Just for the record, and to provide balance to the TW article, Tulsan's need to be aware we ended the 2008-2009 Fiscal Year UP over last years' Sales Tax collections by 2.39%, UP $5,000,000.
FY 2007-2008 FY 2008-2009 Chg Amount
$209,965,014,78 $214,058,154.13 2.39% $4,993,139.35
When including Use Taxes, we were UP 2.23% overall for the year
$227,502,906.62 $232,573,262.34 2.23% $5,070,355.72
Source: Oklahoma Tax Commission http://www.tax.ok.gov/nwsrls.html (http://www.tax.ok.gov/nwsrls.html) (corrected link)
Quote from: Wrinkle on July 10, 2009, 09:18:15 AM
Just for the record, and to provide balance to the TW article, Tulsan's need to be aware we ended the 2008-2009 Fiscal Year UP over last years' Sales Tax collections by 2.39%, UP $5,000,000.
FY 2007-2008 FY 2008-2009 Chg Amount
$209,965,014,78 $214,058,154.13 2.39% $4,993,139.35
When including Use Taxes, we were UP 2.23% overall for the year
$227,502,906.62 $232,573,262.34 2.23% $5,070,355.72
Source: Oklahoma Tax Commission www.tax.ok.gov/publicat/ (http://www.tax.ok.gov/publicat/)
you do understand that the trend is downward? When doing forecasting the trend is more important than the overall results.
+2.
You are both correct.
It is important to note that the city ended the year UP over last years total. But when budgeting for the future following the more recent trend down should be the way to go. However, I'm surprised the TW didn't bother pointing out that revenues were up overall, it seems an important part of the article and something worth exploring a little.
Of course trend is important. Didn't suggest it wasn't.
But, tell me, did _you_ know collections for the year were UP?
Another interesting thing which becomes apparent at first look is that Sales Taxes represent only about 1/3rd of the City's budget.
Another noteworthy aspect of this is the numbers above represent total Sales Tax collections. That's three pennies (3%). Of that, only 2 pennies are used for City operations, the third penny, of course, IS the infamous "Third Penny", used to pay off bonds on Capital Improvements voted upon by the public.
So, of the $232.6 million collected, only 2/3rds of that goes to City operations. That amounts to only about $155 million. And, $155 in relation to a $567 million city budget represents about 27.34% of the City's budget. Closer to a 1/4 than 1/3rd of the City's budget, and includes Use Tax collections.
If Sales Tax collections drop by, say, 10% next year, there'd be about $24 million less collected, with 2/3rds of that for operations, or about $16 million.
The Mayor's budget cut expenses by $10 million, so it's apparent she's planning for reductions in collections of about that. That projects to a 4.3% reduction in collections of the 2-cent portion (=6.45% of total). So, they're expecting collections to be in the neighborhood of $145 million in FY2009-2010, or about $12.08 million per month average, down from about $12.92 million per month average. ($19.38M/mo vs $18.55M/mo for the full 3-cents).
So, the City is expecting $840,000/mo less per month on average for operations.
Meanwhile, increased water rates would expect to recover about 1/3rd of that amount. Sewer rates are tied to water rates, so might capture another 1/3rd of that. The 3rd third might easily be made up with the increased fines now being implemented.
Kind of makes one wonder just how big a 'crisis' this really is, and how much of what we've been told is actually true.
Just more fun with numbers.
Quote from: Wrinkle on July 12, 2009, 09:44:20 PM
Kind of makes one wonder just how big a 'crisis' this really is, and how much of what we've been told is actually true.
Sales tax revenues were down more than 10 percent in July compared to a year ago. So, yes, I'd say a double-digit decrease and trending downward even more is a crisis.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on July 12, 2009, 09:51:31 PM
Sales tax revenues were down more than 10 percent in July compared to a year ago. So, yes, I'd say a double-digit decrease and trending downward even more is a crisis.
You should call the Mayor's hotline and let her know, since she's planning for only around a 6.5% reduction in next year's collections.
At least, that's what the numbers indicate. However, when one considers eight days of furlough by all city empolyees, that would represent another 4.3%. So, while one thing is being stated, another is being implemented.
Hard to say what's true at this point.
But, then, it is all speculation anyway.
When the city's unions were getting ready for negotiations with the city, the accountants, when looking at all sources of expenditures, found the city of Tulsa spent a historically record high amount of money in the year ending June 30, 2009. They also found the operating budget, funded by two cents of the sales sales, flat broke.