Municipal Funding Solutions? Have an idea?

[mrhaskellok]

With all the kinds of sales taxes, service fees, rates, permitting costs, user surcharges and more...I am looking for ideas and suggestions on to scrap the system and create a more fair system of generating revenue.

I wish we didn't need to pay any taxes or that municipalities could survive purely on citizen volunteer efforts alone, but that isn't going to happen.  So how can we generate the funds necessary to sustain and grow our communities while at the same time generating those revenues in a way that is acceptable and seemingly fair by the community.

Should revenue be contingent on consumption, income, class, or a mixture of all three?

For those of you who are for the fair tax, I think the idea is worthy of consideration...but I am actually looking for solutions that can be implemented without federal compliance.  I believe if we start re-engineering the way municipalities generate revenue and budget it, we will be able to change the way states do too.  Then, states would be able to enact change upon the federal government.

What do you think?  

[inteller]

well since this is a discussion about municipal funding, lets start by reversing the city hall move.

[mrhaskellok]

Ok,  is it safe to reword your suggestion to

1) Increase revenue by selling off assets that are cost prohibitive?

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by mrhaskellok

Ok,  is it safe to reword your suggestion to

1) Increase revenue by selling off assets that are cost prohibitive?

that and getting rid of individuals who drive up costs by making bad decisions.

[TURobY]

We could charge those who live further out from downtown and the city core higher taxes for increasing road maintenance/contruction costs over the years...

[mrhaskellok]

I have thought about this one...what do you do with a new development where the homes are on 2 acre tracts.  The developer will build the roads then give them to the municipality in most cases, but the community is still left with the burden of maintaining and replacing roads that impact far fewer people than in a denser neighborhood.

To address this should municipalities special
1) assess a "impact" fee based on density standards (kinda like a stormwater fee or a TIF)
2) outlaw developments that don't meet density standards
3) what else??

[FOTD]

BONDS. Interest rates will never ever be this low again.

I am tired of the same old mantra from city hall about there needing to be a critical mass of support and the citizens have turned down those in the past. When? 1983?

Make the third penny permanent and float 1.7 billion $$$ in bonds.

And everyone jump in to support it if you truely believe in your city and want to keep up with other cities because our streets are abysmal!

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

We could charge those who live further out from downtown and the city core higher taxes for increasing road maintenance/contruction costs over the years...

sorry bub those cows have already left the barn.  That idea was novel about 30 years ago.

[mrhaskellok]

quote:  BONDS. Interest rates will never ever be this low again. I am tired of the same old mantra from city hall about there needing to be a critical mass of support and the citizens have turned down those in the past. When? 1983?

Make the third penny permanent and float 1.7 billion $$$ in bonds.

And everyone jump in to support it if you truely believe in your city and want to keep up with other cities because our streets are abysmal!

I like they way you think!  Curious, how do you get to 1.7 Billion?  If Tulsa got the 1.7B would that support AND sustain future maintenance?  

[mrhaskellok]

Great ideas:

How about budgeting... do you think that municipalities should make the budget more project oriented, assuming this would bring more support form the community?  Or should it be ran more like a business with more focus on bottom line numbers at the end of the day?

And, whatever your choice, do you think that taxpayers should be fund some sort awareness and participation campaign.  In other words, should you pay for postage to say send a copy of the budget written for public consumption detailing what the intent of the upcoming budget was?

[TURobY]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

We could charge those who live further out from downtown and the city core higher taxes for increasing road maintenance/contruction costs over the years...

sorry bub those cows have already left the barn.  That idea was novel about 30 years ago.

Sorry, just playing off your idea of "getting rid of individuals who drive up costs...". I can't imagine why you'd be against it... []

[Gaspar]

I had a little conversation with a buddy of mine who used to be a buyer for Lowe's, and now owns his own consulting company that serves Lowe's and Home Depot in lawn and garden inventory management.  

They would be willing to buy "mixed mulch" or mulch from storm and development cleanup from pretty much any company that offers a competitive price.  They do this a couple times a year.  He said usually $2 to $3 a cubic yard bag.  

We had 2,601,709 cu yards of debris/mulch.  We could have sold it for $7,805,127 and paid for the cleanup and then some.  But we're burning it.[V]

Unfortunately they have already done their buying for the year on this product.

[cannon_fodder]

#1) Cost Benefit Analysis

Actually look at cost/bennefit of financial decisions.  Both short term and long term (ie. ignoring road work = short term profit, long term LOSS.  Flood control = short term loss, long term profit).  

In the cost/benefit equation consider:
a) economy impact with realistic numbers, when in doubt guess low
b) needs of the citizens (needs not wants)
c) image.  This kind of throws the whole thing off.   Not only do citizens of Tulsa need to BE safe, we need to have a safe image.  We also need parks, good lighting, nice streets... many needs and wants go to image and are impossible to equate.  Nonetheless, consideration needs to be attempted.

#2) Restructure services where warranted.

I think Tulsa does a good job, but fiefdoms have a way of taking over governments.  An entity or agency will protect it's budget by blowing it and/or finding ways to demand more.  At times services need to be scaled back, agencies merged or abolished, and more done with less.

#3) Volunteer efforts

Much of the cities work could be done by neighborhood associations or other groups.  Dog parks can be run with help from groups.  Neighborhood associations can volunteer to garden/mow medians.  With a little organizational effort towards making it easy for such groups to know what is wanted, we could probably get a lot done.

#4) Actual finances...

The problem with either the sales tax or property tax model is they are both counter-productive.  The higher either is, the less desirable of a product the city is able to sell.  If more is demanded, less is often received.

So unless the entire region is willing to make a drastic change, the paradigm of spreading much cost between the two must be maintained.   I would prefer more drastic consumption based taxes, but on the local level we can not do that with sales tax alone...

SO, we can shift some costs by charging more fees (much like most of Texas):

a) limit the amount of trash.  Each house gets one city issued can for $x, and can pay $x if they need additional cans.

b) Water should be charged at cost + future improvements (avoid debt).  Not subsidized.  

c) Continue the flood control funding with drainage tax.

d) Allocate funds to their source:  tags, fuel, and weight revenue should go towards roads.  Property taxes should fund schools, general fund, etc.  Garbage fees funds those operations.   Fines & tickets should fund the police.  Fire violations should go to the fire department.

Clearly exceptions have to be made and other funding allocated, but in general the city should strive to continue the funding paradigm.  It makes no sense to take tag money and spend it on schools, and then raise property taxes to fund roads.

On the same note, raise gas prices 2 cents to pay for roads.  Not enough to cause people to go to the suburbs to fill up, but enough to make a dent in the funding shortage.  With the added bennefit of loosely correlating to actual use.

e) Strive to fund first, and issue bonds later.  Tulsa does well at keeping debt maintenance costs down, but make sure that cost does not become a significant part of the budget (FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!).

f) Seek alternative revenue sources.  Sell mineral rights (responsibly), extract fair usage taxes from business utilizing city assets (Port fees, airport revenues, etc.), and find uses for under utilized city assets (keep assets busy: convention center, BOk, sell unused buildings, rent new office space).

g) Don't waste money.  Pie in the sky agreements with new airlines, super-mega corp, pro sports, and other handouts are bets:  if the odds*payout  is not greater than the needed bet, for gods sake don't do it.  This could go to the city hall agreement, a downtown ballpark, economic incentives, etc.  Just look closely at these and realize they are best with other peoples money.
- - -

I could ramble on, but you get the gist of it.  Not so much new revenue sources, just better use of current revenue I guess.

[Renaissance]

Bond issues requre a 60% supermajority to pass, right?

Amend the state constitution to allow passage by a simple majority.  Would make it far easier for municipalities to float bonds.

[Wrinkle]

The quickest and most sure solution to the near term needs of municipalities is for the State to reduce their Sales Tax take from 4.5% to 3.5%

We'd then only have to concern ourselves with the proper spending of it on a local basis.