'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations

[RecycleMichael]

Since you brought up gas taxes...

The national average for total federal and state taxes on a gallon of gasoline is 42.0 cents.

Oklahoma is 35.4 cents
New Mexico is 36.4 cents
Texas is 38.4 cents
Arkansas is 40.1 cents
Kansas is 42.4 cents.

Only five states have lower overall gasoline taxes...Alaska, Georgia, New Jersey, South carolina and Wyoming

Wonder why we have crappy roads?

Because we won't pay for anything better.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by historically high taxes.  For one thing, Oklahoma has the lowest overall tax burden in the nation.  

What is you source for that, if I may ask?

Never mind, I found it.  I did not that the same study shows Oklahoma's state/local tax burden is 45th.

Any idea how Tulsa's local tax burden compares to other cities?

Bates has tried, sort of.  During the River Tax, he tried to compare Tulsa's property tax to statewide averages of other states, but that's highly misleading.  Statewide averages include rural areas, which, of course, are going to have much lower assessments than an urban area.

This is something that would take some research.  I'd be willing to work on it, but not if you spinmeisters are going to ignore it.[]  Lemme know.  I'm thinking KC, Dallas, OKC, and Wichita.  What's so hard about it is how each city gets their money.  KC gets some city income tax, dallas has property taxes that are through the roof.  I'd have to try to use the same methodology that the Census, or Tax Foundation does.

That's also the problem with the "Overall Tax Burden" study you sited.  That really tells us very little about the local tax situation.

I agree it's very difficult to compare, especially with cities from other states, because other states may pay for more or less of the functions handled locally in Oklahoma.  The best comparison would be to the total local burden (city and county) in Oklahoma City.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by Kenosha

From yesterday's Daily Oklahoman:



 

quote: Tue December 4, 2007
http://newsok.com/article/3176815/1196752289

Here's why we're rooting for downtown Tulsa

By Steve Lackmeyer
Main Street
Visit downtown Tulsa these days and you'll see for yourself a virtual construction zone. Streets are ripped up, sidewalks torn apart, and detour signs are just the outward signs of a city in transition.
 
 

Residents of the state's largest city bristle at comparisons to the transformation of downtown Oklahoma City. It's odd to be the outsider in Tulsa — visiting with ordinary folks, one gets the impression the two cities are in some sort of fierce rivalry where only one can emerge victorious.

Yet while traveling a few weeks back with a handful of some of Oklahoma City's most powerful corporate leaders, I heard nothing but concern for Tulsa.

The October flight coincided with two much-anticipated votes in both cities — a school bond election for Oklahoma City Public Schools and a sales tax to further development along Tulsa's Arkansas River corridor.

This may surprise Tulsans, but the Oklahoma City delegation was rooting for both issues to pass.

Their anxiety over the school bond election was easy to understand. After witnessing Oklahoma City's resurgence the past decade, they believe one of the biggest hurdles remaining is the city's schools.

But they were just as eager to see a win up in Tulsa. They cared because despite perceptions in their sister city, the state needs both cities to be economic powerhouses if it's to overcome historical disadvantages. And, yes, they were disappointed to hear the Tulsa tax had been voted down — even as the Oklahoma City school bond issue was winning by an almost historic margin of victory.

Tulsa isn't down for the count. The city's new arena is truly a masterpiece that Oklahoma City residents can only admire.

And the pain being encountered by businesses, downtown workers and visitors isn't without precedent. It was a decade ago that similar logistical nightmares were to be found throughout downtown Oklahoma City.

But the big success stories seem to be eluding downtown Tulsa; a development deal for a Wal-Mart fell through.

And there appears to be no sign that the once-ambitious plans heralded by Henry Kaufman and Maurice Kanbar for one-third of downtown Tulsa they bought two years ago will be fulfilled now that the two men have ended up in a court fight in San Francisco.

Some may also worry about recent reports that the operator of Tulsa's historic Brady Theater has discontinued its promotions and that, for now, the landmark no longer will be hosting performances as it has for decades. The Brady is more than just a downtown Tulsa institution. It is also the anchor for the city's fledgling entertainment district.

It's interesting that Oklahoma City, with a downtown area that has so little going for it, has come so far in the past decade. Consider all that downtown Tulsa has — not just the Brady, but also Cain's Ballroom; the incredible Art Deco downtown skyline; and a river that never needed to be mowed three times a year.

What's evident in Tulsa is that there is no unified vision for its downtown. I'm not sure that the impulse to look at Oklahoma City as a foe needing to be vanquished will revitalize Tulsa's inner-core.

But with time, and with vision and leadership, downtown Tulsa will thrive again. And I know many Oklahoma City folks who will be cheering for that resurgence with every bit of enthusiasm as they have for their own hometown.

Daily Dissapointment getting it right on target? What's with all the other districts like Pearl and East End and on and on?
Spot on editorial. Makes you wonder who's feeding the editorial staff informtion....Aox?

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by historically high taxes.  For one thing, Oklahoma has the lowest overall tax burden in the nation.  

What is you source for that, if I may ask?

Never mind, I found it.  I did not that the same study shows Oklahoma's state/local tax burden is 45th.

Any idea how Tulsa's local tax burden compares to other cities?

Bates has tried, sort of.  During the River Tax, he tried to compare Tulsa's property tax to statewide averages of other states, but that's highly misleading.  Statewide averages include rural areas, which, of course, are going to have much lower assessments than an urban area.

This is something that would take some research.  I'd be willing to work on it, but not if you spinmeisters are going to ignore it.[]  Lemme know.  I'm thinking KC, Dallas, OKC, and Wichita.  What's so hard about it is how each city gets their money.  KC gets some city income tax, dallas has property taxes that are through the roof.  I'd have to try to use the same methodology that the Census, or Tax Foundation does.

That's also the problem with the "Overall Tax Burden" study you sited.  That really tells us very little about the local tax situation.

I agree it's very difficult to compare, especially with cities from other states, because other states may pay for more or less of the functions handled locally in Oklahoma.  The best comparison would be to the total local burden (city and county) in Oklahoma City.

Except that the road there are rated even WORSE than ours are.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by historically high taxes.  For one thing, Oklahoma has the lowest overall tax burden in the nation.  

What is you source for that, if I may ask?

Never mind, I found it.  I did not that the same study shows Oklahoma's state/local tax burden is 45th.

Any idea how Tulsa's local tax burden compares to other cities?

Bates has tried, sort of.  During the River Tax, he tried to compare Tulsa's property tax to statewide averages of other states, but that's highly misleading.  Statewide averages include rural areas, which, of course, are going to have much lower assessments than an urban area.

This is something that would take some research.  I'd be willing to work on it, but not if you spinmeisters are going to ignore it.[]  Lemme know.  I'm thinking KC, Dallas, OKC, and Wichita.  What's so hard about it is how each city gets their money.  KC gets some city income tax, dallas has property taxes that are through the roof.  I'd have to try to use the same methodology that the Census, or Tax Foundation does.

That's also the problem with the "Overall Tax Burden" study you sited.  That really tells us very little about the local tax situation.

I agree it's very difficult to compare, especially with cities from other states, because other states may pay for more or less of the functions handled locally in Oklahoma.  The best comparison would be to the total local burden (city and county) in Oklahoma City.

Except that the road there are rated even WORSE than ours are.

[PonderInc]

Last time the 3rd penny sales tax came up for a vote, I did an analysis of where all the money for roads was going.  The proposed projects showed 90% of the money for "street and expressway" improvement was earmarked for south of 61st and/or east of Mingo. Therein lies the problem.

Recently, I read in the paper that street widening projects alone would cost $500 million.  Here's a savings idea: let's not widen the roads.  Let's focus our energy on all forms of transportation and strategies of development that would take cars OFF the roads, instead of making the roads bigger and suitable only for cars.

Another idea: The committee has proposed a general obligation bond that would add about 15 mills to the city’s property tax rate, which would translate to an extra $12.50 a month for a $100,000 home.

Instead, let's increase property taxes on a sliding scale depending upon how close you are to downtown.  The people who spend the most time driving (the people furthest out) should pay the most for roads.  The nearer you live to downtown, the cheaper your tax rate should be.  Why encourage suburban living at the fringes of our city limits...when those are the areas that will cost the most to "fix" (widen)...and ultimately contribute to our inability to maintain ALL of the streets in Tulsa.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by historically high taxes.  For one thing, Oklahoma has the lowest overall tax burden in the nation.  

What is you source for that, if I may ask?

Never mind, I found it.  I did not that the same study shows Oklahoma's state/local tax burden is 45th.

Any idea how Tulsa's local tax burden compares to other cities?

Bates has tried, sort of.  During the River Tax, he tried to compare Tulsa's property tax to statewide averages of other states, but that's highly misleading.  Statewide averages include rural areas, which, of course, are going to have much lower assessments than an urban area.

This is something that would take some research.  I'd be willing to work on it, but not if you spinmeisters are going to ignore it.[]  Lemme know.  I'm thinking KC, Dallas, OKC, and Wichita.  What's so hard about it is how each city gets their money.  KC gets some city income tax, dallas has property taxes that are through the roof.  I'd have to try to use the same methodology that the Census, or Tax Foundation does.

That's also the problem with the "Overall Tax Burden" study you sited.  That really tells us very little about the local tax situation.

I agree it's very difficult to compare, especially with cities from other states, because other states may pay for more or less of the functions handled locally in Oklahoma.  The best comparison would be to the total local burden (city and county) in Oklahoma City.

Except that the road there are rated even WORSE than ours are.

By whom?

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

Recently, I read in the paper that street widening projects alone would cost $500 million.  Here's a savings idea: let's not widen the roads.

The bond issue that SOS is recommending is exclusivly for rehab...no expansion.  They are making that distinction, and I think they are going to give us the choice.  Or, at least I hope that's what it leads to.  Rehab is one thing, expansion is another in my book.

[PonderInc]

I noticed that the Finance committee's report includes something called "Special Assessment Districts" (SAD).  This would allow "willing neighborhoods" to tax themselves for the purpose of sidewalks, greenbelts, parks, bikelanes, trails...

This strikes me as a step in the wrong direction.  I'm not sure how this would help Tulsa...though it might help already rich neighborhoods become nicer...while excusing the city (and its citizens) from our responsibility to ALL Tulsans who think that greenspace, parks, and safe sidewalks are not ammenities, but necessities to quality of life.

This reminds me that we are sort of Balkanized already, and that there are people who don't care if folks in certain parts of town have nice public spaces...as long as they have them in their own little gated communities.

Sorry folks, but my community is ALL of Tulsa.  (Despite my downtown/midtown bias). I want it all to be nice/beautiful...not just the already affluent neighborhoods. I want all kids to get a chance to experience nature/greenbelts/parks and safe sidewalks and bike trails.

As soon as certain neighborhoods start "paying to play," they will feel justified to "opt out" of paying for improvements city-wide.  ("We paid for our park space.  If you want park space, go earn the money yourself!")  This is not the definition of community.  And my instinct is that this would be a bad idea for Tulsa.

[FOTD]

I agree.
 Such a Brookside sound to it....SAD but true.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

That's also the problem with the "Overall Tax Burden" study you sited.  That really tells us very little about the local tax situation.

I agree it's very difficult to compare, especially with cities from other states, because other states may pay for more or less of the functions handled locally in Oklahoma.  The best comparison would be to the total local burden (city and county) in Oklahoma City.

Well, then.  You are easier to please than I thought.[]

From the same Council Report linked above:


This shows that the city's take is substantially lower than OKC's:  The property tax millage is lower nearly 21% lower than OKC's, and the sales tax take is nearly 23%.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

That's also the problem with the "Overall Tax Burden" study you sited.  That really tells us very little about the local tax situation.

I agree it's very difficult to compare, especially with cities from other states, because other states may pay for more or less of the functions handled locally in Oklahoma.  The best comparison would be to the total local burden (city and county) in Oklahoma City.

Well, then.  You are easier to please than I thought.[]

From the same Council Report linked above:


This shows that the city's take is substantially lower than OKC's:  The property tax millage is lower nearly 21% lower than OKC's, and the sales tax take is nearly 23%.

I see that.  Very interesting.  But for a fair comparison, one really has to include our county sales tax, which of course puts Tulsa's burden slightly higher (and would be 16.5% higher with the proposed 1/2% jump for Tulsa).

I'm surprised at the difference in property taxes.  Does Tulsa County also tax us more than Oklahoma County taxes?  A complete comparison really needs to include both city and county (because they don't necessarily divide up their responsibilities the same way, e.g., Tulsa County taxes are paying for our arena, in OKC, they did their arena with city taxes.)

Note, too, that Tulsa's city budget is already higher, per capita, than is Oklahoma City's (even though, as mentioned above, Tulsa's arena and other 2025 items are in the county's budget).

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital


I see that.  Very interesting.  But for a fair comparison, one really has to include our county sales tax, which of course puts Tulsa's burden slightly higher (and would be 16.5% higher with the proposed 1/2% jump for Tulsa).

Yes, but much of that County 1.017% is in projects outside Tulsa or projects with countywide benefit, i.e. Vision 2025 and 4-to-fix, so, you can't quite lump in all of that 1.017% and say that Tulsa the city is grabbing more than OKC.  That wouldn't be fair, either.  You can argue that Tulsans are STILL subsidizing the growth of our neighbors, but that's been a  problem since Inhofe was mayor.  It does s*ck though.

quote:I'm surprised at the difference in property taxes.  Does Tulsa County also tax us more than Oklahoma County taxes?  A complete comparison really needs to include both city and county (because they don't necessarily divide up their responsibilities the same way, e.g., Tulsa County taxes are paying for our arena, in OKC, they did their arena with city taxes.)

They may.  go look at that Council Report.  It's a goodn'.  The county millages pay for the same things.  The one thing I can see from the pie charts is that a much bigger piece of the county's pie goes to community college/vo-tech.  TCC is one of the best community colleges in the country, so, that makes sense.

I don't think you need to dig much deeper than this though, to determine that the city is not exactly running hog wild in comparison to OKC, and in the end, they are the ones that are going to have to fix the streets.  The county, may be a little wild.  The World says they increased their budget by 17% this year, that seems like pretty hefty growth for one year.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital


I see that.  Very interesting.  But for a fair comparison, one really has to include our county sales tax, which of course puts Tulsa's burden slightly higher (and would be 16.5% higher with the proposed 1/2% jump for Tulsa).

Yes, but much of that County 1.017% is in projects outside Tulsa or projects with countywide benefit, i.e. Vision 2025 and 4-to-fix, so, you can't quite lump in all of that 1.017% and say that Tulsa the city is grabbing more than OKC.  That wouldn't be fair, either.  You can argue that Tulsans are STILL subsidizing the growth of our neighbors, but that's been a  problem in Inhofe was mayor.  It does s*ck though.

quote:I'm surprised at the difference in property taxes.  Does Tulsa County also tax us more than Oklahoma County taxes?  A complete comparison really needs to include both city and county (because they don't necessarily divide up their responsibilities the same way, e.g., Tulsa County taxes are paying for our arena, in OKC, they did their arena with city taxes.)

They may.  go look at that Council Report.  It's a goodn'.  The county millages pay for the same things.  The one thing I can see from the pie charts is that a much bigger piece of the county's pie goes to community college/vo-tech.  TCC is one of the best community colleges in the country, so, that makes sense.

I don't think you need to dig much deeper than this though, to determine that the city is not exactly running hog wild in comparison to OKC, and in the end, they are the ones that are going to have to fix the streets.  The county, may be a little wild.  The World says they increased their budget by 17% this year, that seems like pretty hefty growth for one year.

I'm not quite ready to give them the pass you are.  

If I read this thread correctly (and if the poster was accurate), the proposal is to add 15 mills to our property tax.  That would make our rate a whopping 73% higher than OKC's, in addition to the higher sales taxes we already pay  (yes, some of that pays for things outside the city, but by far the majority of it is being spent in Tulsa (BOK Center, Convention Center, OU, OSU, American Airlines +++), so at best, we are probably paying at least the same amount in sales taxes when comparing apples to apples.

I'll take a look at the council report and see what else I can learn.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

I noticed that the Finance committee's report includes something called "Special Assessment Districts" (SAD).  This would allow "willing neighborhoods" to tax themselves for the purpose of sidewalks, greenbelts, parks, bikelanes, trails...

This strikes me as a step in the wrong direction.  I'm not sure how this would help Tulsa...though it might help already rich neighborhoods become nicer...while excusing the city (and its citizens) from our responsibility to ALL Tulsans who think that greenspace, parks, and safe sidewalks are not ammenities, but necessities to quality of life.

This reminds me that we are sort of Balkanized already, and that there are people who don't care if folks in certain parts of town have nice public spaces...as long as they have them in their own little gated communities.

Sorry folks, but my community is ALL of Tulsa.  (Despite my downtown/midtown bias). I want it all to be nice/beautiful...not just the already affluent neighborhoods. I want all kids to get a chance to experience nature/greenbelts/parks and safe sidewalks and bike trails.

As soon as certain neighborhoods start "paying to play," they will feel justified to "opt out" of paying for improvements city-wide.  ("We paid for our park space.  If you want park space, go earn the money yourself!")  This is not the definition of community.  And my instinct is that this would be a bad idea for Tulsa.

My sentiments exactly.