Here is our street bond election details

[mrhaskellok]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

Yeah, what exactly WAS done on 169?  I drive that every day and it looks unfinished and rides horribly.  I feel like kicking someone from ODOT in the cooter everytime I drive that piece of crap.  It's so bad now I've been using surface streets, and it's tough to do given today's gas prices.

What happened is this...there isn't a CLEAR, UNDERSTOOD, ACCESSEBLE, check and balance system for road construction.  WE ALL NOTICED IT!  But what can you do?  Someone in OKC and some contractor screwed it up...not much you can do locally.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

Yeah, what exactly WAS done on 169?  I drive that every day and it looks unfinished and rides horribly.  I feel like kicking someone from ODOT in the cooter everytime I drive that piece of crap.  It's so bad now I've been using surface streets, and it's tough to do given today's gas prices.

there are still HUGE CHUNKS OF CONCRETE missing from 169.  just try north bound right lane between 31st/21st sometime.  If they are calling that done, then it is time to sue.

[RecycleMichael]

I like the way the city has begun this conversation. They have a plan to raise the money that seems to encompasse different funding options, especially getting the county out of the sales tax business. It uses existing revenue sources, adds only a few mills to property taxes (less than half of what TCC was asking last week), and takes a long-term approach to fixing the problem.

Now they are asking for the public and the engineers to make decisions on what strets are the priorities.

It is smart to figure out how to raise the money first, then decide how much you can do.

From the news reports, there is a little discussion on how to package it to the voters. Some want a widening and improvement package as one and others want them as separate.

I probably favor keeping them separate. Most of the widening needs is in one area and I know that my neighbors don't want to continue to pay all that money to keep building bigger and bigger roads for south Tulsa. My next door neighbor said it best, "If I wanted to keep subsidizing people to live further and further away from me, I would just give them the cash to leave."

To my simpleton point a view...continually widening roads is how we got in this mess. We keep spending precious funds to make it easier for people to just ignore the core parts of the city. I am not upset for our past, just believe it is time to concentrate on other prioritis now. You can either grow out or fix up...let's do the fix up first this time.

I will probably vote yes for both if they are separate issues on the ballot, but think it makes sense to keep them separate anyway.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

This from Thursday's city council agenda...

6. ORDINANCES - FIRST READING

Ordinance creating a new Title 43-G of the Tulsa Revised Ordinances, establishing the official policy of the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma with regard to the expenditure of all monies received from the temporary sales tax levy of one and twenty-three thirtieths (1 23/30) percent put before the voters of the City of Tulsa, Oklahoma on July 29, 2008, including but not limited to procedures for amending said title, oversight committees, and specific project lists. (Emergency Clause) (Martinson) 08-1513-1
 
6. ORDINANCES - FIRST READING

Ordinance pursuant to Title 62, Section 574 of the Oklahoma Statutes, listing specific projects and costs to be paid if the incurring of additional bonded indebtedness in the sum of $636,000,000.00, is approved by the voters of the City of Tulsa on July 29, 2008. (Emergency Clause) (Martinson) 08-1513-2

OK, folks, from the top. Let's do a little analysis of the above quoted Propositions, shall we?

Just taking it at face value, no interpretations, indicates a NEW City of Tulsa Sales Tax of 1.7667% is going to be presented and voted upon. If passed, it replaces NOTHING. It adds to the existing Sales Tax burden, currently 8.517%, making the NEW rate 10.1837%.

Certainly, in 2011 the 4-to-Fix 0.6% will be expected to expire, and in 2012 the 3RD Penny would normally expire ( which it has never done, it's always been renewed). However, it will be January 1, 2017 when the Vision2025 tax of 0.1750% expires, basically nine years from now.

Try to remember, that the plan being proposed is a ten year plan.

Sum these three current taxes and we get 0.6% + 1.0% + 0.1750% = 1.775%.

The above Ordinace proposes:

   1 and 23/30ths = 1.7667%

Thus, the new 1.7667% is said to "replace" the three taxes totalling 1.775%. By itself, that's a near match.

It does appear, though, that the 1.7667% 'replacement' will be voted upon as a stand-alone City of Tulsa Sales Tax (as it should be). In reality, it does NOT 'replace' either the exiting 3rd Penny, nor either of the two County taxes. Those must expire normally, unless specifically withdrawn by seperate ballot items. Even then, the possibility exists for any or all of them to renew independently of the above propositions.

So, IMO, what's proposed here is bumping the Sales Tax RATE to 10.1837% immediately and for ten years, then reducing it by 0.6% in 2011 when the 4-to-Fix expires making it 9.5837%.

In 2012, when the existing 3rd Penny expires, the rate would go down another 1.0% (IF the 3rd Penny is NOT renewed), making the rate then 8.5837%.

Nine years from now, when V2025 expires (again, if the County doesn't or is unable to renew it) another 0.175% would come off the rate, making it once again near the current rate of 8.4087% (current rate is 8.517%, the difference between 1.7667% and 1.775% above).

See if I'm not correct on this since no one's offered that information yet.

Now I see why long term bonding costs wasn't discussed. There is no long term. A new tax would become effective immediately.

Since each 1.0-Cent Sales Tax is worth between $64 and $72 million per year for the City of Tulsa, a 1.7667% Sales Tax would be worth between $113 and $127 Million per year in revenues. Ten years of that makes the package worth between $1.13 and $1.27 BILLION.


===

Since I'm here, I'd also like to point out those who were considering Street Districts which were to pay half the cost of imporvements in their districts. This effectively DOUBLES the $636 Million being proposed by a 3.3 Mill adjustment of Ad Valorem, making the value of Proposition 2 effectively $1.272 BILLION by itself.

UPDATE: Appears the City may be speaking of a $62 Million total 10-year tax of 3.3 mills at $6.2 M/yr, see discussion in later postings. Wish someone would say so.



$1.270 BILLION (1.7667% Sales Tax Increase from current 8.517% to 10.1837%)
$1.272 BILLION
$0.062 Billion ($62 million, 3.3 Ad Valorem)
$0.062 Billion ($62 million, "Special Assessments")
==============

TOTAL COST OF ABOVE TWO PROPOSITIONS: $2.542 BILLION $1.396 BILLION

And, this also assumes ZERO revenue growth in ten years, either in Sales Tax Revenue (which has average 3% growth for twenty years) or in Real Estate Values (which tends to grow at the Ad Valorem Cap rate of 5%/yr).

So, is this what you all had in mind?

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I like the way the city has begun this conversation. They have a plan to raise the money that seems to encompasse different funding options, especially getting the county out of the sales tax business. It uses existing revenue sources, adds only a few mills to property taxes (less than half of what TCC was asking last week), and takes a long-term approach to fixing the problem.

Now they are asking for the public and the engineers to make decisions on what streets are the priorities.

It is smart to figure out how to raise the money first, then decide how much you can do.

From the news reports, there is a little discussion on how to package it to the voters. Some want a widening and improvement package as one and others want them as separate.

I probably favor keeping them separate. Most of the widening needs is in one area and I know that my neighbors don't want to continue to pay all that money to keep building bigger and bigger roads for south Tulsa. My next door neighbor said it best, "If I wanted to keep subsidizing people to live further and further away from me, I would just give them the cash to leave."

To my simpleton point a view...continually widening roads is how we got in this mess. We keep spending precious funds to make it easier for people to just ignore the core parts of the city. I am not upset for our past, just believe it is time to concentrate on other prioritis now. You can either grow out or fix up...let's do the fix up first this time.

I will probaly vote yes for both if they are separate issues on the ballot, but think it makes sense to keep them separate anyway.

quote:  It uses existing revenue sources, adds only a few mills to property taxes (less than half of what TCC was asking last week),

Try again, it's 3.3 mills for 10 years at what was stated as $62 million per year, a total of $620 million. Also, with ZERO escalation of Assessed Values over ten years.

Note: That's $18.79M/Mill. Not sure how the City makes more per mill than the County's $3.55M/Mill, but that's the way both were stated.

UPDATE: The City's rate appears now to be $1.879 million/mill/year, making 3.3 mills Ad Valorem $6.2 million/year, or $62 million over 10 years total.

TCC's was a permanent increase of 1.7 mills and a temporary 3.1 mills for 7 years, raising $76 million for the bond and and additional $6M/yr for the permanent assessment. TCC claimed only $3.55Million/year/mill, so 3.1 mills would produce $11M/year and 1.7 mills would have provided an additional $6M/year forever. These values, however, are County-wide, not City of Tulsa, which, by their contention, raises about $18.79M/year/mill and would raise $62M/year $1.879M/mill/year and would raise $6.2M/year on 3.3 Mills for the City of Tulsa. Someone's numbers (mine) would appear to be off.

But, this Ad Valorem is NEW money, NOT existing revenue streams. And, would NOT replace anything.

If they go with the District plan, where half the costs are passed on to those in districts where the improvements are made by "Special Assessment", then it would effectively double these amounts.

[RecycleMichael]

I told you I was a simpleton.

TCC already has 7 mills and was wanting 1.7 more. I inadvertantly added them together.

Is this statement correct? The 3.3 mills asked for in this street package is less than half of what we currently pay for TCC.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I told you I was a simpleton.

TCC already has 7 mills and was wanting 1.7 more. I inadvertantly added them together.

Is this statement correct? The 3.3 mills asked for in this street package is less than half of what we currently pay for TCC.

Well, TCC currently receives 7.21 mills and it came to around $31 million this year, spread over the entire county.

That's about $4.3 million/mill/year.
So, their $11M/yr on 3.1 mills wasn't accurate ($3.55 million/mill/year), it would've been more like $13.3 million/year on that deal, or over $93 million over 7 years (vs. $76M), with no growth in Ad Valorem valuations.

I can't figure out how the City is getting $18.79M/mill/year, the stated $62M/year on 3.3 mills. Something's not right yet, or someone mistated something in a big way.

UPDATE: Appears the City of Tulsa rate is about $1.879M/Mill/Year, producing $6.2M/year on 3.3 mills Ad Valorem.

An all-county millage would apply to Tulsa plus all the rest of the county. Tulsa should receive less than the county for the same millage.

UPDATE:
I'm starting to wonder if the stated $62 million was the 10-year total at only $6.2 million per year at 3.3 mills. That'd be about half the revenue of a similar county rate. That's starting to make some sense.

If so, my prior postings on $620 million are off base by a factor of 10.

[RecycleMichael]

I said before that I always get millage, village and pillage mixed up.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I said before that I always get millage, village and pillage mixed up.

Millage is what they pillage the village with.

[RecycleMichael]

Would tearing up the roads be considered tillage?

[Wrinkle]

He's another way to figure it.

Tulsa picks up right at 70% of any County tax.

So, if Tulsa's millage proceeds are figured as 70% of the County's revenue of $4.3 million/mill/year, then Tulsa would get just over $3 million/mill/year (4.3 * .70).

3.3 Mills, then would produce about $10 Million per year for Tulsa.

And, ten years would be more like $100 million, rather than $62 million.

Again, with zero escalation of either Ad Valorem valuations or Sales Tax collections over 10 years.

This sounds real plausible.

[mrhaskellok]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Would tearing up the roads be considered tillage?

Technically that is called millage.

[sgrizzle]

The Channels project would've been a pillage.