A total of $135.2 million in unspent sales-tax and bond-package funds dating as far back as 1991....now they want more?
...comments?
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=20081029_11_A11_hSomea781560
offer them your cloak, too?
On the surface sounds like a bunch of uncommitted cash. The mayor is claiming this is appropriated funding for projects which have not been completed. Don't know if that's true or not, but that is the counter-claim. Certainly isn't real "yes" vote-inspiring news for the streets package.
The county has done the same thing for years, but it's sort of better now. I'm amazed it took this long to figure it out.
It's unspent money, not uncommitted money.
I was going to vote yes on the streets package, but this along with Martinson's letter and the list of the vote yes donors has changed my mind. I'll be voting no.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
I was going to vote yes on the streets package, but this along with Martinson's letter and the list of the vote yes donors has changed my mind. I'll be voting no.
Same here. I'm not solid no, but leaning no because of the same reasons.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
I was going to vote yes on the streets package, but this along with Martinson's letter and the list of the vote yes donors has changed my mind. I'll be voting no.
Really? You're voting no because a few checks haven't cleared? As was already mentioned here they were paying off work in October for the BOK Center. All that money is spent, just not disbursed.
I was going to be rude but thought better of it. Vote the way you feel is best for the future of Tulsa.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
I was going to vote yes on the streets package, but this along with Martinson's letter and the list of the vote yes donors has changed my mind. I'll be voting no.
Really? You're voting no because a few checks haven't cleared? As was already mentioned here they were paying off work in October for the BOK Center. All that money is spent, just not disbursed.
Sorry, but that is big-time spin. We are not talking about one penny of Vision 2025 money. We are talking about various unused dedicated sales taxes dating back nearly 20 years. Happens all the time, and not just with sales taxes. Look at any council meeting agenda and look at all of the budget amendments. That is moving money from one place to another so it can be used for what it was not budgeted for.
The Mayor's claim that left over money is needed in case they have to file a warranty claim on the work already done doesn't fly.
That is $135M worth of play money (they hope).
And, just wait and see how much of Vision 2025 money is left over. More play money.
Plus, Channel 8's story tonight about the city trying to use the same 2-cents sales tax since the 1970s to keep our roads up is flat out wrong (gee, wonder what side of the vote they're on)). That 50% increase in sales tax back in the 1980s (called the third-penny sales tax) was supposed to go to roads. It has gone to a lot of other things besides roads. This city has no one to blame for roads then themselves and how they present third-penny to the voters.
Nope, the first two pennies are for basic needs, salaries, emergency services, running the city. The 3rd penny was proposed by former mayor Jim Inhofe for roads and capital improvements.
The definition of Capital Improvement from Investopedia:
The addition of a permanent structural improvement or the restoration of some aspect of a property that will either enhance the property's overall value or increases its useful life. Although the scale of the capital improvement can vary, capital improvements can be made by both individual homeowners and large-scale property owners.
For example, if Jack buys a new hot water heater and tool shed for his property, both would be considered capital improvements to his house. Similarly, the creation of a new public park in the downtown area would also be considered a capital improvement for the city. In both these cases, the new additions would make the respective properties more valuable.
Edited to correct spelling error
Here's the part that stood out to me:
[Connelly] said the city has been managing the tax and bond programs according to the accompanying ordinance the council approved for the respective packages.
Connelly said surplus balances from completed budgets have been transferred to other voter-approved projects through council action and in accordance with the ordinances.
Recently the council approved spending $500,000 from the 1985 economic development sales tax fund for the John Hope Franklin Reconciliation Park.
Connelly said the city has detailed reports on the appropriations of the tax initiative packages that are reviewed monthly by the Sales Tax Overview Committee.
It sounds like money from previous programs can't be spent without Council Approval. The Sales Tax Overview Committee has 21 members, 18 of which are appointed by the City Council (2 from each district). 3 are recommended by the Mayor.
So...why is the City Council trying to make it sound like it's something the administration is doing or not doing? Sounds to me like the City Council should be paying better attention... instead of looking for a scapegoat.
well it could be that the council isn't approving moving the money because they want the projects they are allocated for to be completed. The "surplus" isnt there because there is extra money, the money is there because it isn't getting spent on projects not getting completed.