This from Channel 8...
Mayor To Veto Fairgrounds Annexation
Tuesday May 08, 2007 9:04pm
Tulsa - Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor and officials from Tulsa County have come to an agreement on the Tulsa County Fairgrounds. This week, the mayor will veto the city council's decision to annex... at least for now. It comes after several exhibitors threatened to pull out of their contracts with Expo Square. The mayor will veto annexing the Fairgrounds, but will defer it until January 2009. If the city council approves the plan, anything already scheduled at Expo Square after that date will receive a 3-cent sales tax rebate.
That includes the National Arabian Horse Show, which is under contract at Expo Square for three years beginning in 2008, bringing in an estimated 40-million dollars annually. After the city council voted to annex the Fairgrounds, officials with the horse show said they might not come to Tulsa because of the 3-cent city sales tax.
After learning about the mayor's decision, the horse show sent a press release, saying they look forward to coming to Tulsa. Mayor Taylor calls the agreement a win-win situation for both the city and county. The chairman of the National Arabian Horse Show says this was the right thing to do. It honors the contracts already signed and is a huge plus for the cooperation between the show and Tulsa.
Part of the agreement says the county cannot make any zoning changes to the Fairgrounds without the city council's approval. The mayor is expected to sign the veto on Thursday.
I heard it mentioned, I believe on a radio station, that the County was offering to take over some of the City's golf courses in exchange for an Annexation veto.
Ms. Taylor just ended her political career.
As a benefit, we get to also see of what the Council is made.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Ms. Taylor just ended her political career.
As a benefit, we get to also see of what the Council is made.
How did she end her political career?
And what is the city council made of? At least the small majority of them (that voted in favor of annexation) are made up of the desire to tax more stuff at the cost of the general taxpayer.
That would be you and I.
Pathetic. This is what happens when a socialite pretends to be a CEO, runs for Mayor, and manages to fool enough people to win. Just wait till she gets thumped over the police chief search.
Da Mare betta recognize dat ya don't burn dem dat brung ya. Respect.
So the mayor vetoed this hateful bill. [;)] Conan is pleased.
I think it was the prudent thing to do, in light of possibly losing some big shows. Why didn't she just ask for a modification of the proposal to not tax anything already on the books and start taxing other shows as they are booked?
I was not real strong for or against annexation, but I think that a couple of years is a good compromise. That will allow for the fairgrounds to complete their current remodeling work, allow for the sales tax issues to be verified and resolved, and give the county time to prepare for any changes that could occur.
And a private note to doublea...you should really learn to spell or stop doing a bad impression of Ali G. We know you hate the Mayor. You have attacked her from the day she announced for office. You even attack everyone who likes her.
Why is she waiting till Thurs? Stuck in Ft. Lauderdale with last year's Lear Jet?
I thought it had to be approved by the County first.
quote:
Originally posted by South_Tulsan
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Ms. Taylor just ended her political career.
As a benefit, we get to also see of what the Council is made.
How did she end her political career?
And what is the city council made of? At least the small majority of them (that voted in favor of annexation) are made up of the desire to tax more stuff at the cost of the general taxpayer.
That would be you and I.
Are you kidding?
She just negociated a 2009 end-around to get her Fire District TAX passed. You don't know what MORE is.
And, the County's going to pay Ms. Taylor her $300K estimated sales tax to manage a Golf Course which backs up to Ms. Miller's back yard.
She sold Tulsan's completely out.
Is it too late to put an item on Thursday's Council Agenda to officially rename the position to "Mayor of Tulsa COUNTY"?
I didn't mind the Annexation idea. I don't mind Annexation being exchanged for something else.
If the golf course are able to stay open this year, it would be a reasonable trade-off IMO. The city needs to see if it can pawn off the pools to the County too.
Gee, Wrinkle.
Who did she sell out?
The reason Roscoe gave for pushing for annexation was for additional sales tax revenue.
This agreement enables the tax commission to pursue all taxes due to the City of Tulsa. It keeps in place the shows that are already contracted and ensures the economic impact for Tulsa.
She got the money, cooperated with the wishes of the exhibitors and convinced the County to help with other priorities.
I think it is a win.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
I didn't mind the Annexation idea. I don't mind Annexation being exchanged for something else.
If the golf course are able to stay open this year, it would be a reasonable trade-off IMO. The city needs to see if it can pawn off the pools to the County too.
A City with an estimated $20 Million SURPLUS to THIS year's budget doesn't need to offload golf courses, or raise utility bills, to make it work.
And, if you will recall, the Fairgrounds tax was never really the issue. I've held the position it needed to be done if it raised only $1.67. No trade-offs required.
Note Wrinkle said "estimated" surplus.
Just because it's estimated, doesn't mean it will actually be there when everything's totaled up.
Even so, $20 million out of a $560 million budget isn't much of a cushion at all. That's about 3 percent. You're within a whisker of running a deficit.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Note Wrinkle said "estimated" surplus.
Just because it's estimated, doesn't mean it will actually be there when everything's totaled up.
Even so, $20 million out of a $560 million budget isn't much of a cushion at all. That's about 3 percent. You're within a whisker of running a deficit.
As of April 15th, it stood at a minimum of $14 Million in actual CASH.
Yet she cannot find $800K to maintain a Golf Course?
Even adding the $800K for year-1 arena is $1.6 Million.
Just over 10% of the ON-HAND surplus.
Yeah, and that actual cash will be needed for annual expenses near the end of the fiscal year, such as premiums.
It's also good to have a little extra cash on hand in case of emergencies. This week's flooding is a good example of that.
Boy, you duffers sure have twisted priorities. I'm starting to think you want to spend money more on little-used golf courses than paying salaries of police officers and firefighters.
Priorities, people.
I'm more concerned about fixing carpet-bombed streets than the city being involved in golf at this point. I do play golf at public courses.
...or, big expensive buildings
Note: Fiscal Year ends in 7 weeks.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Note Wrinkle said "estimated" surplus.
Just because it's estimated, doesn't mean it will actually be there when everything's totaled up.
Even so, $20 million out of a $560 million budget isn't much of a cushion at all. That's about 3 percent. You're within a whisker of running a deficit.
As of April 15th, it stood at a minimum of $14 Million in actual CASH.
Yet she cannot find $800K to maintain a Golf Course?
Even adding the $800K for year-1 arena is $1.6 Million.
Just over 10% of the ON-HAND surplus.
One fair sized tornado in the city and the 14 million would be gone. You couldn't replace one single city owned building for that kind of money. Not to mention the many other infrastructure items that would have to be repaired or rebuilt.
quote:
Originally posted by RLitterell
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Note Wrinkle said "estimated" surplus.
Just because it's estimated, doesn't mean it will actually be there when everything's totaled up.
Even so, $20 million out of a $560 million budget isn't much of a cushion at all. That's about 3 percent. You're within a whisker of running a deficit.
As of April 15th, it stood at a minimum of $14 Million in actual CASH.
Yet she cannot find $800K to maintain a Golf Course?
Even adding the $800K for year-1 arena is $1.6 Million.
Just over 10% of the ON-HAND surplus.
One fair sized tornado in the city and the 14 million would be gone. You couldn't replace one single city owned building for that kind of money. Not to mention the many other infrastructure items that would have to be repaired or rebuilt.
Apparently 'surplus' doesn't mean a thing to you all. IF there has been NO contingency for emergencies of this sort, then we were short-changed from the start. Surplus means money which was not expected, not anticipated, not budgeted and sits in a pile in the corner of the Mayor's office.
The Golf Course AND arena amount to only 10% of the current surplus, much less of the anticipated $20M. That leaves _90%_ of the current, in-hand, surplus for those things you can't yet define.
Let's go further...
Add the _anticipated_ revenue LOSSES of $1.6M from shutting down the existing arena and it's concession revenue during construction and we get $3.2M
That's roughly 15% of the anticipated surplus.
That still leaves _85%_ (approx $16.8M) of SURPLUS for bonuses in the Mayors' office.
Oh, and NONE of those costs would need to be accounted for in next years' budget.
7-weeks remaining in current fiscal year. Tick, tick, tick....
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by RLitterell
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Note Wrinkle said "estimated" surplus.
Just because it's estimated, doesn't mean it will actually be there when everything's totaled up.
Even so, $20 million out of a $560 million budget isn't much of a cushion at all. That's about 3 percent. You're within a whisker of running a deficit.
As of April 15th, it stood at a minimum of $14 Million in actual CASH.
Yet she cannot find $800K to maintain a Golf Course?
Even adding the $800K for year-1 arena is $1.6 Million.
Just over 10% of the ON-HAND surplus.
One fair sized tornado in the city and the 14 million would be gone. You couldn't replace one single city owned building for that kind of money. Not to mention the many other infrastructure items that would have to be repaired or rebuilt.
Apparently 'surplus' doesn't mean a thing to you all. IF there has been NO contingency for emergencies of this sort, then we were short-changed from the start. Surplus means money which was not expected, not anticipated, not budgeted and sits in a pile in the corner of the Mayor's office.
The Golf Course AND arena amount to only 10% of the current surplus, much less of the anticipated $20M. That leaves _90%_ of the current, in-hand, surplus for those things you can't yet define.
You sound like my wife, talk about surplus meaning nothing. It's free money, lets just spend it away. We'll never need it. Apparently 'putting a little money aside' doesn't mean a thing to you all.
So if a natural disaster hit Tulsa, how much would it cost? Any thoughts? You can plan for and earmark funds in the budget for these things and I am sure that the City of Tulsa does just that, It worked well in New Orleans didn't it.
You know FEMA will cover it.
I'm talking only 15% to cover Golf Courses, Year-1 Arena and revenue losses from Convention center during construction.
Take your 85% and put it under the mattress.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
You know FEMA will cover it.
I'm talking only 15% to cover Golf Courses, Year-1 Arena and revenue losses from Convention center during construction.
Take your 85% and put it under the mattress.
Why should people who don't play golf pay for those who do? Why not increase the fees to play to cover the cost of maintenance.
Revenue losses from a convention center still under construction or is the city building something that they cannot afford?
Wrinkle wrote:
You know FEMA will cover it.
<end clip>
If you believe that, you haven't been paying much attention to FEMA's activities (or lack thereof) in the last two years.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Wrinkle wrote:
You know FEMA will cover it.
<end clip>
If you believe that, you haven't been paying much attention to FEMA's activities (or lack thereof) in the last two years.
FEMA covered _governmental_ losses during the ice storm, leaving only individual homeowners with actual losses. Even in Counties where it wasn't needed.
Besides, it was kind of tongue in cheek. But, don't think State/Fed money won't be involved should such a disaster strike. Watch Greenburg.
Say what you want, but $300 BILLION to New Orleans isn't pocket change either.
Lack of fiscal disaster planning is in vogue now. Every politician sees the value of Nigal-Planning since it frees funds for other uses, kind of like a Fire District Tax would.
Wow, Wrinkle.
Why so negative today?
Try some botox.
Oh...that was really bad. Ba-dum-dum-ching...
quote:
Originally posted by RLitterell
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
You know FEMA will cover it.
I'm talking only 15% to cover Golf Courses, Year-1 Arena and revenue losses from Convention center during construction.
Take your 85% and put it under the mattress.
Why should people who don't play golf pay for those who do? Why not increase the fees to play to cover the cost of maintenance.
Revenue losses from a convention center still under construction or is the city building something that they cannot afford?
I don't play golf. Yet, I demand this asset of the city be maintained. We spent millions building it and $4M LAST YEAR to rehabilitate it.
Player rounds are down, a large part due to the renovations of last year. A golf course is a long term asset, like an arena, which requires proper care and marketing to build share. And, time tends to improve economics considerably since cities grow.
All I'm saying is the issue should not be resolved based upon one years' operating costs.
That's also not to say the conditions by which they are operated should not be evaluated.
But, abandoned....???
Only a politically-motivated Mayor would look at the issue this way. Penny-wise, tons foolish.
The money's there. Don't try to say it isn't.
The arena is going to turn a profit in Year 2 (2008-2009), according to the Mayor and SMG. It's the existing convention center being remodelled into a Grand Ballroom which will be shut down next year (begining in October, IIRC) for construction, while the new arena is also still under construction.
So, all $500,000 of rental revenue and $1.1M of consessions will not occur in next fiscal year.
I should add that I'm not necessarily fond of the City being in the Golf Course business as a rule. It does classify as quality of life in a general way, and when needed.
But, I'm all for offloading it to private operation IF the City gets returned value. Donating it to the County doesn't qualify.
quote:
Originally posted by RLitterell
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
You know FEMA will cover it.
I'm talking only 15% to cover Golf Courses, Year-1 Arena and revenue losses from Convention center during construction.
Take your 85% and put it under the mattress.
Why should people who don't play golf pay for those who do? Why not increase the fees to play to cover the cost of maintenance.
Revenue losses from a convention center still under construction or is the city building something that they cannot afford?
That's kind of open-ended. There are lots of people who don't use Riverparks, yet it's there for the joggers and bikers. Lot's of people who don't use the public pools, yet we all pay for it. There are also roads I've never driven down in Tulsa.
I'm all for raising fees and making it at least break even or leasing them out to private enterprise. Private enterprise has a far better track record than gov't turning a profit.
Re: your comment about your wife and surplus- I can identify with that. [;)]
quote:
The arena is going to turn a profit in Year 2 (2008-2009), according to the Mayor and SMG.
What's the current line on it never turning a profit?
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I was not real strong for or against annexation, but I think that a couple of years is a good compromise. That will allow for the fairgrounds to complete their current remodeling work, allow for the sales tax issues to be verified and resolved, and give the county time to prepare for any changes that could occur.
And a private note to doublea...you should really learn to spell or stop doing a bad impression of Ali G. We know you hate the Mayor. You have attacked her from the day she announced for office. You even attack everyone who likes her.
Yeah, she couldn't fool me. I knew she was an empty shell scamming Tulsans from day one with empty campaign promises and misrepresenting her positions on the issues. Spare me the lecture, you're just pissy that I expose her for the fraud that she is and now others are starting to wake up to see through her B.S., too. Make life bitter.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
The arena is going to turn a profit in Year 2 (2008-2009), according to the Mayor and SMG.
What's the current line on it never turning a profit?
3:2, barring any weather.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Wow, Wrinkle.
Why so negative today?
Try some botox.
Botox won't put a proper numbing on her mindset.
She sold us out. It's quite simple.