I don't even know if they will have a vote on it. Apparantly KRMG thinks so.
Tulsa, OK) --A vote on fairgrounds annexation could be taken tonight. After a final public hearing on the proposal to annex Expo Square, Tulsa city councilors have scheduled a vote. Roscoe Turner, the councilor who brought forth the idea, says it's time to make a decision. Other councilors may want to hold off on a vote for a time. Insiders closely watching the debate predict if there is a vote tonight, it will be very close...possibly 5-4 one way or the other. The council meeting begins at 6pm.
5 to 4 vote?
I wonder if it will be down party lines. All of the county commissioners are republicans and there is a 5 to 4 split on the council with the republicans holding the upper hand.
I know that councilors Turner and Henderson have made statements for annexation and Christiansen has been against. Does anybody know any other councilors positions? Who is the potential swing vote on this?
I have no inside information but I think you are right and the Council will fold like a cheap suitcase to their County masters and back off.
It is a close call and the momentum has been towards no. SO I'll call it a "NO" vote. Odds are 100 pays 120.
Even though the GOP Councilors were at times VERY optimistic about annexation, I more or less expect them to join together and march lockstep into opposition. The Tulsa GOP opposes it, the South Tulsa Crazies oppose it, the GOP in charge of the County obviously opposes it, the GOP Councilors will likely follow.
It may end up a 2-7 vote in opposition, no guarantees that all the Dems will vote for it seeing as how they have to tendency to have a conscience. Even if you can swing all 4 Dems, you still have to break away 1 GOP. Depending on the circumstances, that might be impossible.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Even though the GOP Councilors were at times VERY optimistic about annexation, I more or less expect them to join together and march lockstep into opposition. The Tulsa GOP opposes it, the South Tulsa Crazies oppose it, the GOP in charge of the County obviously opposes it, the GOP Councilors will likely follow.
The Tulsa GOP does NOT oppose annexation. The County Republican Convention voted not to have any statement regarding annexation in the party platform, either for or against.
As with most city issues, I would not expect a vote along party lines tonight.
My bad. I vaguely remember reading up on that, I think on your blog. Been a while though.
I may have been in for a nice surprise if you hadn't come along and ruined it for me.
I think if they backed off and studied it a little longer and harder to make better justification for it, I'd be willing to listen. So far, I think they are trying to cram this in without much aforethought.
No one (council, OTC, fair board, county) seems to have a clear idea about the big picture, or at least they are not sharing it publicly. I.e. how much the realistic revenue gain is and what the consequences of the lack of community-based policing during the fair would mean, or the cost of community-based policing should that philosophy change.
There are too many "ifs" that I've heard that I'm not comfortable with.
I am guessing that it is going to be a 5 to 4 vote, and for annexation.
I don't have any inside knowledge on this (really, I don't), but I am guessing that the swing vote is Eagleton. He seems the most inquisitive about the details and seems to be independent on most of his views.
I could be way off and I know that there will be discussion before they vote.
When they were talking about it on KRMG at noon, I got a gut feeling they would vote for it. They were dumb enough to ram-rod the EMSA deal through, so this should come as no surprise.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I am guessing that it is going to be a 5 to 4 vote, and for annexation.
I don't have any inside knowledge on this (really, I don't), but I am guessing that the swing vote is Eagleton. He seems the most inquisitive about the details and seems to be independent on most of his views.
I could be way off and I know that there will be discussion before they vote.
That would be my guess.
I'm confused, came in a little late.
Did it pass?
Yep, 5 to 4.
BTW, the Tulsa County Democratic Party passed a resolution in support of annexation and the elimination of the state share of sales tax collections at the fairgrounds. I hope our state legislators act on this.
Who voted for and against?
Yea, Yea!
This pleases me greatly. Almost makes up for that stupid EMSA deal (not).
I don't care if proceeds amount to $1.67, the Fairgrounds should be a part of Tulsa, the City.
One thing I saw on the news which got me wondering, though, was Councilor Westcott stating 'sometimes Councilors' know more than the public, sometimes not' (may not be precise). But, it implied to me there was information yet unknown by the public, which I have suspected all along.
I'm feeling like it has to do with the Bell's tract and the potential corner where Driller's stadium is (if they move to downtown), and, since Murphy Bros already controls Big Splash, that leaves a LOT of potential development. IMO, that should have some City input/control. I personally feel that to be the issue here, along with the fear of audits and perhaps a clear revenue picture.
This should be some more to help FIX the County.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Who voted for and against?
For annexation:
Martinson, Eagleton, Barnes, Turner, Henderson
Against:
Carter, Wescott, Troyer, Christiansen.
For the emergency clause, someone switched votes, so that didn't pass. I am not sure who switched, but I think Martinson.
Clearly not a partisan issue.
Thought so. That Emergency Clause threw me.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Who voted for and against?
For annexation:
Martinson, Eagleton, Barnes, Turner, Henderson
Against:
Carter, Wescott, Troyer, Christiansen.
For the emergency clause, someone switched votes, so that didn't pass. I am not sure who switched, but I think Martinson.
Clearly not a partisan issue.
Pretty close to a north vs. south issue, though.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
One thing I saw on the news which got me wondering, though, was Councilor Westcott stating 'sometimes Councilors' know more than the public, sometimes not' (may not be precise). But, it implied to me there was information yet unknown by the public, which I have suspected all along.
I appreciated what Westcott had to say about all the rhetoric and name calling this deal produced. And Westcott seemed to have heavily weighed everything and came to an honest conclusion.
Carter basically seemed to follow Christiansen's lead on "representing the people (who emailed us)". Troyer was indecipherable, thoroughly confused and confusing.
A little surprised Martinson voted for it, he seemed to be looking for more time.
Eagleton was dead on, slamming the rhetoric. Best speaker of the night IMO. Turner was firey, close second to Eagleton. Barnes and Henderson seemed to have made an honest assessment.
I think we've got a pretty good group of coucilors, except for that weird far south Tulsa thing that will likely never go away.
The inexperienced city council has voted that they can hold the preverbal greased pig.
The citizens do not take interest in the qualification of those they put in charge of their $550 million dollars. The city cannot secure the parks on the North Side. Now the sheriff says he does not have to secure the fair grounds. The city says they are not obligated to secure the grounds.
Those who have booked for use of the grounds are now to be advised there will be as insecure as the parks for those attending their shows.
Now get ready for an increase on the property taxes as a mill levies amounts to real money.
Since it was not passed with an emergency clause, which in no way an emergency exist, an energetic group could pass a petition to vacate the vote of the council before it becomes effective.
The use of full time councilors at $100,000 dollars a year would get persons with degrees in administration that are capable of distributing our $550' million dollars plus, each year without increasing fee's and property taxes..
I think City Councilors should make the median income for the city, no more, no less.
The Sheriff's Office is out of the fair business. That is going to be great for the citizens. If TPD doesnt do it. Then the fair will have to hire securitas or some other outfit with $8 per hour flunkies securing the fair. Dont that make you feel safe? Way to go council. Damn Im glad I moved out of the city.
I have no problem with annexation or efforts to improve tax collections throughout the city. However, the city's process was boorish. Carter was the only one who seemed to understand that and apologized. He stood out as pragmatic, unaligned and uninterested in camera time.
They were verbose ("I'll be brief"...15 min. later we're on page 3 and counting). They were pompous. Eagleton with the prosecutorial attitude engaging Brewster in mid sentence. Or, Eagleton (after praising Bates for his intellect, integrity and clear thinking) asking the leading question about what merits the county arguments might have. Surprise! None! Didn't you read my attack piece in this weeks UT? Oh, you did? Are the cameras on?
Tulsans were blatantly disrespected last night. Each of these entities is empowered with taxing us and representing all of us. They are us. When council members make accusations of dishonesty, chortle during citizen input, point fingers and takes on an attitude of disgust towards other elected officials, THEY ARE DISRESPECTING US ALL.
Many of you naively lined up with one side or the other as though it were a moral battle. There was no morality here, simply a clash of egos and a bald faced move for power and tax revenues. And now the city says, lets be friends and work this out. Good luck with that.
I'm starting to understand Shadows. There is a reason Skiatook and Rogers County are the fastest growing areas of the state.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
For the emergency clause, someone switched votes, so that didn't pass. I am not sure who switched, but I think Martinson.
No one switched. Emergency clause needs a two-thirds majority to pass.
I think it is about time that things got ugly. I read the 'attack' article and what came to my mind is that next election cycle the author will fold like a cheap suitcase and endorse each one of them mean 'ol County (R)'s to a person.
I am glad Eagleton was able to think independently and vote for his constituents' interests.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
I think City Councilors should make the median income for the city, no more, no less.
That would be an neat idea. Of course, it could also serve as an incentive to shed low paying jobs and has the potential to perpetuate a downward spiral. I guess I'd rather have the best man for the job than necessitate a civic sense of duty as a job qualification.
I was very disappointed that my councilor Maria Bates voted for annexation, but I don't necessarily condemn her for it.
Her honor Taylor could still veto. Anyone think she will?
I thought Eagleton was great. Brewster regularly acts like an (pick your negative adjective) and shouldn't be trusted on anything he has an interest in.
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
I thought Eagleton was great. Brewster regularly acts like an (pick your negative adjective) and shouldn't be trusted on anything he has an interest in.
Duh. He's a noted defense attorney who will defend even the obviously guilty. You're a police officer who is always on the opposite side.
Eagleton was pompous and prosecutorial. A lot of Tulsan's identify with that. He'll probably run for mayor.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I have no problem with annexation or efforts to improve tax collections throughout the city. However, the city's process was boorish. Carter was the only one who seemed to understand that and apologized. He stood out as pragmatic, unaligned and uninterested in camera time.
They were verbose ("I'll be brief"...15 min. later we're on page 3 and counting). They were pompous. Eagleton with the prosecutorial attitude engaging Brewster in mid sentence. Or, Eagleton (after praising Bates for his intellect, integrity and clear thinking) asking the leading question about what merits the county arguments might have. Surprise! None! Didn't you read my attack piece in this weeks UT? Oh, you did? Are the cameras on?
Tulsans were blatantly disrespected last night. Each of these entities is empowered with taxing us and representing all of us. They are us. When council members make accusations of dishonesty, chortle during citizen input, point fingers and takes on an attitude of disgust towards other elected officials, THEY ARE DISRESPECTING US ALL.
Many of you naively lined up with one side or the other as though it were a moral battle. There was no morality here, simply a clash of egos and a bald faced move for power and tax revenues. And now the city says, lets be friends and work this out. Good luck with that.
I'm starting to understand Shadows. There is a reason Skiatook and Rogers County are the fastest growing areas of the state.
WB- you and I seem to be on the same page.
I felt the fix was in before the meeting, so anyone speaking prior to the vote was just wasting oxygen. The account of the meeting in this morning's Whirled stated as much.
Enforcement of accurate sales tax collection during the fair and large multi-vendor shows like the flea market and gun shows will be the proverbial cluster-f#$%. It's another source of revenue which will be difficult to collect on. Good luck getting out of state vendors to honestly report all cash sales during a two week fair. That, in itself, would require more manpower to enforce than the city can afford.
The only easy method for accountability are the contract concessionaires in the various buildings, admissions, and a flat fee vendor/participant (for car shows, horse shows, and the Chili Bowl) charge which will be un-fairly distributed amongst vendors.
I wouldn't call this envisioned sales tax boon a pipe-dream, more like a fantasy.
Instead of chasing fairy-tale dollars, I think the city needs to engage our local legislators to buck up in OKC and demand a rebate of state sales tax collections or a share in oil tax revenues to account for the suburban retail sprawl instead of trying to create more difficult-to-enforce revenue streams.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
WB- you and I seem to be on the same page.
I felt the fix was in before the meeting, so anyone speaking prior to the vote was just wasting oxygen. The account of the meeting in this morning's Whirled stated as much.
Enforcement of accurate sales tax collection during the fair and large multi-vendor shows like the flea market and gun shows will be the proverbial cluster-f#$%. It's another source of revenue which will be difficult to collect on. Good luck getting out of state vendors to honestly report all cash sales during a two week fair. That, in itself, would require more manpower to enforce than the city can afford.
The only easy method for accountability are the contract concessionaires in the various buildings, admissions, and a flat fee vendor/participant (for car shows, horse shows, and the Chili Bowl) charge which will be un-fairly distributed amongst vendors.
I wouldn't call this envisioned sales tax boon a pipe-dream, more like a fantasy.
Instead of chasing fairy-tale dollars, I think the city needs to engage our local legislators to buck up in OKC and demand a rebate of state sales tax collections or a share in oil tax revenues to account for the suburban retail sprawl instead of trying to create more difficult-to-enforce revenue streams.
Good points Conan. Jeannie McDaniels was there, made an effort to calm both sides. She will carry that message back.
If you ever do business with a small retailer and you notice they make cash change with the till open or insist on cash only, Bingo!, you've found a retailer who is unlikely to be showing the true amount of sales to OTC. Calling the county on what is common throughout the city was nasty work.
deleted
Waterboy quoted.
Good points Conan. Jeannie McDaniels was there, made an effort to calm both sides. She will carry that message back.
------------------------------------------------
She was the unofficial greeter of city hall for years. She has been a mediator before so the soothing of both factions, was not an approach that would be alien to her past performances. She should have been Mayor but her ideals were set on the higher plain.. It has worked well with her as instead of aging she seems to have gotten younger. (Dorian Gray)
There is no reason to point the finger at the little retailer. The mom and pop stores that made change out of a cigar box has disappeared in this time of mega giants that control the retail markets. Only the internet sales can compete. Even then the merchandise purchased by the purchaser is not reported as taxable to the city. The solution would be for UPS to collect the taxes when the item is delivered.
The internet seller could furnish the city with all sales delivered within the city each month. The tax code will allow the tax to be collected on garage and want add sales. We need a thousand tax collectors to check out all the after market sales.
As mentioned before the vote was secured on the second floor of City Hall on the pigeon run where the councilors sit in the little cubby holes and can hold a meeting without leaving their desk.
Will the mayor use the veto threat to bring the county commissioners on line to support additional property taxes on the working poor and aging retirees? It is all in the Monopoly game that is being played with the citizen.
The time may come when we have to revaluate the actual needs of the citizens and adjust where we can meet those needs with the money available. It might come to where we have to throw off some dead weight instead of imposing more taxes and fees..
In the end annexation was the right choice....Nothing will change..Except the collection of much needed revenue...
quote:
Originally posted by Steve[/i]
Her honor Taylor could still veto. Anyone think she will?
I don't think so. I think she will respect the wishes of the council on this matter.
The mayor has a real strong auguring point as it stands. It can be a political swap off with the county commission which it seems to be in line with the 5-4 vote setting a could be blackmail option. The mayor has only to say "if you will help me increase the property taxes I'll stamp the veto on it but if you don't agree then I'll do nothing and it will become effective without me having to answer to the citizens if it does not produce the promised revenue.".
It can be seen as a well laid plan of men and nice. It is all on the Monopoly Board Game.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
WB- you and I seem to be on the same page.
I felt the fix was in before the meeting, so anyone speaking prior to the vote was just wasting oxygen. The account of the meeting in this morning's Whirled stated as much.
Enforcement of accurate sales tax collection during the fair and large multi-vendor shows like the flea market and gun shows will be the proverbial cluster-f#$%. It's another source of revenue which will be difficult to collect on. Good luck getting out of state vendors to honestly report all cash sales during a two week fair. That, in itself, would require more manpower to enforce than the city can afford.
The only easy method for accountability are the contract concessionaires in the various buildings, admissions, and a flat fee vendor/participant (for car shows, horse shows, and the Chili Bowl) charge which will be un-fairly distributed amongst vendors.
I wouldn't call this envisioned sales tax boon a pipe-dream, more like a fantasy.
Instead of chasing fairy-tale dollars, I think the city needs to engage our local legislators to buck up in OKC and demand a rebate of state sales tax collections or a share in oil tax revenues to account for the suburban retail sprawl instead of trying to create more difficult-to-enforce revenue streams.
Good points Conan. Jeannie McDaniels was there, made an effort to calm both sides. She will carry that message back.
If you ever do business with a small retailer and you notice they make cash change with the till open or insist on cash only, Bingo!, you've found a retailer who is unlikely to be showing the true amount of sales to OTC. Calling the county on what is common throughout the city was nasty work.
I would assume that other states and municipalities which charge sales tax have raised their property taxes and income taxes due to e-commerce sales which have changed the tax base over the years and made sales tax a less reliable source of revenue.
What is the point in passing more difficult to comply with and more difficult to enforce sales tax laws? What is the point in annexing property for which on the surface it appears it will be a total wash between collectible revenue and cost.
Then there are areas with no sales tax which have not faced financial crisis due to suburban sprawl and e-commerce.
I think Oklahoma, Tulsa specifically, is getting behind the curve on how to collect revenue in these times.
I don't think it's going to be a wash at all......I really liked Martinson's comments have to give him credit for wading through all the B.S....And watching Eagleton punish Brewster was nice to see as well...To me Christiansen sold out to his voters and the G.O.B...His voters obviously bought into the counties hype and hysteria and Chritiansen did nothing to tell them otherwise...
Let's revisit the issue July 1, 2008. I think the council will be quite a bit more muted in the benefits the fairgrounds will have brought by then.
When does the annexation actually take effect?
I believe I saw June 1, 2007. Might be mistaken.
Check out Fox23 (//%22http://www.fox23.com/mostpopular/story.aspx?content_id=5be18d62-4ec9-4edb-adc3-e429dd5c761c%22)'s brilliant assessment.
quote:
(TULSA, Okla.)April 5 - The Tulsa City Council has voted 5 to 4 in favor of annexation of the Tulsa Fairgrounds.
Many on the council did voice concerns about the annexation.
Unless the mayor vetoes the vote, the city now controls the fairgrounds, instead of the county.
The city has not yet announced a plan about how to police the fairgrounds
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
I believe I saw June 1, 2007. Might be mistaken.
Check out Fox23 (//%22http://www.fox23.com/mostpopular/story.aspx?content_id=5be18d62-4ec9-4edb-adc3-e429dd5c761c%22)'s brilliant assessment.
quote:
(TULSA, Okla.)April 5 - The Tulsa City Council has voted 5 to 4 in favor of annexation of the Tulsa Fairgrounds.
Many on the council did voice concerns about the annexation.
Unless the mayor vetoes the vote, the city now controls the fairgrounds, instead of the county.
The city has not yet announced a plan about how to police the fairgrounds
Ah, give 'em a break, Fox23 is just a bunch of kids...[;)]