The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Talk About Tulsa => Development & New Businesses => Topic started by: Weatherdemon on August 27, 2013, 12:31:57 pm



Title: $60M in V2025 Surplus?
Post by: Weatherdemon on August 27, 2013, 12:31:57 pm

Why are they not obligated to refund that to the taxpayers?




Tulsa County Commissioner Ron Peters said Monday he would consider using surplus Vision 2025 funds to help pay for a new juvenile justice center and four new pods at the Tulsa Jail.
“I am going to meet with (county officials) and sit down and look at any surplus 2025 funds that might be available for that purpose,” Peters said....

....“If we could somehow, say, get $15 million-$20 million, that would put us up to $45 million. And Commissioner (Karen) Keith has indicated that she could raise some private money to help finish it off. That would get us close to getting the two projects done.”...



 .... Kirby Crowe with Program Management Group, which manages the Vision 2025 program for the county, estimated it could have a surplus of about $60 million. The figure includes the program’s $40 million reserve.

 However, $45.5 million of that has been promised to the suburban communities as part of the Tulsa County Vision Authority’s 2006 decision to approve an additional $45.5 million for the BOK Center and Convention Center renovations.

 Complicating the issue, Crowe said, is that any surplus funds must be allocated proportionally among the three active ballot propositions — Economic Development; Health Care, Education and Entertainment; and Community Enrichment — originally approved by voters, meaning all of the money might not be available for criminal justice projects.


http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Vision_funds_eyed_for_county/20130827_11_A1_TulsaC297525   


Title: Re: $60M in V2025 Surplus?
Post by: Townsend on August 27, 2013, 12:39:00 pm
Why are they not obligated to refund that to the taxpayers?



We didn't make them put that in writing before we voted on it.


Title: Re: $60M in V2025 Surplus?
Post by: TheArtist on August 27, 2013, 12:55:21 pm
  And because it was in writing that any surplus would be spent in other ways.


Title: Re: $60M in V2025 Surplus?
Post by: Weatherdemon on August 27, 2013, 01:18:24 pm
  And because it was in writing that any surplus would be spent in other ways.

Yea, that's right...
Still irritating.


Title: Re: $60M in V2025 Surplus?
Post by: Vision 2025 on August 27, 2013, 05:32:50 pm
Yea, that's right...
Still irritating.
There was a very specific methodology identified in the resolutions which called for the vote that identified utilizing the Vision Authority which is made up of all elected officials to dtermine how such funds (if any) will be utilized, to do otherwise would be a breech of what the voters approved.


Title: Re: $60M in V2025 Surplus?
Post by: davideinstein on August 27, 2013, 06:30:18 pm
Why spend it on a jail? Spend it on something more productive.


Title: Re: $60M in V2025 Surplus?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on August 27, 2013, 06:41:17 pm
Why spend it on a jail? Spend it on something more productive.


What could possibly be more productive than another jail facility...this is Oklahoma, remember?



Title: Re: $60M in V2025 Surplus?
Post by: BKDotCom on August 27, 2013, 08:25:42 pm

What could possibly be more productive than another jail facility...this is Oklahoma, remember?


$60M is 6% of $1 billion  (See the thread about high-speed rail and futurama tubes)
Everyone thinks $1 billion is an astronomical.   But we already have 6% of that just lying around.
We can think big, and budget, or we can spend the money on iphones, fast-food, & 200 channels of reality TV.


Title: Re: $60M in V2025 Surplus?
Post by: tulsascoot on August 27, 2013, 08:36:50 pm
If I'm not mistaken, this was collected from sales tax. While I understand the desire to have that given back, just how would that be done? How do you give back a sales tax collection fairly?

Perhaps taking the money and spending it on city services is the only way that is possible. Then it is given back to the people who paid it. (Except travelers and those who have moved away)


Title: Re: $60M in V2025 Surplus?
Post by: ZYX on August 27, 2013, 10:11:56 pm
What about the OKPOP museum? IIRC that was estimated at $40 million.


Title: Re: $60M in V2025 Surplus?
Post by: Vision 2025 on August 28, 2013, 08:01:56 am
$60M is 6% of $1 billion  (See the thread about high-speed rail and futurama tubes)
Everyone thinks $1 billion is an astronomical.   But we already have 6% of that just lying around.
We can think big, and budget, or we can spend the money on iphones, fast-food, & 200 channels of reality TV.
The funds are not "laying around" and in fact a good portion have yet to be collected"


Title: Re: $60M in V2025 Surplus?
Post by: heironymouspasparagus on August 28, 2013, 08:28:11 am
$60M is 6% of $1 billion  (See the thread about high-speed rail and futurama tubes)
Everyone thinks $1 billion is an astronomical.   But we already have 6% of that just lying around.
We can think big, and budget, or we can spend the money on iphones, fast-food, & 200 channels of reality TV.


Not to mention the $900 million or so the city is talking about for the next election....that is a billion, once the fees, expenses, etc are factored in.


And no, I really don't think we need another prison...any of those other uses are much better.  Even the fast food....


Title: Re: $60M in V2025 Surplus?
Post by: patric on August 28, 2013, 09:20:57 am
Why spend it on a jail? Spend it on something more productive.

Exactly.
Diverting money the people intended for roads and parks to jails and prisons, is the sort of bait-and-switch that people will be reminded of the next trip to the polls.


Title: Re: $60M in V2025 Surplus?
Post by: rdj on August 28, 2013, 09:32:12 am
I don't believe V2025 was about roads.  It was about parks and quality of life, i.e. BOK Center, Convention Center, downtown housing, suburban community centers.  It could be argued that a juvenile center, that will hopefully rehabilitate children and teens into better citizens, is a quality of life issue.  While a weak argument it can be made.

As was quoted below the suburban reps on the V2025 committee will decide how the first $45MM of this money is spent.  That is the amount they gave "Tulsa" for the upgrades/cost overruns at the BOK Center.  They were promised by then Mayor Taylor they would get first crack at deciding where an equal amount of overage went.  I can't speak for all the city managers/mayors of the suburbs but the ones I have a relationship with already have a list of what they'd like out of that money.

In short, unless the county is able to convince the suburban mayors to give them more the max the juvenile center will get is $15MM and that is assuming the overage projection is correct.


Title: Re: $60M in V2025 Surplus?
Post by: DTowner on August 28, 2013, 10:37:47 am
I don't believe V2025 was about roads.  It was about parks and quality of life, i.e. BOK Center, Convention Center, downtown housing, suburban community centers.  It could be argued that a juvenile center, that will hopefully rehabilitate children and teens into better citizens, is a quality of life issue.  While a weak argument it can be made.

As was quoted below the suburban reps on the V2025 committee will decide how the first $45MM of this money is spent.  That is the amount they gave "Tulsa" for the upgrades/cost overruns at the BOK Center.  They were promised by then Mayor Taylor they would get first crack at deciding where an equal amount of overage went.  I can't speak for all the city managers/mayors of the suburbs but the ones I have a relationship with already have a list of what they'd like out of that money.

In short, unless the county is able to convince the suburban mayors to give them more the max the juvenile center will get is $15MM and that is assuming the overage projection is correct.

Since the juvenile center will also benefit all the suburbs in Tulsa County, there should be a good incentive for them to support it.  However, I susupect many of the suburbs' mayors like to falsely paint juvenille justice problems as one primarily occuring within the city of Tulsa.  And a new park or community center with their name on it is much better for re-election prospects.


Title: Re: $60M in V2025 Surplus?
Post by: JCnOwasso on August 28, 2013, 12:04:54 pm
It could also be argued that spending 60M on early education programs and after school activities would be a little more successful in making these kids a better citizen.  Why try to fix it after it is broken when you can form it from the start.


Title: Re: $60M in V2025 Surplus?
Post by: carltonplace on August 28, 2013, 02:38:19 pm
I thought Tulsa forfeited its claim on any Surplus funds in order to cover the cost overruns on the BOK center?

Personally I don't want the county to put the JJC in our downtown.


Title: Re: $60M in V2025 Surplus?
Post by: swake on August 28, 2013, 02:39:53 pm
I thought Tulsa forfeited its claim on any Surplus funds in order to cover the cost overruns on the BOK center?

Personally I don't want the county to put the JJC in our downtown.

It will replace Storey Wrecker. If that's not a good thing, I don't know what is.


Title: Re: $60M in V2025 Surplus?
Post by: Vision 2025 on August 28, 2013, 02:48:14 pm
I thought Tulsa forfeited its claim on any Surplus funds in order to cover the cost overruns on the BOK center?
Only for the first $45.5 million...


Title: Re: $60M in V2025 Surplus?
Post by: Vision 2025 on August 28, 2013, 02:55:17 pm


Personally I don't want the county to put the JJC in our downtown.
OK then, where would your preferred central site location be that easily works with, law enforcement, public transportation, legal profession(s), worker infrastructure (eateries, etc.) has appropriate utility and roadway infrastructure would be located?


Title: Re: $60M in V2025 Surplus?
Post by: DTowner on August 28, 2013, 03:20:39 pm
OK then, where would your preferred central site location be that easily works with, law enforcement, public transportation, legal profession(s), worker infrastructure (eateries, etc.) has appropriate utility and roadway infrastructure would be located?

Enough already with the logic and sensible questions.