Councilors Eagleton, Bynum, Turner, Westcott, and Mautino are against the proposal, Henderson is obviously for it, and the remaining three councilors are undecided at this point. We could definitely use an additional $66 mil a year for the operating budget, but what other avenues to we have we could look at to reduce dependence on the vagaries of a sales tax. Personally, I'd be interested in seeing what our delegation in OKC could do in rounding up funds from the state level.
"City Councilor Jack Henderson plans to stop merely talking about the need for more public-safety funding Tuesday and propose a public vote on a penny increase in the city's sales-tax rate to benefit the Police, Fire and Park departments.
"I might be digging my political grave," he said with a chuckle Monday.
"But given the situation that Tulsa is in right now, we have to do something, or it won't be long before we don't even recognize our beautiful city anymore."
Henderson's proposal will be discussed at the council's 10 a.m. Tuesday committee meeting.
It involves boosting the city's sales-tax rate from 3 cents to 4 cents on the dollar, which would take the overall local tax rate, including the county and state shares, from 8.517 cents to 9.517 cents.
The penny increase would raise an average of about $66 million annually, council research indicates. The money would be used to supplement the funding that the Police, Fire and Park departments get from the general fund, he said."
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20100209_11_A1_Tulsap551438&archive=yes
I am willing to pay a little more to live in a better community.
I could argue about the whole tax burden and how sales taxes are an unstable source of funding and unfairly punish the lower income residents...face it...I could argue anything.
But sales taxes will be collected on all the commuters who live outside and work inside the city limits if they shop or eat in Tulsa. We also learned that most of the other suburbs already have sales tax rates higher than Tulsa.
We have few solutions. I don't want to layoff cops, firemen and other city workers. I don't want to see the parks deteriorate and the rights-of-way go unmowed.
I will support additional funding that is spread to all users of city services.
Sales tax is the easiest way to capture money from people who use the city but live outside (me). People living inside Tulsa will not be likely to spend several dollars in gas/transportation to save $1.00 tax or $.50 tax per $100 spent. It's bad economics for all but really large, infrequent, purchases.
We still have a lot of waste we can eliminate (that is on the order of millions of dollars) before we should even consider more taxation.
This idea is just an extension of the poor leadership that got us into this mess.
Sales taxes are so volatile and regressive, they are not a good primary basis for city funding. If it were up to me, groceries and services would not have sales tax on them.
Cities should split their funding sources between different types of taxes as protection against downturns like the current one. Property taxes could be used for things like public safety and parks. Such a tax would then also tax businesses that receive fire and police protection and would make it easier for cities to merge functions like fire departments into regional operations. Sales taxes on non food sales would pay for the bulk of the rest of city operations and then add small city gas tax for local road maintenance.
I would not be in favor of a city income tax. It seems to me that states without income taxes do better with economic development and I think we should be moving in that direction. I understand that removing income taxes does not mean lower taxes, just different taxes, but it does seem to work for a number of states. I would be in favor of the state increasing use taxes, Auto fees, fuel taxes, business fees, and property taxes and ending the income tax altogether along with ending sales taxes on food and services.
But these kind of changes would take changes to state tax law and sensible things don't happen in the state capital very often, so I would be in favor of the additional sales tax for the city of Tulsa.
Why not a 4.83c increase?
Make life easier, plus raise about $32M a year.
I agree about no sales tax on groceries, but think how bad a crunch we would be in if that had been dropped already and we had no other revenue stream to replace it.
Assuming the rest of the financial house were in order (i.e. cutting out waste) how does everyone feel about a state income tax increase targeted toward certain zip codes? I honestly have no problem with that concept and felt previous income tax cuts approved on state income tax were premature and unnecessary at the time. I'm typically very fiscally conservative. To me conservatism doesn't mean necessarily lowering taxes at every turn, it means prudent management of financial resources at all times.
Quote from: sgrizzle on February 09, 2010, 12:36:14 PM
Why not a 4.83c increase?
Make life easier, plus raise about $32M a year.
That boys a thinkin man.
Quote from: patric on February 09, 2010, 12:27:21 PM
We still have a lot of waste we can eliminate (that is on the order of millions of dollars) before we should even consider more taxation.
This idea is just an extension of the poor leadership that got us into this mess.
Exactly.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 09, 2010, 12:38:50 PM
how does everyone feel about a state income tax increase targeted toward certain zip codes?
I think it would be a paperwork nightmare. Live in one zip code, work in another? Which do you pay? Is it prorated if you have more than one job? I'd rather not go there.
Quote from: swake on February 09, 2010, 12:32:42 PM
Sales taxes are so volatile and regressive, they are not a good primary basis for city funding. If it were up to me, groceries and services would not have sales tax on them.
I don't know about now but in the 60s sales tax was exempted on groceries (real food, not soda/pop etc), clothing, and prescription drugs. Makes it a bit less regressive.
Edit: Oops, forgot to say it was in Pennsylvania.
Quote from: Gaspar on February 09, 2010, 12:53:40 PM
Exactly.
Excelence in posting.......
We still have a lot of waste we can eliminate (that is on the order of millions of dollars) before we should even consider more taxation.
This idea is just an extension of the poor leadership that got us into this mess.
Cannot agree more.....
Funny story. . .
Last year a survey crew showed up in my neighborhood and surveyed the streets all day long up and down Pittsburg between 81st and 91st. I asked one of the guys and they said they were under contract from the city to map the cracks in the asphalt.
They were mapping the cracks in the pavement and marking them with spray paint. They did this for two months every day until the entire street was “stitched” with little orange, yellow, and green dashed lines.
This first series of lines eventually faded and disappeared in the rains and sun. Several months later they showed up again and spent another two months mapping and marking the cracks down Pittsburg every day from dawn until dusk. \
Today if you drive down Pittsburg you can still see some of the lines. Nothing was ever done, and no one really knows what the purpose of the crew really was.
Having worked in the development industry, I know how much a survey crew runs on an hourly basis. Based on the amount of time these two guys spent with their line-of-sight and GPS equipment and little cans of multi-colored spray paint. I can realistically estimate $100 thousand on the low, end and $140 thousand on the high end was spent on the cracks that were never fixed, and the lines that have all but faded away.
Anyone else have any good city waste stories?
Edited to correct my poor math!
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 09, 2010, 01:00:18 PM
I think it would be a paperwork nightmare. Live in one zip code, work in another? Which do you pay? Is it prorated if you have more than one job? I'd rather not go there.
No, just simply by residence filing address on gross income only. My idea was simply raising more revenue and tagging it for the areas that need it. In other words, not collecting more money from Tulsa and splitting to OKC and Bugtussle, but rather let's say an income tax increase for everyone living within the city limits of Tulsa. Then you can placate the "regressive taxation" crowd and also it isn't a city income tax which would require another little fiefdom to administrate. It might require adding a few more employees at OTC, if that. Certainly I realize people with multiple properties might claim their house in BA is their primary residence. People who are bent on it will always find ways to skirt taxes. I don't think this would cause any more of a flight to the suburbs than a sales tax or higher property taxes would.
Again, all thoughts ONLY if the city gets the rest of its financial house in order and discovers it still cannot provide the basic services expected of municipal government.
Great posts. I wish all you guys were on city council.
Did anyone read Tom Adelson's ideas in the latest Urban Tulsa? He made some good points about merging similar systems like IT department, HR, etc at the county level to save money for all the cities and more easily share resources.
Quote from: OpenYourEyesTulsa on February 09, 2010, 01:45:15 PM
Great posts. I wish all you guys were on city council.
Did anyone read Tom Adelson's ideas in the latest Urban Tulsa? He made some good points about merging similar systems like IT department, HR, etc at the county level to save money for all the cities and more easily share resources.
That would be great but I can't see it ever happening. Seems like City and county fights to much of late. Then again we can hope. Though I would like to see audits done and a cost/savings analysis done before we approve any service merger with the county.
Quote from: OpenYourEyesTulsa on February 09, 2010, 01:45:15 PM
Great posts. I wish all you guys were on city council.
Did anyone read Tom Adelson's ideas in the latest Urban Tulsa? He made some good points about merging similar systems like IT department, HR, etc at the county level to save money for all the cities and more easily share resources.
I think it's a great idea and there's at least one county commissioner in favor of merging systems where practical. One problem they are going to run into is opposition the bureaucrats who have become accustomed to running their own little fiefdoms who might be worried they are going to be consolidated out.
All fine and good with me. Gov't needs to identify core services it should be supplying to citizens, eliminate ones they don't need to be supplying, and figuring out how to deliver the necessary ones more efficiently.
Quote from: godboko71 on February 09, 2010, 01:48:09 PM
That would be great but I can't see it ever happening. Seems like City and county fights to much of late. Then again we can hope. Though I would like to see audits done and a cost/savings analysis done before we approve any service merger with the county.
Just don't let Staubach & Co do the survey.
Quote from: OpenYourEyesTulsa on February 09, 2010, 01:45:15 PM
Great posts. I wish all you guys were on city council.
Did anyone read Tom Adelson's ideas in the latest Urban Tulsa? He made some good points about merging similar systems like IT department, HR, etc at the county level to save money for all the cities and more easily share resources.
Great Idea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But that's the problem. It's a simple common sense approach to a problem. The city could easily save millions, the city and county would both benefit making Tulsa more marketable and competitive with OKC, and cities in surrounding states by improving systems regionally, and underused, HIGH PAID resources would be better allocated.
No one loses, and that's the hiccup. We have some counselors with WIN/LOSE mentalities. How do we get around that?
Seems there could be a problem in consolidating city/county governments. It has already been tried and the legislation overturned by the court. It is an interesting thought as the city operates under charter by the state and the county is established by the Oklahoma state constitution. It would be very easy for the state to delete their approval of the city charter and the county government take over the obligation of running the city if that is what the citizens want.
Posters it seems some derive their incomes directly of indirectly from government want the city to be given the Midas touch. Until the city receives it wouldn't it be more realistic to prepare to live within the present income and quit trying to compared it to other cities?
Nothing changes with staying on topic in this place does it ::)
Quote from: MDepr2007 on February 09, 2010, 06:29:05 PM
Nothing changes with staying on topic in this place does it ::)
Change we can believe in.
Quote from: Red Arrow on February 09, 2010, 08:26:32 PM
Change we can believe in.
(http://blog.buzzflash.com/files/images/ChumpChange.preview.jpg)
I posted this in another thread but didn't get any comments on it. Maybe its a bad idea. I also emailed this to Henderson, but haven't received a response and I'm not expecting one. I just feel the city wouldn't support a full penny, hence my compromise.
QuoteI was actually coming here to post exactly this (raising taxes), but it appears somebody else had the same idea. Here are the current sales taxes for Tulsa as well as some suburbs and other large Oklahoma cities:
(these figures have been provides by others in the thread, but I had already typed them up before I saw them)
Tulsa: 3%
Oklahoma City: 3.875%
Broken Arrow: 3%
Sand Springs: 3.5%
Jenks: 3%
Bixby: 3.5%
Glenpool: 4%
Norman: 3.5%
Owasso: 3%
(source: http://www.tax.ok.gov/publicat/copos/copo1Q10.pdf)
Tulsa had $15.8M in sales tax revenue in 12/09, 14.5% lower than the 12/08, or $2.7M. My math may be simplified or off, but a .5% increase should get us to about $18.4M, <$.1M short of 12/08's revenue.
I would propose that the City raises the sales tax to 3.5% for ONE YEAR. At the end of that one year, hopefully the economy will have recovered mostly and the sales tax will be dropped back to 3%. However, I have another provision. Any revenue greater than the previous period goes into a rainy day fund. So for instance, (I'm making up numbers here) if the revenue for 7/10 (after the .5% increase) is $19M and the revenue for 7/09 was $18.2M, that $.8M difference goes into the rainy day fund. The rainy day fund could be used if the economy hasn't fully recovered after the sales tax expiration and still forces the Tulsa government to live within the budgets that were used to and gives the city more time to correct any wasteful spending.
A one cent sales tax increase would not only be a most regressive tax for the poor and unemployed but would have a negative effect on the actual production of income for the city. The 66 million dollars is not rat holed waiting for someone to buy things so they can pay sales taxes on it. This removes the $66 million dollars from their purchasing powers and diverts it into the coffers of city who will redistribute it haven been taken from the working poor to be placed into the hands of the elite of the city employees.
The 66M dollars is not in free fall but is taken from the declining funds by inflation that the working poor and retires need to survive. History teaches us this is the catalyst that has been used for revolts. The reduction in the city sales tax receipts and the increase in the sales taxes in the burbs should be a signal that the retail industries are moving into the burbs.
Tulsa should rearrange their priorities to supporting the citizens instead of funneling more money into the burbs. Until this storm has passed the city should make arrangements to live within its income.
Quote from: shadows on February 09, 2010, 09:42:26 PM
A one cent sales tax increase would not only be a most regressive tax for the poor and unemployed but would have a negative effect on the actual production of income for the city. The 66 million dollars is not rat holed waiting for someone to buy things so they can pay sales taxes on it. This removes the $66 million dollars from their purchasing powers and diverts it into the coffers of city who will redistribute it haven been taken from the working poor to be placed into the hands of the elite of the city employees.
The 66M dollars is not in free fall but is taken from the declining funds by inflation that the working poor and retires need to survive. History teaches us this is the catalyst that has been used for revolts. The reduction in the city sales tax receipts and the increase in the sales taxes in the burbs should be a signal that the retail industries are moving into the burbs.
Tulsa should rearrange their priorities to supporting the citizens instead of funneling more money into the burbs. Until this storm has passed the city should make arrangements to live within its income.
(http://awkwardfamilyphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/nikki.jpg)
Quote from: Breadburner on February 09, 2010, 10:41:21 PM
(http://awkwardfamilyphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/nikki.jpg)
Hey, that's not from that night up in Sedalia is it? Aaaah to be young, stupid, and 19 again.
Can the city not raise property taxes? I would be more for that than a sales tax. Or maybe, as Councilman Turner pointed out, we can raise the fees associated with hotels/motels, rental cars, the BOK Center, and other city-owned facilities. I think everyone here agrees we need to do something to better fund public safety so when the next economic downturn hits we are more prepared.
I wouldn't vote for a sales tax. It's a matter of principle. They've been so irresponsible from Taylor on - and now we're to be punished for that? H no. Find another way. But - Find - another way. None of our cops / fire fighters should be punished for this either.
What are the options on property tax? Can the city levee property tax for the general fund that easily?
Frankly I am becoming horribly concerned about the streets. None of the projects mapped out on the streets tax plan seem to have started. The city has admitted to raiding money from the pothole fund to keep things running the past few weeks. Meanwhile in the winter madness the streets have gone frighteningly fast from a D+ to an F-. There aren't enough people filling the potholes up with the little black pebbles - and the little black pebbles aren't doing anything - they keep getting washed out and littering the streets. Instead of the right lane being the driving lane and the left being the passing lane, the right lane is the pothole lane. Soon the left lane will be the pothole lane and the right lane will be closed until further notice.
We sorely need to do an "all of the above" approach of keeping current cuts in place, making further cuts, wiping out inefficiencies, AND raising new revenue streams from multiple sources.
Quote from: YoungTulsan on February 10, 2010, 06:33:35 AM
What are the options on property tax? Can the city levee property tax for the general fund that easily?
Frankly I am becoming horribly concerned about the streets. None of the projects mapped out on the streets tax plan seem to have started. The city has admitted to raiding money from the pothole fund to keep things running the past few weeks. Meanwhile in the winter madness the streets have gone frighteningly fast from a D+ to an F-. There aren't enough people filling the potholes up with the little black pebbles - and the little black pebbles aren't doing anything - they keep getting washed out and littering the streets. Instead of the right lane being the driving lane and the left being the passing lane, the right lane is the pothole lane. Soon the left lane will be the pothole lane and the right lane will be closed until further notice.
We sorely need to do an "all of the above" approach of keeping current cuts in place, making further cuts, wiping out inefficiencies, AND raising new revenue streams from multiple sources.
Unfortunately mother nature is giving us a hard time. It does little to try to fill the pot holes in this weather. Expansion, contraction and the residual salt, sand and ice on the roads makes any repair temporary. The minute a pot hole gets fixed a snow plow pops it out like a bottle cap.
We have to hold out until the weather improves or we are just pouring money into the holes. Sure we've got to fix the bigens so no one dies, but we probably won't see a big push to repair until all of this "global warming" stabilizes. :P
This may be a little generalized, but I LOVE when the righties start snarking about 'global warming', when they don't realize that climate change and global warming are not used interchangeably.
It makes a nice talking point when the temperatures dip, but you might do yourselves well to brush over this:
http://www.grinningplanet.com/2007/01-02/global-warming-vs-climate-change.htm
I've used this to point people in direction of the differences between the two and let them judge for themselves. Being the weather geek I am, I do know that swings one way or the other don't necessarily include man-made reasons, but they aren't helping.
Sorry for the thread drift, but I thought it relevant given the previous post.
Back to the discussion at hand.
;D
Quote from: Gaspar on February 10, 2010, 08:08:02 AMThe minute a pot hole gets fixed a snow plow pops it out like a bottle cap.
We have to hold out until the weather improves or we are just pouring money into the holes.
Yeah, I understand that. But I did hear the pothole budget is being raided. And my statement was more of a voice of distaste in the shoddy way we patch up potholes here. Eventually it has to be more cost effective to resurface a piece of road than to fill it in, and watch the holes multiply as more water stands around the other holes. As the streets start looking like Qusay Hussein's driveway it is looking like funding for the repair of streets may be headed in the wrong direction.
It is easy to add another cent to the list published on the internet.
Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he's fed.
Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.
Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for peanuts
Anyway!
Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.
Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.
Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.
Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his a$$. (edited)
Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.
Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid.
Put these words
Upon his tomb,
Taxes drove me
to my doom...'
When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge T ax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge=2 0Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
-----
Excelent post Shad.....You are really coming around......
So I guess the question is. . .
Do we just choose "EASY" and push everything onto the taxpayers again, or do we find and fix the waste, tighten our belts and make our city more competitive?
Those of you that don't support a penny increase, would you support the suggestion I made on page 2?
The City Of Tulsa's "Easy Button"
(http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2006/07/7.17.06---easy-button-hack.jpg)
At what point are citizens going to quit accepting circle-jerk excuses from the city council and heads of departments that they are doing all they can to identify waste or there is nothing that can be done.
What is our new auditor Preston Doerflinger doing these days? I thought he was going to bring in a wave of change and accountability. I've heard zilch out of the auditor's office in response to our budget crisis thus far.
From his campaign web site:
Better Government Efficiency
"The city must operate economically and efficiently. The citizens of Tulsa expect and deserve nothing less. As an entrepreneur, I know what it takes to eliminate waste, trim unnecessary spending and create financial stability, even during this challenging economy."
Demand Results
"I am not interested in bureaucratic audits that only create an appearance of relevance; I am interested in results. As the next City Auditor, I aim to carefully review every department to identify ways to improve performance and improve efficiency."
Leadership in Uncertain Times
"Challenging times call for strong leadership. The Auditor's Office plays an important role in our economic development. I will ensure that the office provides policy makers with timely, relevant and accurate data so they can make informed decisions that lead Tulsa in the right direction. And I will invite transparency and accountability at every step along the way."
Quote from: Gaspar on February 10, 2010, 03:10:04 PM
So I guess the question is. . .
Do we just choose "EASY" and push everything onto the taxpayers again, or do we find and fix the waste, tighten our belts and make our city more competitive?
Post of the year....Just like the working man has to do......
We dont even utilize our existing revenue streams:
"City Owed Millions in Traffic Tickets"
http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story/City-Owed-Millions-in-Traffic-Tickets/Nm4e6k7bTES6f7gJ6MkK5w.cspx
I heard on the radio the other day that they're looking into rehiring 35 laid-off traffic enforcement officers.
12% uncollected? I wonder how that rate compares to various businesses'.
Quote from: buckeye on February 11, 2010, 02:35:53 PM
I heard on the radio the other day that they're looking into rehiring 35 laid-off traffic enforcement officers.
12% uncollected? I wonder how that rate compares to various businesses'.
When I did business and advertising management at TU's newspaper, we planned for at least 7-10% uncollectable and it usually came in at around 5% of sales.
A point made by a friend of mine this afternoon is that there's probably a fair amount of uncollected fines (sorry I know "fair amount" isn't very scientific) owed by people presently in jail or prison on other charges, people who don't live in the area, and generally destitute who can't afford to pay the fines. Doing a round up is costly and making someone stay in jail a couple of days to pay up isn't a solution. They need to have an amnesty day or week, publish a database of delinquents, and see what that raises.
Quote from: Conan71 on February 11, 2010, 02:53:46 PM
A point made by a friend of mine this afternoon is that there's probably a fair amount of uncollected fines (sorry I know "fair amount" isn't very scientific) owed by people presently in jail or prison on other charges, people who don't live in the area, and generally destitute who can't afford to pay the fines. Doing a round up is costly and making someone stay in jail a couple of days to pay up isn't a solution. They need to have an amnesty day or week, publish a database of delinquents, and see what that raises.
I remember them doing the amnesty day once or twice...