was.

Some day we are going to have to talk about who was in charge when the oil industry bailed on Tulsa (Inhofe) and why they let the industry leave without putting up a good fight.

Meanwhile, Kathy Taylor is just about the best mayor we can hope for, but she can't turn things around by herself.

---

Yes, I know HT, you are so old you taught Jesus carpentry. [;)]

So it was that creep Inhofe's fault.

And here all along I've always believed what my petroleum geologist (former) step-father and grandfather, who was in the biz, were telling me at the time:

The bottom fell out of oil prices, consolidation of operations was necessary for survival, large volume oil fields in Oklahoma and Kansas were playing out, U.S. exploration was shifting from the continental U.S. to the Gulf of Mexico, and Houston was 500 miles closer to the Gulf, ICW, and refineries;  more direct airline transportation to foreign countries where oil exploration had gone, etc.

I guess my step-dad and grandfather really were lying bastards after-all.  Thanks for clearing that up for me.

---

Maybe. If you receive your career sustenance from the industry you tend to believe their propaganda. People who have escaped often tell a different story. I was one of them. The oil industry is a population of bleating sheep. If one large company moves to Houston for whatever reason, the others will follow. Same thing with their justifications for pricing. All of what your lying bastard grandfather said may be true but most likely had little to do with moving out of Tulsa. It presupposes that we didn't have working telephone lines, and that the company jets ran out of jet fuel.

   And the mayor keeps looking for new ways to save money. Should we combine the City, County, Riverparks Systems and share personnel and equipment? Why the h*ll not...it's worth a look anyway?

---

Give that man a cigar! Not just equipment. There are plenty of savings to be had with this idea as well as the added benefit of unified planning. All the sacred cows need to be herded together and culled. The lunacy of city parks, county parks and river parks all within the same trade area with different budgets, different goals, security etc is the very definition of wasteful duplicative government. Go after that one.

---

^

Very Good points from both of you.. Another thing that needs to be looked at hard are the contracted work that is done for the City of Tulsa...

Go down to the fellows office in charge of "contracts" at City Hall .. Ask him... how many people, the City, has to verify the work contracted for is ever completed or is done at all..? I know of several instances where the Contractor was on time and complete with one thing submitting his Invoice for Payment....

It worked better than you would think it would for quite some time.

That is one Contract of hundreds that Mister Hardt (sp?) feels the City saves money by contracting the services rather than having a work force capable of doing the work... and mind you... many of the contracts are for mowing the grass.

If the City and County were to combine employees it would be interesting to see if a savings could be realized with joint use of equipment and personnel...?

Yes, and it's expected that cities will look out for their own self interests but our leadership didn't look out for Tulsa's interest when they could have made an effort to staunch the flow.  Maybe it's because Inhofe thought his personal self interest was best served by taking care of the oil industry instead of his constituents.

There's a story in little ole Tulsa's slavish support of the Republican party and the Republican party's complete disregard for Tulsa.

I like the story behind the story.  Don't you Conan?

Now, I've asked you before and you've never told me, I'm from Tulsa, where are you from and where are you going?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hometown

Yes, and it's expected that cities will look out for their own self interests but our leadership didn't look out for Tulsa's interest when they could have made an effort to staunch the flow.  Maybe it's because Inhofe thought his personal self interest was best served by taking care of the oil industry instead of his constituents.

There's a story in little ole Tulsa's slavish support of the Republican party and the Republican party's complete disregard for Tulsa.

I like the story behind the story.  Don't you Conan?

Now, I've asked you before and you've never told me, I'm from Tulsa, where are you from and where are you going?

---

Born in Tulsa in the pink palace in 1965, lived here for all but 6 months back in my early 20's.  Yeah I know, I was dragging sh!tty diapers across the carpet while you were starting to make your bones.

I'm going to gut it out here another 10 or 15 years, then planning to move off-shore to a place with abundant clear salt water, low crime, low or no taxes, no Democrats or Republicans other than those on vacation or fellow expatriates, and plenty of rum drinks and Carib Beer.  I plan to refrain from reading USA Today.  Hopefully it's a place the environmentalists will allow me to have a viking funeral when my poor liver finally gives out or I die of skin cancer. [;)]

Little secret this youngster learned before he could even vote:  Political parties don't care about individuals, just their votes and the corporations and PACs who give them money and keep them in a lazy job.

You will never convince me that Inhofe could have done anything different to change a logical trend in the oil industry.  The die was cast and there wasn't a thing Tulsa could do about it.  I'd say the same thing if it were Hewgley, LaFortune I or II, Savage, Randall, or whomever.

quote:

---

Originally posted by daddys little squirt

Maybe. If you receive your career sustenance from the industry you tend to believe their propaganda. People who have escaped often tell a different story. I was one of them. The oil industry is a population of bleating sheep. If one large company moves to Houston for whatever reason, the others will follow. Same thing with their justifications for pricing. All of what your lying bastard grandfather said may be true but most likely had little to do with moving out of Tulsa. It presupposes that we didn't have working telephone lines, and that the company jets ran out of jet fuel.

---

Yep, still doesn't buttress Hometown's assertion that we can blame Inhofe for "monkey-see, monkey-do" along with obvious economic advantages which follow by being close to the competition, vendors, and customers.

Conan!  My baby homeboy.  You're going to blow a hole in my argument about Tulsans knowing how to act in public.  Anyway, rest up and remember Mayor Taylor in your prayers.  Maybe there's hope for you yet.

Hey Squirt, oil has one thing I like and one thing Tulsa really needs.  Big Money.

Two points.  We still have a critical mass of oil business; and, Bartlesville brought back significant operations from Conoco / Philips.  Tulsa needs to take a look at what our little sister to the north has done.

Meanwhile, the old regime that got us in this mess is still in power and folks if you like what you've been getting keep on voting for Inhofe and his friends.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conan71

quote:

---

Originally posted by daddys little squirt

Maybe. If you receive your career sustenance from the industry you tend to believe their propaganda. People who have escaped often tell a different story. I was one of them. The oil industry is a population of bleating sheep. If one large company moves to Houston for whatever reason, the others will follow. Same thing with their justifications for pricing. All of what your lying bastard grandfather said may be true but most likely had little to do with moving out of Tulsa. It presupposes that we didn't have working telephone lines, and that the company jets ran out of jet fuel.

---

Yep, still doesn't buttress Hometown's assertion that we can blame Inhofe for "monkey-see, monkey-do" along with obvious economic advantages which follow by being close to the competition, vendors, and customers.

---

I had no intention of buttressing anyone's opinion, just looking out for reasonable assertions and backing them with personal experience.

I was working for the tenth largest oil company in America, Cities, when one of the bigger guys located in Houston. We hung out here for what, another 25 yrs? And if it makes sense to be near the competition, vendors and customers why didn't all these companies move to Lake Charles, La or the home of Exxon? There are no "defensible" economic advantages. Especially true with the internet.

Cities Service moved here in the 60's because of the proximity of this area to the oil producing and refining areas, not because there was oil reserves or their refineries in Tulsa. Housing prices were cheap compared to New York and the living environment was tons better than Texas and La. Many executives with New York and Chicago salaries became nouveau riche at Tulsa prices. That was an important factor. We could build a huge new office building for cheap and spend the savings on jets and communications, which we did. Lots of oil industry white collar workers here too.

That being said when the lead sheep left it caused tremors in the rest of the flock. Soon after I was in another industry whose VP was shocked that no one in Tulsa leadership circles was making much of an effort to keep these companies from leaping off the cliff. We had taken them for granted. Whether an effort would have mattered I don't have the same confidence you have. But no one tried. We then began to lose retail and services that had depended on those players. By then it was too late. The oil and banking collapse of the early eighties took hold and we started looking for another sugar daddy...technology. Then the cycle repeated. I'm sure COC people could fill in the details.

Inhofe is one of many who made sure his stuff was secure but let Tulsa blow in the wind. Can't say the same for Randle and Savage though. Wasn't much left to bribe by then.

May I quote you Squirt?

"Inhofe is one of many who made sure his stuff was secure but let Tulsa blow in the wind."

Now, Mayor Taylor has clean up duty.  Not an easy job.  But, hang in there Ms. Mayor.  Time is on our side.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hometown

May I quote you Squirt?

"Inhofe is one of many who made sure his stuff was secure but let Tulsa blow in the wind."

Now, Mayor Taylor has clean up duty.  Not an easy job.  But, hang in there Ms. Mayor.  Time is on our side.

---

Yep, she sure is walking into tough times, #2 in the nation in income growth, estimated $29 billion in GDP, record employment, etc.

Times are tough, what will we ever do?

Conan, You're no spring chicken either and your party is where my party was in 1978.  You are headed into the valley of darkness and that is where you will be for most of the rest of your life.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chicken Little

Wilbur,

You should read Councilor Martinson's report, "Municipal Revenues and Fiscal Constraints" (//%22http://www.tulsacouncil.org/pdfs/website%20embedded/COT_Fiscal_Constraints.pdf%22) (March 2008).

quote:

---

As the previous slide clearly shows, we've maintained our focus on public safety, but this has forced us to eliminate services in other areas.

I don't want anyone to miss the point that our realneeds exceed our resources. The budget balances because it has to.

In some cases we have cut beyond the fat and are deep into the muscle. We are working on implementing LEAN processes, but they will take time and will not cover the entire gap.

People talk about tax increases, but the last time the City of Tulsa had a tax increase was with the first 3rd penny in 1980. The 3rd Penny is a temporary tax, approved by the voters, and is essentially restricted to fund capital projects.

The City has relied on a 2% sales tax since 1971 to fund operations. Granted, sales taxes rise with the price of goods purchased, but as those prices increase, so do our costs. We could probably maintain services in such an environment, but other factors are working against us as you will soon see.

---

---

To say the Mayor's proposal to raise money through a fire protection district is not a tax increase is just flat wrong.  And for the good councilor to say taxes haven't been raised in Tulsa since 1980 is just flat wrong.

An increase in revenue to a government through new fees or an increase in existing fees is a tax increase, regardless if you say those fees will be used for a specific purpose or you don't call it a tax.  That raise in my water/sewer rates equals a tax increase.  That new EMSA subsidy added to my water bill (I opted out - don't forget to opt out by June 30) equals a tax increase.  That 911 subsidy added to my phone bill equals a tax increase.  The increase in sales tax for Vision 2025, of which the majority of the money goes to the City, equals a tax increase.  That temporary Whirlpool tax equals a tax increase.  All of these have happened since 1980.  Shall I go on?

The problem with the spin that comes out from City Hall is they only quote ONE section of the City's total budget picture, and that is the operating budget.  Problem is, there are lots more budgets, such as the capital budget and others.  I will totally agree that 2 cents of our sales taxes goes to fund the operating budget and no other taxes are identified to operating expenses.  But whose fault is that?  We add taxes on top of taxes but always specifically say those new taxes can't be used for operating expenses.  Nothing says Third Penny can't be used for operating expenses, it's just that is how Third Penny is offered up to the tax payers.

Like I have said before, you must look at total city expenditures, not just one section of the budget.  I will stand by my previous statement, the city is spending record amounts of money.

You mention the City's budget is flat when compared to inflation.  I agree the operating budget is flat when compared to inflation.  And personnel costs, health care costs, fuel costs, all go into inflation, just as it does for every citizen in this town.  That is what inflation is.  Additionally, a budget that keeps up with inflation, such as Tulsa's, is what many people want.  They don't want new programs creeping up every time government finds new money to spend.

I agree with everyone at City Hall that employee costs are the majority of city expenditures in the operating budget (but not the total budget picture).  Government is strictly non-profit, we don't sell a product, so as with any non-profit agency, the majority of our expenditure will be on personnel.  I also agree public safety is the majority of the operating budget (but not the total budget picture), as it is with every government agency.  Fire trucks, ambulances, police cars, ........ are expensive.

I get tired of hearing how poor the City SAYS they are, but we seem to have plenty of money to buy a new City Hall, or some other pet project depending on who the mayor is.  Again, it all comes down to priorities in spending.

---

The move of City Hall would only happen if the city would realize cost SAVINGS by consolidating offices into one facility. As someone who appears to be anti-tax, small-government, you should support the motivation behind the effort. Unless you're just against everything.

---

I'm all for a new city hall when the city believes they can afford it.  This city cries "no money" consistently, then, all of a sudden, decides they have enough millions to buy a new city hall.  Are we broke or not?  (I say not)

I think the new city hall would be cool and I believe a new city hall is needed.  I'm just not convinced this is the correct time.

And I'm against putting all of your people in one building.  Homeland Security recommends against this as well.  One event targeted towards your one building and you've lost everything in one swoop.  Not to mention a glass structure isn't the most secure.  That, and I don't think the citizens will find it as easy to access as the current facility.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hometown

Conan, You're no spring chicken either and your party is where my party was in 1978.  You are headed into the valley of darkness and that is where you will be for most of the rest of your life.

---

I thought you had flamed out back to Cali? Taylor sucks, she's a female Lafortune.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilbur


To say the Mayor's proposal to raise money through a fire protection district is not a tax increase is just flat wrong.

---

Wow.  Asking to switch a funding stream from sales tax to property tax change is not the same as a tax increase.  That's not spin, that's logic.  If the ability for the City to form a fire district were granted, then I presume the voters would have been given a chance to decide.  Maybe they would have demanded an offset; maybe Tulsa would have lowered its sales tax.  I don't know and neither do you.  All I know is that the state legislators denied us this opportunity for self-determination because they want to preserve an archaic county government power structure that does Tulsa no good.  It's all a moot point now, but at least Taylor tried...and I hope she keeps trying until we have a way to prosper in the future.

---

Lets all come back to reality.  The intent behind the Mayor's desire to request monies through a fire protection district is to increase revenue.  Has that not been her entire discussion, along with most of the city councilors, is to raise revenue?  You don't raise revenue by offsetting someplace else.  Did she ever propose offsets, either to the legislature or to the media?  She might have had better chances with the legislature if she proposed offsets.  Her proposal, in the end, would raise taxes.

quote:

---

And for the good councilor to say taxes haven't been raised in Tulsa since 1980 is just flat wrong.  

An increase in revenue to a government through new fees or an increase in existing fees is a tax increase, regardless if you say those fees will be used for a specific purpose or you don't call it a tax.  That raise in my water/sewer rates equals a tax increase.

---

 No, water and sewer is fee-for-service.  It's a different revenue stream.  Water and sewer fees can only be used to maintain those systems.  But if you insist that clean water is a tax, then have your water shut off and give yourself a tax break! [;)]

---

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the city won't allow me to drill my own well nor bury my trash in my backyard.  To say water is voluntary is like saying the taxes you pay to the IRS is voluntary.  It's called voluntary, but there is nothing voluntary about it.  I can't go to any other company for water/trash service.  An increase in fees without an increase in benefits, is an increase in taxes.

quote:

---

That new EMSA subsidy added to my water bill (I opted out - don't forget to opt out by June 30) equals a tax increase.

---

 By definition, taxes are involuntary payments demanded by government.  This is not compulsory and therefore not a tax.  It's a fee, if you are okay with a lower level of service, then you can opt out.

---

I'll almost agree here that anyone can opt out, but most folks won't.  EMSA wanted in the area of $1.6M.  The new subsidy raises far more then that.  Not all of it will end up with EMSA.  That equals a tax increase.

quote:

---

That 911 subsidy added to my phone bill equals a tax increase.

---

Yes, it is because it's compulsory. But it's also targeted.  911 fees go to support 911, not the general operations of the City.

---

911 is an operation of the city.  All of the equipment and employees belong to the city.  Tax increase.

quote:

---

The increase in sales tax for Vision 2025, of which the majority of the money goes to the City, equals a tax increase.

---

 It's a county tax.  Per capita, surrounding communities got far more than Tulsa.  I never liked the arena either, but don't obfuscate by saying that the arena money is being spent only for the benefit of Tulsans.

quote:

---

Never said the arena only benefits Tulsans and I'll agree that, technically, Vision 2025 is a county tax.  But the majority of the money goes to the City of Tulsa.  Tax increase.

quote:

---

That temporary Whirlpool tax equals a tax increase.

---

Tax abatements s*ck, you'll get no argument from me, but again, that was a county thing.

---

... and was a tax increase.  But I will also say, one of the extremely few 'temporary' taxes that actually went away.  People would be far more inclined to approve 'temporary' tax increases if they ever were temporary.

quote:

---

All of these have happened since 1980.  Shall I go on?

---

Yes, you'd better, because, of the four examples you have cited, not of your "taxes" could have been used to support police salaries, fire salaries, and other general operations (Streets, Parks, Finance).  That funding source has been the same 2% since 1971.  And that's why our streets are cruddy, our parks are overgrown, and our public safety folks are fighting everyone and every thing in order to get what they need to protect us.  There's no place left to cut.

---

The majority of street projects were taken out of the operations budget and put into Third Penny, thus freeing up all that money.  Our streets aren't so bad compared to a lot of other cities.  I'll agree many streets are in the process of repair, but that is what we voted for.

quote:

---

Think about how this city has changed since 1971.  It is more spread out, meaning, in order to keep response times down, you need more fire stations, ambulance crews, policemen, patrol cars, and gasoline per capita to maintain the same level of service.

Now consider all of those personnel and capital costs that have outpaced inflation:  education, health care, energy (gas and electricity), and even concrete and steel (thanks, China).    

The City changed but the revenue hasn't.  

quote:

---

The problem with the spin that comes out from City Hall is they only quote ONE section of the City's total budget picture, and that is the operating budget.  Problem is, there are lots more budgets, such as the capital budget and others.  I will totally agree that 2 cents of our sales taxes goes to fund the operating budget and no other taxes are identified to operating expenses.  But whose fault is that?  We add taxes on top of taxes but always specifically say those new taxes can't be used for operating expenses.  Nothing says Third Penny can't be used for operating expenses, it's just that is how Third Penny is offered up to the tax payers.

Like I have said before, you must look at total city expenditures, not just one section of the budget.  I will stand by my previous statement, the city is spending record amounts of money.

You mention the City's budget is flat when compared to inflation.  I agree the operating budget is flat when compared to inflation.  And personnel costs, health care costs, fuel costs, all go into inflation, just as it does for every citizen in this town.  That is what inflation is.  

---

I know what inflation is.  I also know that the city doesn't buy groceries, clothes, plama tvs, and sports equipment.  Globalization, for better or worse, has made lots of these things cheaper since the 1970s.  On the other hand, costs associated with personnel, energy, and facilities have gone up.  The city skews towards these things and they have outpaced inflation.
You might check into how many tvs, computers, groceries, ..... the city actually buys.

quote:

---

Additionally, a budget that keeps up with inflation, such as Tulsa's, is what many people want.  [/quote]Yes, but it doesn't keep up.

quote:

---

They don't want new programs creeping up every time government finds new money to spend.

I agree with everyone at City Hall that employee costs are the majority of city expenditures in the operating budget (but not the total budget picture).[/quote]  Tell us what you'd cut, then.  Martinson showed us that things like Parks and Finance have been severely cut already.  Where's the fat?  

quote:

---

Government is strictly non-profit, we don't sell a product, so as with any non-profit agency, the majority of our expenditure will be on personnel.  I also agree public safety is the majority of the operating budget (but not the total budget picture), as it is with every government agency.  Fire trucks, ambulances, police cars, ........ are expensive.

I get tired of hearing how poor the City SAYS they are, but we seem to have plenty of money to buy a new City Hall, or some other pet project depending on who the mayor is.  Again, it all comes down to priorities in spending.
[/quote]We're not that far apart on many things, Wilbur.  You recognize the problems, but your "solution" is grounded in rhetoric, not reality.  Tulsa is pretty efficient right now; several rounds of cuts will do that to a bureaucracy.  And the mayor keeps looking for new ways to save money.  Should we combine the City, County, Riverparks Systems and share personnel and equipment?  Why the h*ll not...it's worth a look anyway?  What about fire departments? Police forces?  Let's keep looking.  
Does it make sense to consolidate in a new city hall in a spanking new building and sell off several older properties for redevelopment.  We're all waiting on the numbers, but it, too, was worth a look.  If it makes financial sense over the long haul, is it really a "pet project"?
[/quote]