|
DowntownNow
Guest
|
 |
« Reply #34 on: June 30, 2009, 05:03:16 pm » |
|
I'll actually give Michael this one...he's right, and in my frustration over this issue I overlooked the inability to re-allocate funds from capital improvement to general operating funds, my mistake. But , I was simply putting numbers into some perspective. Had we been able to do that, great for Tulsa...but alas.
I wont take the time to address his use of 'tool'...why stoop to being just as small minded and childish when its clear he cant comprehend the basic argument being made and rebut convincingly anyway?
But the argument still carries weight...instead of utilizing funds for an unnecessary sea lion exhibit at this time, why not instead re-allocate those funds within the capital improvement project list for more necessary things like streets, widening, water and sewer upgrades, sidewalks, even projects that have been re-priortized or overlooked during the years, etc, especially when monies are tight like they are now and more critical needs are evident? This is done all the time people. There is still unfinished flood control improvements needed in the 28th & 137th area for example. Who wants to tell me that flood control to save lives and property is less urgent than a sea lion exhibit?
Someone just answer me why it is a foul to want to delay a project (for only 6 mos. mind you) in light of the state of the economy and the budget we are now forced to operate within? What is the point of creating a new exhibit if you're not sure funds will be available to continue its operation in the immediate future?
And let's not blow over the fact that there is a Parks Board for a reason. That Board, in its entirety and after hearing the exact same recommendation by both Atwater as Parks Director and Susan Neal as the Mayor's representative, decided to delay moving ahead on the project.
If the Mayor is going to refuse to heed the advice of the appointed Board, Trust and Authority members, why have such a system in place? Its not like Atwater (and Neal) held a gun to the heads of the rest of the Board and told them to vote one way just to tick the Mayor off. I would think those that are appointed are done so with the expectation that they are individuals with intelligence and an ability to judge an issue, and the facts surrounding it, and decide from there and do so in the best interest of the organization and City they represent. Could be I'm the one expecting too much here.
But that seems to be what was done here, by a number of park board members, not just Atwater. Surely they cant be simple minded, appointed minions that do as they are told...where is the citizen protection of fiscal policy in that? Oh wait...Michael, perhaps you want to answer that one?
Oh heck, I can't help myself. It would be like having...lets say, the head of some, oh...environmental trust for example...using the budgeted funds available to go buy all new trucks right now, despite not needing even one of them and just because the Mayor said to do it, but the economy is shaky, revenues are down and the Trust's budget has shrunk from the previous year. Forget those same trucks could be put to better use by a street crew, police or fire. Forget strengthening your organization's fiscal position to ensure you can still operate at the capacity you have been, that you can continue to maintain the level of service you have been providing, that you can afford to pay all those employed under you, or that you really need to open another location and equip it to keep up with increasing demand...but you sure have shiny new trucks to collect that recyclable refuse in, boy howdy. I suppose that would be alright to do and just sit back and wait for failure if the economy should falter further eh?
Simple fact of the matter is this...just cause we have funds doesnt mean we have to spend them 'then and there'. More weight has to be given to more critical needs that could be advanced by those same funds, not to mention the ability to fund, operate and maintain such a project once construction is finished. Isnt this what ultimately happened to old City Hall? Funds were not made available through the budget due to restrictive revenues based on sales tax income and maintenance was forever deferred until it was declared we just need a new one?
Atwater's questioning does nothing more than attempt to cushion against what the Mayor and her staff has even said could be a much deeper and much more harmful cut to an already risky budget is sales tax revenues continue to fall. Just some recent comments from the adminstration concerning the state of the economy and the unforeseen effects it can have on the City budget (which can and will effect the Zoo budget):
"It all depends on whether Tulsa's economy turns around sooner rather than later," she (Amy Polanchek) said after a briefing with councilors. "We are in a very critical period right now."
Councilor Bill Martinson asked city finance officials what will be done if more than $10.5 million in cuts are required. Finance Director Mike Kier said there is no plan in place for that scenario. "If it goes beyond that, it would be more difficult than anything we've done up to this point," he said.
An administrative handout to the councilors states: "While the reductions might be able to be managed for a year, inventories are not large enough to go beyond that before impacting services." (operating and maintaining the zoo is a service)
If sales tax revenues continue to decline, you could see a sharp decrease in available funding for zoo operations that would, in fact, impact the ability to continue and maintain such a habitat that was being questioned here. I would think the critical needs of the citizens would and should outweigh the needs of the zoo if things became that dire which I hope they dont.
And Carltonplace...thank you for pointing out my mistake in saying monies can be re-allocated. I stand corrected. But, I would ask you to point out what personal agenda Atwater was trying to push in recommending a 6 month delay? Also...in recommending that same delay, was Susan Neal also pushing a personal agenda and being just as obtuse? I'd find it difficult to believe one was and can be while the other is not...and one works for the Mayor thats throwing the hissy fit now. Do you think Taylor would have appointed someone that had their own personal agenda in mind?
Perhaps the question needs to be asked that in light of the strangled economy and impact on the City budget, why is it so important for Mayor Taylor to push this project to get started now and not do the prudent thing and fiscally responsible thing in waiting the Park Board's recommended 6 months? Will Zoo Friends pull their $3million construction and operating contribution if they wait? The public relations nightmare that would created makes it unlikely.
On another note. I find it troubling that bid and selection of the contractor was handled by Zoo Friends and not the Zoo itself. As a municipal agency, the Zoo/City would likely have had to place the project for bid and accept the lowest competitive bid. But not Zoo Friends, they dont have to. Is there a connection? I dont know...just throwing it out there for comment.
|
