According to Ken Neal at the Tulsa World,
http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectID=212&articleID=20080301_7_G3_Roadb80306
the citizens of Tulsa are to blame for Tulsa's bad streets, but he never once blames anyone in government.
And he says us citizens haven't done a thing about roads over the past 20 years. I guess Ken forgets about that pesky little 3rd penny sales tax, that even he admits, spent only $120M out of $500M on streets.
Who prioritizes 3rd Penny? The government dictates what is submitted to the voters. The government dictates what is important in spending, which this year was a new city hall. It is the government who dictates priorities in other tax areas, such as Vision 2025, Four to Fix, ......
Sorry Ken Neal. I won't say I'm sorry for the government not making priorities out of core responsibilities.
Apology accepted.
That article was written rather, well, without all the facts. It kind of fell flat and felt as if it were haphazard and without much thought.
I would like to see someone lay out in a short, simple manner just what the 3rd penny and other fundings of "road money" actually went to and why. Thats going to be a constant cry by people. "They had road money but they spent it on other things!" Someone needs to lay out exactly what those other things were, when they were spent and how much each was. Example, during such and such time Tulsa was flooding, instead of raising another tax we took X amount from the road fund and used it here. We needed .....so instead of raising taxes we took it from this...
the other obvious question is, are those funding sources still being used for other things? If we divert them back to roads will those "other things" then go wanting? Lay it all out for me.
Though I think we do need to spend more money on the roads. As long as others are bringing up questions about where the old funding went and I cant answer that, it feels irresponsible to go ahead with new funding options until everyone knows where and why the old funds went where they did and why they cant go there now.
Many Tulsans have found the answer to their obvious misappropriation of road funding...don't drive on the roads, causing them to deteriorate.
So, they left town.
Have Tulsa's citizens turned down a road proposal that I am unaware of? Or does he mean that it is our fault in that we control government?
If he wants me to carry gravel around to fill in the car eating holes, I'll do it.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
If he wants me to carry gravel around to fill in the car eating holes, I'll do it.
Well get after it. Could you start near 111th & Sheridan...
Hardtless powers tell the Whirled what to think....
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
I would like to see someone lay out in a short, simple manner just what the 3rd penny and other fundings of "road money" actually went to and why.
The short, simple 3rd Penny logline: Kiss MY Earmark.
Pew center appropriately throws some blame at the state.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080303_1__OKLAH85351
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Have Tulsa's citizens turned down a road proposal that I am unaware of?
Yes. In 1989, citizens voted down a GO bond of $102 million for streets. That resulted in an 11 year gap between GO bonds, when 5-6 year cycles are typical.
Source: Tulsa City Council Complete Our Streets, Page 30 (//%22http://tulsacouncil.org/pdfs/website%20embedded/Complete%20Our%20Streets.pdf%22)
That was a burly economic time in Tulsa. Timing was not right. So, the question is, why wasn't there another attempt in 93?
Sometimes I get the impression from Tulsa's city bureaucrats an attitude exists unfavorable towards the voter. Out of disappointment and defeat they just let the cookie crumble. Blaming the street situation on the citizenry for not prioritizing the need when they were asked to do so in 89 would seem a bit late in the game.
I can't tell you how often over the year's I have heard, "that'll take a bond issue and Tulsan's won't pass the vote" coming from those in charge. And where was our amazing downtown Chamber during all this down time?
More and more of the Third Penny is being spent on things that were traditionally considered normal operating costs -- like take-home vehicles for police officers (more than $17 million in the 2006 Third Penny). While police and fire operating budgets continue to grow much faster than any other area of city government, they're sloughing off more and more of their operating costs onto the Third Penny -- displacing infrastructure needs.
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
The government dictates what is important in spending, which this year was a new city hall.
The whole basis for consolidating several old city facilities into one newer facility was that it will be cost neutral. You can't talk about the expenditure without considering the long-term savings as well.
quote:
Originally posted by Kiah
More and more of the Third Penny is being spent on things that were traditionally considered normal operating costs -- like take-home vehicles for police officers (more than $17 million in the 2006 Third Penny). While police and fire operating budgets continue to grow much faster than any other area of city government, they're sloughing off more and more of their operating costs onto the Third Penny -- displacing infrastructure needs.
Where did you get the $17 million pricetag for take home cars?
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by Kiah
More and more of the Third Penny is being spent on things that were traditionally considered normal operating costs -- like take-home vehicles for police officers (more than $17 million in the 2006 Third Penny). While police and fire operating budgets continue to grow much faster than any other area of city government, they're sloughing off more and more of their operating costs onto the Third Penny -- displacing infrastructure needs.
Where did you get the $17 million pricetag for take home cars?
I believe that $17 Million is correct, over the expected life of the sales tax.
It runs about $3-4 million per year to provide each of our 800+ freeloading TPD personnel with a Take-Home vehicle to commute to Owasso, Sands Springs, Broken Arrow, Jenks, Sapulpa, Glenpool.
Plus, additional millions annually for fuel and vehicle maintenance.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by Kiah
More and more of the Third Penny is being spent on things that were traditionally considered normal operating costs -- like take-home vehicles for police officers (more than $17 million in the 2006 Third Penny). While police and fire operating budgets continue to grow much faster than any other area of city government, they're sloughing off more and more of their operating costs onto the Third Penny -- displacing infrastructure needs.
Where did you get the $17 million pricetag for take home cars?
I believe that $17 Million is correct, over the expected life of the sales tax.
It runs about $3-4 million per year to provide each of our 800+ freeloading TPD personnel with a Take-Home vehicle to commute to Owasso, Sands Springs, Broken Arrow, Jenks, Sapulpa, Glenpool.
Plus, additional millions annually for fuel and vehicle maintenance.
Not including TPS officers working private guard duty sitting in their car for 8 hours with the engine running.
I don't think that number is right. Someone cite the source. Also, who is TPS?
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
I don't think that number is right. Someone cite the source. Also, who is TPS?
From the City of Tulsa Goobermint website:
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/ourcity/budget/documents/Ordinance21254.pdf
For the Third-Penny period from 2006 - 2012, there is $2.7 million in 2001 - 2006 police vehicle purchase carryover for unfunded but budgeted purchases (due to Third-Penny revenue shortfalls); plus, $14.3 million in police vehicle purchases for 2006 - 2012.
That coincidentally adds to:
$17 million.Exact-a-mundo!
[:X]
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
I don't think that number is right. Someone cite the source. Also, who is TPS?
$17 million is exactly correct.
On TPS, I think that is a typo for
TPD.He was probably thinking of TPS like in
Tulsa Public Schools.....Another local blood sucking Tax Vampire, like:
TPS, TPD, TAA, TAIT, TMUA, TCC, TTC, TDA, DTA, etc., etc., etc.
Have some imagination.....
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by Kiah
More and more of the Third Penny is being spent on things that were traditionally considered normal operating costs -- like take-home vehicles for police officers (more than $17 million in the 2006 Third Penny). While police and fire operating budgets continue to grow much faster than any other area of city government, they're sloughing off more and more of their operating costs onto the Third Penny -- displacing infrastructure needs.
Where did you get the $17 million pricetag for take home cars?
I believe that $17 Million is correct, over the expected life of the sales tax.
It runs about $3-4 million per year to provide each of our 800+ freeloading TPD personnel with a Take-Home vehicle to commute to Owasso, Sands Springs, Broken Arrow, Jenks, Sapulpa, Glenpool.
Plus, additional millions annually for fuel and vehicle maintenance.
Not including TPS officers working private guard duty sitting in their car for 8 hours with the engine running.
Yes, I feel especially safe, warm and protected when I see TPD personnel moonlighting in our police cars on Sunday, stopping THRU traffic for the large, suburban churches.
In keeping with the Lord's Day, I do pause to say a brief prayer at that time:
"Dear Lord, please give our Tulsa City Leaders the courage and the wisdom to JUST SAY NO to our free-loading TPD personnel who want to commute and moonlight in city police cars, while burning our taxpayer provided fuel."
Amen.
17 million over 11 years (2001-2012) not just in the 2006 third penny. Also, 17 million is 1.5 million a year. Not 3-4 million a year.
We're freeloading because we travel in our city vehicles to and from work? We're not slaves.
The out of the city take-home vehicles are part of our benefits that Mayor Lafortune gave us to help make up for Tulsa being last in pay in our mutually agreed 10 city survey.
800 police officers do not live outside the city of Tulsa. The last city survey showed the number to be almost 400. Of those, 100 or so are on specialty units that are subject to call outs. If that is the case, then they would still be able to take their cars home if the city reverted to the old system.
If the city decided to do away with take home cars completely, they would have to build additional parking so that police units could all be parked in secured parking. Overtime would increase because officers reporting to court or special call-outs would first have to go get their vehicles and then put them back before they went home. This would add over an hour to each overtime event for each officer. The Union could then begin the argument of donning and doffing time with the city.
Vehicle maintaince costs would go up. If the vehicles were shared they would be ran 24 hours a day. New vehicles would have to be purchased every 3 years not every 6-7.
Officers working extra jobs, coming to work or going home from work would no longer respond to high priority calls. This would be at least 45 less uniformed officers on the street during shift overlaps. All of this would cause less officers to be visible on the streets.
The secret the city of Tulsa does not want to tell anyone is that for the city price of gas they get a fully trained and equiped police officer to answer calls and assist people. If take-home cars were taken away, they would no longer have this benefit and citizens would start screaming for more officers when they actually saw how few officers are actually working on the streets at any one time.
Because of jealousy, the take-home vehicle topic is always talked about but the real issue is saving money. If the city really wanted to save money, they would do away with the four 10-hour shifts officers work now and move them back to five 8 hour shifts. That would save the city more money than taking take-home cars away ever would.
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
17 million over 11 years (2001-2012) not just in the 2006 third penny. Also, 17 million is 1.5 million a year. Not 3-4 million a year.
We're freeloading because we travel in our city vehicles to and from work? We're not slaves.
The out of the city take-home vehicles are part of our benefits that Mayor Lafortune gave us to help make up for Tulsa being last in pay in our mutually agreed 10 city survey.
800 police officers do not live outside the city of Tulsa. The last city survey showed the number to be almost 400. Of those, 100 or so are on specialty units that are subject to call outs. If that is the case, then they would still be able to take their cars home if the city reverted to the old system.
If the city decided to do away with take home cars completely, they would have to build additional parking so that police units could all be parked in secured parking. Overtime would increase because officers reporting to court or special call-outs would first have to go get their vehicles and then put them back before they went home. This would add over an hour to each overtime event for each officer. The Union could then begin the argument of donning and doffing time with the city.
Vehicle maintaince costs would go up. If the vehicles were shared they would be ran 24 hours a day. New vehicles would have to be purchased every 3 years not every 6-7.
Officers working extra jobs, coming to work or going home from work would no longer respond to high priority calls. This would be at least 45 less uniformed officers on the street during shift overlaps. All of this would cause less officers to be visible on the streets.
The secret the city of Tulsa does not want to tell anyone is that for the city price of gas they get a fully trained and equiped police officer to answer calls and assist people. If take-home cars were taken away, they would no longer have this benefit and citizens would start screaming for more officers when they actually saw how few officers are actually working on the streets at any one time.
Because of jealousy, the take-home vehicle topic is always talked about but the real issue is saving money. If the city really wanted to save money, they would do away with the four 10-hour shifts officers work now and move them back to five 8 hour shifts. That would save the city more money than taking take-home cars away ever would.
Wrong.
It's not 17 million over 12 years.
It is 14 million over 6 years, plus the carry over from previous Third Penny that was UNFUNDED because of insufficient sales tax collections during the early 2000 era.
That adds up to 17 million over six years.
MOST of the police department drives a COMPUTER all day. They are not out patrolling.
A sworn LEO who is basically a computer clerk gets an ASSIGNED car to drive home or to moonlighting jobs.
THAT activity is what wears out the car.
At most, the city of tulsa needs 200- 250 police cars, running across multiple shifts.
Of course, if the contract is changed to what ever other major city in the U.S. follows, we can expect the police to retaliate by DESTROYING the engines and transmissions of our police cars.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
17 million over 11 years (2001-2012) not just in the 2006 third penny. Also, 17 million is 1.5 million a year. Not 3-4 million a year.
We're freeloading because we travel in our city vehicles to and from work? We're not slaves.
The out of the city take-home vehicles are part of our benefits that Mayor Lafortune gave us to help make up for Tulsa being last in pay in our mutually agreed 10 city survey.
800 police officers do not live outside the city of Tulsa. The last city survey showed the number to be almost 400. Of those, 100 or so are on specialty units that are subject to call outs. If that is the case, then they would still be able to take their cars home if the city reverted to the old system.
If the city decided to do away with take home cars completely, they would have to build additional parking so that police units could all be parked in secured parking. Overtime would increase because officers reporting to court or special call-outs would first have to go get their vehicles and then put them back before they went home. This would add over an hour to each overtime event for each officer. The Union could then begin the argument of donning and doffing time with the city.
Vehicle maintaince costs would go up. If the vehicles were shared they would be ran 24 hours a day. New vehicles would have to be purchased every 3 years not every 6-7.
Officers working extra jobs, coming to work or going home from work would no longer respond to high priority calls. This would be at least 45 less uniformed officers on the street during shift overlaps. All of this would cause less officers to be visible on the streets.
The secret the city of Tulsa does not want to tell anyone is that for the city price of gas they get a fully trained and equiped police officer to answer calls and assist people. If take-home cars were taken away, they would no longer have this benefit and citizens would start screaming for more officers when they actually saw how few officers are actually working on the streets at any one time.
Because of jealousy, the take-home vehicle topic is always talked about but the real issue is saving money. If the city really wanted to save money, they would do away with the four 10-hour shifts officers work now and move them back to five 8 hour shifts. That would save the city more money than taking take-home cars away ever would.
Wrong.
It's not 17 million over 12 years.
It is 14 million over 6 years, plus the carry over from previous Third Penny that was UNFUNDED because of insufficient sales tax collections during the early 2000 era.
That adds up to 17 million over six years.
MOST of the police department drives a COMPUTER all day. They are not out patrolling.
A sworn LEO who is basically a computer clerk gets an ASSIGNED car to drive home or to moonlighting jobs.
THAT activity is what wears out the car.
At most, the city of tulsa needs 200- 250 police cars, running across multiple shifts.
Of course, if the contract is changed to what ever other major city in the U.S. follows, we can expect the police to retaliate by DESTROYING the engines and transmissions of our police cars.
I wish you would make up your mind. Are you saying officers should not have computers in their vehicles? What would you suggest?
200-250 police vehicles would not cover the city. You have no idea what you are talking about.
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
17 million over 11 years (2001-2012) not just in the 2006 third penny. Also, 17 million is 1.5 million a year. Not 3-4 million a year.
We're freeloading because we travel in our city vehicles to and from work? We're not slaves.
The out of the city take-home vehicles are part of our benefits that Mayor Lafortune gave us to help make up for Tulsa being last in pay in our mutually agreed 10 city survey.
800 police officers do not live outside the city of Tulsa. The last city survey showed the number to be almost 400. Of those, 100 or so are on specialty units that are subject to call outs. If that is the case, then they would still be able to take their cars home if the city reverted to the old system.
If the city decided to do away with take home cars completely, they would have to build additional parking so that police units could all be parked in secured parking. Overtime would increase because officers reporting to court or special call-outs would first have to go get their vehicles and then put them back before they went home. This would add over an hour to each overtime event for each officer. The Union could then begin the argument of donning and doffing time with the city.
Vehicle maintaince costs would go up. If the vehicles were shared they would be ran 24 hours a day. New vehicles would have to be purchased every 3 years not every 6-7.
Officers working extra jobs, coming to work or going home from work would no longer respond to high priority calls. This would be at least 45 less uniformed officers on the street during shift overlaps. All of this would cause less officers to be visible on the streets.
The secret the city of Tulsa does not want to tell anyone is that for the city price of gas they get a fully trained and equiped police officer to answer calls and assist people. If take-home cars were taken away, they would no longer have this benefit and citizens would start screaming for more officers when they actually saw how few officers are actually working on the streets at any one time.
Because of jealousy, the take-home vehicle topic is always talked about but the real issue is saving money. If the city really wanted to save money, they would do away with the four 10-hour shifts officers work now and move them back to five 8 hour shifts. That would save the city more money than taking take-home cars away ever would.
Wrong.
It's not 17 million over 12 years.
It is 14 million over 6 years, plus the carry over from previous Third Penny that was UNFUNDED because of insufficient sales tax collections during the early 2000 era.
That adds up to 17 million over six years.
MOST of the police department drives a COMPUTER all day. They are not out patrolling.
A sworn LEO who is basically a computer clerk gets an ASSIGNED car to drive home or to moonlighting jobs.
THAT activity is what wears out the car.
At most, the city of tulsa needs 200- 250 police cars, running across multiple shifts.
Of course, if the contract is changed to what ever other major city in the U.S. follows, we can expect the police to retaliate by DESTROYING the engines and transmissions of our police cars.
I wish you would make up your mind. Are you saying officers should not have computers in their vehicles? What would you suggest?
200-250 police vehicles would not cover the city. You have no idea what you are talking about.
NICE obfuscation.
Using the Half-Truth so well, you should apply for a editorial writer job at the
Lorton's World after you retire at 20 years service from TPD.
I said, and you distorted, that the MAJORITY of the TPD force sits at a desk ALL day, basically as computer clerks.
The distinct minority are detectives or patrolmen. These individual probably need regular access DURING DUTY HOURS to a TPD police car.
Based on an extremely low patrol and traffic coverage, 200 - 250 TPD cars would be ample to cover the City of Tulsa.
The Tax Vampire Free-loading TPD personnel simply want to keep their cushy taxpayer benefit, invented first by former Mayor Silly Susan Savage in order to sustain the 3rd Penny Sales Tax expenditure level, and later extended by Mayor Major MisFortunate trying to ingratiate himself to his local Praetorian Guard to unsuccessfully gain their support for his failed re-election.
Tulsa Taxpayers, meet Dumb and Dumber.
[:o)]
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
...Mayor Silly Susan Savage
...Mayor Major MisFortunate
The name-calling is cute. What name can you come up with for me? (Hint: My name is in my profile)
quote:
Originally posted by TURobY
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
...Mayor Silly Susan Savage
...Mayor Major MisFortunate
The name-calling is cute. What name can you come up with for me? (Hint: My name is in my profile)
Since this is a POLITICAL Forum, I think it is fair game to apply "nicknames" to our local political "leadership".
However, I would consider it a violation of Forum Decorum and Rules to Name Call a forum poster.
I could have sworn this topic was about roads!
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
I could have sworn this topic was about roads!
Agreed.
My comments were related to local roads, in respect to Mayor Savage's and Mayor LaFortunate's misplaced spending priorities.
I.E., giving a freebie to the local Men in Black at very great annual expense to both the Third Penny Sales Tax, and the city operating budget.
I would like to re-focus this thread by asking why BOTH our city streets and our STATE MAINTAINED highways are both in such shambles?
Just drive I-44, the B-A, I-244, U.S. 64, and U.S. 75, and you will both see and feel what terrible shape the Tulsa area highways are in, and they are NOT a City of Tulsa responsibility.
Is it part of a coordinated SOFTENING-UP exercise to beat us into submission for a new $1.6 BILLION local road tax?
Having lived in Tulsa for a very long time, there does appear to be a correlation with the slackening of local road maintenance for a few years, followed by a huge new street bond election to FIX THE STREETS......
MIGHTY big coincidence there.......
From the Tulsa World
Hefty utility hikes would be needed if a proposed City Council plan to fix Tulsa's streets is put into action.
Wastewater rates would jump 141.7 percent and stormwater fees would go up 53.6 percent, both over a 10-year period, a Public Works Department analysis shows.
The projected increases, when fully in effect, would translate to an additional $341.88 per year for a single-family residence.
The increases would be necessary to make up for the capital funding to maintain and expand the wastewater and stormwater systems that has been traditionally provided by the third-penny and general obligation bond packages.
"We need to do a better job of matching the expenses with the revenue," Councilor Bill Martinson said in an interview Friday.
"What's been happening is that we've had lower water rates, but we've been subsidizing them by not taking proper care of our streets."
Martinson has made a "Back to Basics" pitch to repair Tulsa's crumbling street system by relying mainly on existing taxes.
His plan would raise more than $1.6 billion for streets between 2010 and 2020.
A component of his proposal is to dedicate all future third-penny and general obligation bond funding to streets.
The council's streets subcommittee, led by Martinson, has been busy determining where the usual recipients of funding from those two sources would be able to make it up.
A Public Works analysis indicates the city's wastewater rate, which is $3.05 per 1,000 gallons, would have to increase over 10 years, reaching to $7.37 per 1,000 gallons.
The average single-family residence uses about 6,000 gallons per month.
So a family's annual bill would go from $219.60 now to $530.64 by the 10th year.
Similarly, the stormwater fee, which is a flat $4.79 per residence, per month, would go up to $7.36. That's a jump from $57.48 per year to $88.32.
The increases also would apply to businesses. Inflation was not factored into the calculations.
"One way or another, we're going to have to pay more to fix our streets," Martinson said.
During a meeting on the subject earlier this week, Councilor Cason Carter questioned how the Tulsa rates would compare with those of surrounding cities at the end of the 10 years.
Public Works Department Assistant Director Ken Hill replied that it's impossible to predict how much other cities would increase their own rates during that period but said Tulsa's current rates are lower.
Another aspect of Martinson's proposal is to capture the city's portion of Tulsa County's Four-to-Fix and Vision 2025 sales tax shares when they expire.
It also would raise the city's property tax levy by 3.3 mills to be in line with Oklahoma City's.
The latest analysis of Tulsa's arterial and residential streets gives them an average "D" grade on the Pavement Condition Index, which was developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The streets will soon reach a failing grade if no additional money is allocated.
A city-sponsored "Complete Our Streets" residents panel has recommended significant sales and property tax increases to bring the city's streets to an average grade of a "C," to maintain that level and to do some priority widening.
But Martinson and the subcommittee have been exploring ways to limit the financial burden on taxpayers. They expect to have a plan of action formulated by this spring.
Brian Barber 581-8322
Ouch!
If that's the deal in ten years, I will move from Tulsa. I know many others will too.
I thought we had an abundance of water in Green Country? Pirates!
$30 a month really wouldn't screw with my personal budget that much, but I can see where that really is a disproportionate tax on lower income families. I'm assuming those costs will be charged to all apartment complexes as well which will result in higher rents, so no family will be immune from paying their share. So as not to pass along those costs to tennants, THA will have to find additional funding elsewhere.
The water bill seems to be the newest smash and grab tax vehicle for our city. I do feel it's not quite fair to place the entire burden on people who live in the city limits. People from BA, Owasso, and Jenks commute in on these roads every day.
Tulsa has been becoming a tale of two cities for several years now. This additional tax would increase the disproportional disposable incomes and make that tail longer between the two societies. And then what are the consequences? More jail space? Much higher costs to supplement social services?
The hardships on those that can least afford it makes the authors look either insensitive or ignorant. Do they not realize inflation is running at %12!
I don't know about tale of two cities, but this is a good example of a flat rate tax on every citizen which is disproportionately punitive on the lower income.
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
From the Tulsa World
Hefty utility hikes would be needed if a proposed City Council plan to fix Tulsa's streets is put into action.
Wastewater rates would jump 141.7 percent and stormwater fees would go up 53.6 percent, both over a 10-year period, a Public Works Department analysis shows.
The projected increases, when fully in effect, would translate to an additional $341.88 per year for a single-family residence.
The increases would be necessary to make up for the capital funding to maintain and expand the wastewater and stormwater systems that has been traditionally provided by the third-penny and general obligation bond packages.
"We need to do a better job of matching the expenses with the revenue," Councilor Bill Martinson said in an interview Friday.
"What's been happening is that we've had lower water rates, but we've been subsidizing them by not taking proper care of our streets."
Martinson has made a "Back to Basics" pitch to repair Tulsa's crumbling street system by relying mainly on existing taxes.
His plan would raise more than $1.6 billion for streets between 2010 and 2020.
A component of his proposal is to dedicate all future third-penny and general obligation bond funding to streets.
The council's streets subcommittee, led by Martinson, has been busy determining where the usual recipients of funding from those two sources would be able to make it up.
A Public Works analysis indicates the city's wastewater rate, which is $3.05 per 1,000 gallons, would have to increase over 10 years, reaching to $7.37 per 1,000 gallons.
The average single-family residence uses about 6,000 gallons per month.
So a family's annual bill would go from $219.60 now to $530.64 by the 10th year.
Similarly, the stormwater fee, which is a flat $4.79 per residence, per month, would go up to $7.36. That's a jump from $57.48 per year to $88.32.
The increases also would apply to businesses. Inflation was not factored into the calculations.
"One way or another, we're going to have to pay more to fix our streets," Martinson said.
During a meeting on the subject earlier this week, Councilor Cason Carter questioned how the Tulsa rates would compare with those of surrounding cities at the end of the 10 years.
Public Works Department Assistant Director Ken Hill replied that it's impossible to predict how much other cities would increase their own rates during that period but said Tulsa's current rates are lower.
Another aspect of Martinson's proposal is to capture the city's portion of Tulsa County's Four-to-Fix and Vision 2025 sales tax shares when they expire.
It also would raise the city's property tax levy by 3.3 mills to be in line with Oklahoma City's.
The latest analysis of Tulsa's arterial and residential streets gives them an average "D" grade on the Pavement Condition Index, which was developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The streets will soon reach a failing grade if no additional money is allocated.
A city-sponsored "Complete Our Streets" residents panel has recommended significant sales and property tax increases to bring the city's streets to an average grade of a "C," to maintain that level and to do some priority widening.
But Martinson and the subcommittee have been exploring ways to limit the financial burden on taxpayers. They expect to have a plan of action formulated by this spring.
Brian Barber 581-8322
Ouch!
Don't be fooled, the self-serving "analysis" by the City Publik Werkes department is just a scare tactic to maintain the status quo.
What their analysis ASSUMES is that the city spend rate, including $100,000,000's expended on drainage and storm water management, would have to CONTINUE at their historical rate.
It is a false assumption.
When the Bird, Joe, and Mingo Creek drainage projects were completed, they are DONE. Finished.
And,
NOT an on-going capital expenditure needing more Third Penny Sales tax funding.
The Publik Werkes analysis is bunk.
And, Councilor Martinsen is probably smart enough to figure it out like I did.
Or, if he's co-opted by the local power establishment, then he can just join the Yassa-Boss Echo Chamber, controlled by the local Oligarchy power establishment which wants another $1.6 billion in new taxes.
Simple Reason: They need to feed their greed.
Always.
[:P]
FB! It's the Public Diswerks Department. Other than that correction, once again you understand the deep dark underbelly of our city. Let's hope whatever we are confronted with takes care of this for another generation. The role of our city government is not to provide public structures that will cause losses the day they are opened...and the future city hall better put blinders on when TulsaWhirled and the Chamber tells them anything....
When Bear and FOTD agree...how wrong they must be.
Drainage projects do require ongoing maintenence work. All things require upkeep and maintenence. To say they don't is either foolish or lying. Mowing prices have gone up substantially with rising fuel costs and inlets do get clogged with debris like the many limbs from our December storm.
And to your comment about the reason to fix streets is greed...unbelievable. Who on that panel of volunteer citizens will benefit from better streets any more than all Tulsans?
Your outragious accusations are misguided and your attacks on hard-working civil servants are uncalled for.
You must lead a miserable life to really believe what you write on this forum. The fact that you just attack others and never provide solutions assures me that you don't care to fix anything, but feel compelled to attack all who do.
I certainly hope that you someday appreciate all the work that others do to make Tulsa succeed. Hundreds of public works employees make sure that your water is safe to drink, that your home is safe from flooding, and that your trash is picked up.
I guess you must not need to have a sanitary sewer that works. I forget, bears poop in the woods.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
When Bear and FOTD agree...how wrong they must be.
Drainage projects do require ongoing maintenence work. All things require upkeep and maintenence. To say they don't is either foolish or lying. Mowing prices have gone up substantially with rising fuel costs and inlets do get clogged with debris like the many limbs from our December storm.
And to your comment about the reason to fix streets is greed...unbelievable. Who on that panel of volunteer citizens will benefit from better streets any more than all Tulsans?
Your outragious accusations are misguided and your attacks on hard-working civil servants are uncalled for.
You must lead a miserable life to really believe what you write on this forum. The fact that you just attack others and never provide solutions assures me that you don't care to fix anything, but feel compelled to attack all who do.
I certainly hope that you someday appreciate all the work that others do to make Tulsa succeed. Hundreds of public works employees make sure that your water is safe to drink, that your home is safe from flooding, and that your trash is picked up.
I guess you must not need to have a sanitary sewer that works. I forget, bears poop in the woods.
The stormwater fee was started to coincide with Fed funds for detention ponds. It was not supposed to be an ongoing tax.
Nobody has said anything against fixing the streets.
Some of us learned to not trust city hall because of their word going bad.
Hard working civil servants who fail need to be terminated and replaced with competent civil servants.
The public diswerks department has failed to protect my property from water, trash, noise, visibility issues and on and on. I drink bottled fiter water. Your personal attacks are off base. I agree we need to make the third penny permenant and GO bonding.
[V]Your post is unneccesarily over the top.
The stormwater fee came after a major flood in Tulsa. Federal funds were also sought.
The city of Tulsa stepped up and made Tulsa one of the most flood-proof cities in the country and were able to convince the feds to pay for over 90% of it.
You are right. My above post was over the top. I apologize to you. Bears just make me crazy.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
The stormwater fee came after a major flood in Tulsa. Federal funds were also sought.
The city of Tulsa stepped up and made Tulsa one of the most flood-proof cities in the country and were able to convince the feds to pay for over 90% of it.
You are right. My above post was over the top. I apologize to you. Bears just make me crazy.
Cool. No doubt storm water management and the corp of engineers solved the mistakes made early on when our local governments allowed housing development in flood plains. Convincing the Feds back then was easier than it would be today....the fee was originally meant to be temporary until all the projects were finalized at which time there would no longer be a fee. At least that was the politcal talk of the time. Back when we had a street and sewar commisioner who was responsible to all areas not just his district. Back in the day when the city wasn't broken. Some of the issue always had to do with collecting enough to fund a project and the timing of the reimbursements from the Feds. I don't think the city ever had a surplus in this account until all the detention areas were constructed in the original plan. I still wonder if the city uses this portion of their revenues to fund other areas of the city.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
When Bear and FOTD agree...how wrong they must be.
Drainage projects do require ongoing maintenence work. All things require upkeep and maintenence. To say they don't is either foolish or lying. Mowing prices have gone up substantially with rising fuel costs and inlets do get clogged with debris like the many limbs from our December storm.
And to your comment about the reason to fix streets is greed...unbelievable. Who on that panel of volunteer citizens will benefit from better streets any more than all Tulsans?
Your outragious accusations are misguided and your attacks on hard-working civil servants are uncalled for.
You must lead a miserable life to really believe what you write on this forum. The fact that you just attack others and never provide solutions assures me that you don't care to fix anything, but feel compelled to attack all who do.
I certainly hope that you someday appreciate all the work that others do to make Tulsa succeed. Hundreds of public works employees make sure that your water is safe to drink, that your home is safe from flooding, and that your trash is picked up.
I guess you must not need to have a sanitary sewer that works. I forget, bears poop in the woods.
Relax. Take a pill. Nitroglycerine handy?
RecycleMichael's doing a comparison of apples and oranges. Again.
When a bar ditch or natural creek is converted into a sloped, concrete-encased drainage canal,
then the 3rd Penny Capital expenditure is OVER.
There may be minor city OPERATING budget expenses to mow or clean a drainage culvert, street drain,or a storm drainage retention pond, but this is minicule compared to paying for heavy equipment operators, dump trucks and concrete trucks to build drainage INFRASTRUCTURE using 3rd Penny Sales tax.
As to the panel of esteemed, learned citizens, they benefit because they are part of a connected FAVORS-TRADING network that runs our city government, including Boards, commissions and authorities.
Cameron and Reynolds, anyone? Land attorneys running the Water Board? Setting water policy to subsidize fresh clean water piped to Owasso and Bixby for the next 40 years?
WHAT a DEAL!
Developer flacks like Joe Westervelt running the TMAPC?
Nordam-connected Ms. Kissy-face Meridith Siegheil running the TAIT?
Maybe I'll start to believe that our local Goobermint is a Government Of, For and By the people, rather than a self-serving, Favors-trading network for connected cronies of the local power ruling Oligarchy, when Mr. Michael Bates is appointed to the TMAPC.
Waiting........
Waiting........
Waiting.........
[:O]
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
If that's the deal in ten years, I will move from Tulsa. I know many others will too.
I thought we had an abundance of water in Green Country? Pirates!
This proposal keeps sounding better! [;)]
This water issue is in depth and on topic here:
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9211
(just to avoid duplicate threads)
I think the bear has gone rabid.
I am talking about stormwater and you are talking about people who deal with drinking water.
Apples and oranges back at ya.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I think the bear has gone rabid.
I am talking about stormwater and you are talking about people who deal with drinking water.
Apples and oranges back at ya.
That's cherry picking.
I'm talking about a local Favors-Trading network that picks our pocket 24x7 to benefit a small, elite cadre of the local power establishment, and their allies in the local development and builder community.
The Publik Werkes department study is still fundamentally flawed.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
I'm talking about a local Favors-Trading network that picks our pocket 24x7 to benefit a small, elite cadre of the local power establishment, and their allies in the local development and builder community.
The small, elite cadre...are they like little elves that only you can see?
If I had someone who picked my pocket 24x7, I think I would change to an outfit without pockets...maybe just carry my money around in a ziplock bag.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
I'm talking about a local Favors-Trading network that picks our pocket 24x7 to benefit a small, elite cadre of the local power establishment, and their allies in the local development and builder community.
The small, elite cadre...are they like little elves that only you can see?
If I had someone who picked my pocket 24x7, I think I would change to an outfit without pockets...maybe just carry my money around in a ziplock bag.
Even if you were clothed in aluminum foil, you couldn't keep the tax vampires from penetrating your pocket. It's all about tiny incremental tax increases:
-8.517% combined city/county/state tax including one of the few states to tax groceries.
-State Income Tax
-Advalorem Tax
-Social Security Tax
-Medicare Tax
-Phone tax
-Local e-911 Tax
-Land Line 911 tax
-Cable TV Franchise Tax
-Franchise and Sales Tax on Natural Gas and Electricity
-Gasoline Tax
-Kaiser River Tax
Oops, cancel the last one. Maybe later.
Had enough?
Upcoming taxes:
Kaiser River Tax II, III, and IV
Vision 2055
followed by
Vision 2075
14th Renewal of the 3rd Penny "Temporary Sales Tax" in 2050.
MAPS for Mothers (Oklahoma City's 2050 version of the MAPS "temporary" sales tax renewal).
[8D]
Am I confused? Most of the taxes you listed have nothing to do with the City of Tulsa.
While I agree (because this argument is always somewhat valid) that city officials don't always do the right thing, I am confused why people blame anyone but themselves...in fact, entire groups seem to form with their whole purpose to "grip" about something they are in turn responsible for.
My theory...people give people permission (elected) to make decisions they can't/don't wont to make...then when (and there always will be times) the decision was a poor one, they blame the person making the decision instead of first turning the an actual solution, i.e replacing that person with someone who can make better choices or giving that person more tools to make better choices.
That is what public government is all about, and until they stop allowing us to vote, we can only blame ourselves for all these "bad" taxes (assuming they are indeed not necessary and are the result of poor choices)
Now let me end like I began, you make a valid point. Just because they are human and make mistakes does not mean we give them free reign with our money. But we can do more, much more to counter bad behavior with solutions than with finger pointing.
I guess I am on both your sides. :)
Sid
quote:
Originally posted by mrhaskellok
Am I confused? Most of the taxes you listed have nothing to do with the City of Tulsa.
Don't believe the bear cares for "facts". He just wants to whine and claim conspiracy.
In Bear's world, everything is done, and only done, to help a few screw the many.
Everything is an insider deal and everyone involved are crooked.
He won't ever shut up, even when proven wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by mrhaskellok
Am I confused? Most of the taxes you listed have nothing to do with the City of Tulsa.
Don't believe the bear cares for "facts". He just wants to whine and claim conspiracy.
In Bear's world, everything is done, and only done, to help a few screw the many.
Everything is an insider deal and everyone involved are crooked.
He won't ever shut up, even when proven wrong.
Wrong?
Feel free to show me WHERE I'm wrong.....
Waiting......
Waiting......
[:D]
I've yet to see any action on the Mayor's part to allow all qualified contractors to bid on road work.
That'd help, at least whenever we got ready to do any.