Municipal Funding Solutions? Have an idea?

[Wrinkle]

Oh, and I was going to suggest a "Home Again" chip implant for the Mayor, and standby air strike capabilities to those coordinates.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by 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?  

That would come from the third penny being made permanent.....

And those of you who want to go through the legislature to change the %60 rule , forget it.

I say, if the people here can pass a lame idea like 2025, then we should be able to take a first step in restoring the infrstructure of our city by passing an enormous bond issue. We could even split it up into components with several issues which would cause splintering but would reduce the risk of each issue. A strong campaign with oppositioners explaining ahead of the proposed changes what they would require to get on board.

It is hightime everyone join in the process to discuss and agree upon a method to finance rehab for our decaying city.

[Kiah]

quote:Originally posted by Inteller

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

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?

No, that's just the opposite of what he suggested.  The city is selling off cost prohibitive assets, by consolidating several city buildings into one and moving into the new city hall.

[cannon_fodder]

Kiah, as a point of order... none of the other buildings have actually been sold nor an alternative (non-city) uses found for them.  Nor has a lease agreement been sign on the new city hall that nets the city any actual revenue (that would be savings over the old building).

Combine the two, and currently we are way, way behind on the transaction.  

I hope that changes, but as it stands...

[mrhaskellok]

Whoa!  Great ideas so far!  

A couple of thoughts,  would everyone be much more willing to pass a bond issue if the funds were expressly earmarked for specific tasks or functions.

Here in Haskell we passed a 1.35% sales tax increase BUT we earmarked 1 penny of that to go specifically toward, Fire, Police, Civil Defense, and Parks & Recreation.  This garnered a lot of support because citizens knew then their money would be spent on increasing these services instead of paying for say a new city hall building or higher wages for administrative staff.  

Wrinkle, I believe your suggestion is up there either as the best or darn near close.   De-centralizing revenues are an important option to consider especially when the "satellite" benefactors are hurting and not generating the revenue needed to maintaining their responsibilities.  To me it is sort of the same logic behind cutting interest rates just without all the funny  money.  [] (that was for you FOTD)

CF...in order to fund future projects without diving into debt we must resolve to be able to save money without spending it (See Social Security fiasco).  So how?  The only things a council or any governing body can't do in practicality is overturn the voters decision.  

So, to bring this all full circle, should we pass bonds, earmark those bonds with a portion of them (the more the merrier) earmarked for future Capital Outlaw expenditures that fall into a specific category like Transportation?

Ok, lets here those ideas!  We can fix the system, we just got to work these ideas out and then start the "buzz".

[Wrinkle]

This weekend, I watched "Carrier" on OETA. Several times during the show it was mentioned that "an Aircraft Carrier is very much like a city".

The thought occurred to me that perhaps our solution would be to run our city more like an aircraft carrier.

Certain things get done, period. Roads would be one of them. The costs to do so are built into the fact that the road exists, therefore it is maintained. New roads which do not provide enough benefit to cover their own maintenance don't get built. (Of course, we're talking about local roads, not State and/or US Hwys).

Where a city would be different is when new roads are added. But, in our case, they would mostly consist of upgrades rather than new roads since the city is quite built out.

IMO, developers need to absorb at least some of the inital cost of these new roads or upgrades when their projects are built. After all, it's what brings them customers. Somehow, they've managed to reverse that in saying we owe them at road if they are going to the trouble of building something revenue producing.

The formulas are all out of wack.

That's where the third penny is supposed to come in. Upgrades (not maintenance) and new roads, but mostly upgrades.

At one time, all the 3rd penny was for this purpose. But, over time, it's been chipped away time and again to provide overhead costs to departments, mostly police and fire.

That needs to change as well.

[Wrinkle]

I'd also like to open up the Public Works Director position at $150,000 and see how many resumes come in.

That's basically a 10% reduction of his current salary.

I'm still of the opinion that serving the city is an honor and those doing so don't necessarily achieve market-competative rates for their jobs. Not to short-change them either. But, it's not difficult to live on $150K in Tulsa, Oklahoma. If it's money they're after, then the public market is always there for them.

Many city positions are paying on the scale of top end private sector jobs of similar nature. That is totally unnecessary, imo.

Even then, the city contracts out most of the work these highly paid persons are supposed to enrich us with. Which is where the cost-benefit breaks down even more.

Either do it in-house or out, but not both.

[Wrinkle]

New City Motto..."Money, or Power, not both".

[mrhaskellok]

Wrinkle,

This is where I agree with you head over heels.  We should not be paying our leadership to know everything about road construction and then go and hire out all road construction.  It is duplicating the costs.

In the private sector, department heads should also have more knowledge and experience in contracts since that is how a lot of their work is done.  This may help slow down the assault by private companies taking advantage of a crisis.  I know there are probably companies that will line up at city hall the day after the vote is passed to fund major road construction projects.  And if our management can't see the pros and cons of the contracts purposed, we can and will be easily taken advantage of.

I also loved your analogy of the aircraft carrier.  It is ironic I was having was discussing that perspective over lunch today but with a different twist.  I simply said that if municipalities are going to take on a responsibility then it should be REQUIRED to perform accordingly.  If towns want to regulate commerce, then they need to stop dancing around subject and do it in the way that makes the most sense.  

The problem I see is that too many "solutions", if you can call them that sometimes, are done purely to quell an uprising.  Over time, little is often done and the incentive to make sure problems are solved are diminished as people stop worrying about whatever it is.

If Tulsa passes  bond issue, I think it should be earmarked and a non-partisan citizen committee of 50 seats should be vested by the council to see to it that those funds continue to fix and replace roads.  Terms can be unlimited but a council by majority vote can remove someone.  They would only have to meet annually or even less perhaps.

Point is, we need to ensure that money raised is going where it needs to go.  A wise man told me once that if towns would simply investigate and determine that funds raised for a purpose were being spent for that purpose, most would find that they would not need to raise an much in new revenues and as frequently.

Great motto by the way, personal one is "Trust, but Verify".

[Wrinkle]

I'd settle for transparency. That means required inet processes for postings, online video of most meetings (even real-time as possible), email access (don't try to claim they have this now).

Once established, much of the rest will take care of itself.

[Gaspar]

Milwaukee sells their $hit.  No they really do!  If you go to Home Depot and buy Millorganite fertilizer for $7 a bag, you are buying dried Milwaukee sewage.  It's a great organic fertilizer for your lawn and has a large amount of iron for very green grass.

Beware the first couple of times you water though, because it smells like sewage!  But the point is that they make money off of what would otherwise be a tax burden.

Why can't we sell our $hit to pay for roads.  I can think of a few on this forum that are full of it.  [}:)]

[RecycleMichael]

I am not full of s*it, but I have a pocketful of s*it that I can empty at any time.