Here is our street bond election details

[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

[blindnil]

That's a bit misleading .... the sales tax money they're going after are existing streams ... and the amounts are only a fraction of the total .... I ha a conversation with my councilor about this issue today.

[blindnil]

P.S. with the TCC vote going down and food and gas prices going up, I wonder whether the public will shell out for streets .... even though you can hardly argue its sorely needed.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by blindnil

P.S. with the TCC vote going down and food and gas prices going up, I wonder whether the public will shell out for streets .... even though you can hardly argue its sorely needed.

Since former Streets Commissioner James R. Hewgley III has shown how streets can be handled for only one $100M bond issue, I'd think one six times that large would have some difficulty.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by blindnil

P.S. with the TCC vote going down and food and gas prices going up, I wonder whether the public will shell out for streets .... even though you can hardly argue its sorely needed.

Since former Streets Commissioner James R. Hewgley III has shown how streets can be handled for only one $100M bond issue, I'd think one six times that large would have some difficulty.

The local Road Building Cabal won't want us to be listening to Jas. Hewgley III.

They want over a 1/2 Billion in new taxes.

And, they want it soon.

[:O]

[Kiah]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by blindnil

P.S. with the TCC vote going down and food and gas prices going up, I wonder whether the public will shell out for streets .... even though you can hardly argue its sorely needed.

Since former Streets Commissioner James R. Hewgley III has shown how streets can be handled for only one $100M bond issue, I'd think one six times that large would have some difficulty.

If you think all of the streets in the 200 square miles of Tulsa can be rehabilitated and then maintained for $100 million over several years, then you have a profound misunderstanding of the issues.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Kiah

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by blindnil

P.S. with the TCC vote going down and food and gas prices going up, I wonder whether the public will shell out for streets .... even though you can hardly argue its sorely needed.

Since former Streets Commissioner James R. Hewgley III has shown how streets can be handled for only one $100M bond issue, I'd think one six times that large would have some difficulty.

If you think all of the streets in the 200 square miles of Tulsa can be rehabilitated and then maintained for $100 million over several years, then you have a profound misunderstanding of the issues.

When the city basically quite maintaining the streets for the past ten years, then of course they've become terrible.

It was merely a softening up exercise to extract a new, huge road building tax.

And, we should therefore REWARD incompetence?

Sorry, wrong answer.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Kiah

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by blindnil

P.S. with the TCC vote going down and food and gas prices going up, I wonder whether the public will shell out for streets .... even though you can hardly argue its sorely needed.

Since former Streets Commissioner James R. Hewgley III has shown how streets can be handled for only one $100M bond issue, I'd think one six times that large would have some difficulty.

If you think all of the streets in the 200 square miles of Tulsa can be rehabilitated and then maintained for $100 million over several years, then you have a profound misunderstanding of the issues.

Not only do I not think that, I didn't even come close to stating it.

Try reading Mr. Hewgley's plan before flipping out. It makes far more sense than anything else that's been presented to date.

FWIW, the $100M is NEW money. That's a tax increase.

[dsjeffries]

quote:Since former Streets Commissioner James R. Hewgley III has shown how streets can be handled for only one $100M bond issue, I'd think one six times that large would have some difficulty.

Do you know the amount of backlogs on road funding?  It's much more than $100M.  The $636M figure seems about right for an immediate, large-impact, meaningful solution.  Considering the price per mile, $636 seems much more in line with creating a noticeable impact in the quality of our streets.

quote:
If you think all of the streets in the 200 square miles of Tulsa can be rehabilitated and then maintained for $100 million over several years, then you have a profound misunderstanding of the issues.

You're exactly right.  Bear doesn't understand anything.

quote:When the city basically quite [sic] maintaining the streets for the past ten years, then of course they've become terrible.

It was merely a softening up exercise to extract a new, huge road building tax.

And, we should therefore REWARD incompetence?

Sorry, wrong answer.

FB: No river tax! Fix the roads!  Fix the roads! No river Tax.

...no river tax

FB: No road tax! No road tax!

Bear, bonds don't raise taxes.  The city is borrowing money, and it's not rewarding incompetence--it's fixing a MASSIVE problem.

Do bears have brains?

[Kiah]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Not only do I not think that, I didn't even come close to stating it.

Try reading Mr. Hewgley's plan before flipping out. It makes far more sense than anything else that's been presented to date.

FWIW, the $100M is NEW money. That's a tax increase.

I have read, and heard in person, Mr. Hewgley's plan, and I think it can be an important part of the solution, but it is not new money (we already carry general obligation bonds for streets).  It just shifts bond funds to in-house mill and overlay work, which can also be an important part of the solution -- but not even close to putting a real dent in the backlog, much less maintaining rehabilitated streets in good condition.

And if you've ever dented your backlog, you know how painful that can be . . . but seriously . . . .

[Kiah]

Council wants streets on ballot

by: BRIAN BARBER World Staff Writer
5/14/2008  12:00 AM

Councilors work to deliver a streets-improvement proposal that will please voters.

City councilors are working to put a comprehensive package to fix Tulsa's streets on the July 29 ballot.

To make that date — which is also the county, state and federal primary — the council must call for a special election and notify the Tulsa County Election Board no later than 5 p.m. May 29.

"The sooner we can get it to voters, the sooner we can begin implementing it," said Councilor Bill Martinson, who has led a council subcommittee on streets for the past six months.

While the specifics of the proposal are not yet being released, Martinson said it will include multiple funding sources that have been discussed openly in the subcommittee's meetings.

Among the probable components:

Early renewals of the city's general obligation bond and third-penny sales tax programs to devote largely to streets. They would take effect when the bond expires in 2010 and the third penny in 2013.

Raising the city's property tax levy 3.3 mills to match Oklahoma City's. That increase would translate to about an extra $2.50 per month for a $100,000 home.

After Tulsa County's 0.0167 cent Four to Fix the County and 0.6 cent Vision 2025 sales taxes expire, continuing to collect those same amounts of sales taxes in the city of Tulsa. The Four-to-Fix package is scheduled to end in 2012, and Vision 2025 runs until 2017.

Martinson said the exact proposal with all the relevant numbers and projects will be made public once the city's Finance Department has finished its review.

The package, spanning 10 years and providing in excess of $1 billion for streets, would be designed to bring the city's existing infrastructure from a "D" to an average score of "C" on the Pavement Condition Index and provide for routine and preventive maintenance.

"What we need to do is to take care of what we have," Martinson said, adding that some of the city's street expansion and widening needs may be addressed on a separate ballot item.

Over the history of the general obligation and third-penny packages, they have been increasingly filled with other capital needs of the city, not leaving enough for streets, Martinson said.

"We're going to have to tighten our belts," he said. "We need the operating departments to pick up the operating capital items like they used to. This has to be about infrastructure, not fluff and stuff."

The goal has been to minimize the impact on taxpayers as much as possible, Martinson said. That's why existing tax streams are being targeted so as not to change the city's aggregate sales tax rate.

But there is expected to be a bump in utility rates to make up for the money from the third-penny and the general obligation bond programs that have traditionally subsidized the utilities.

"Based on the analysis we've run ... Tulsa's utility rates will remain lower than those in our peer cities and neighboring communities," he said.

Prior to the vote, the council and Mayor Kathy Taylor plan to host town hall meetings.

The council is set to hear public comments beginning at its 6 p.m. Thursday meeting.

Taylor said that if the council is prepared to move on a July election, she'll be ready.

"We want to get it to the citizens as quickly as possible, but we also want to make sure we have all of the pieces together," she said. "This is about prioritizing the streets and making sure we do it right."

During Tuesday committee meetings, councilors said constituents are clamoring for better streets.

"I was just out running for office for the very first time, and I can tell you from one end of my district to the other, this was the top concern I heard about," Councilor G.T. Bynum said.

Councilor David Patrick said: "The streets didn't get this way overnight, but until we get a plan in place, nothing's going to go forward. We're all going to have to come together to get this passed."

[waterboy]

This will be a gut check for Tulsa. The timing may be in favor of its success because the  average Tulsan won't have time to realize that even though most of the probable components are not tax increases, they will result in hikes in fees for other services.

Collecting v2025 and 4tofix revenues after they expire is simply like extending your mortgage term to lower the monthly payments, a clever way to increase tax without it being too obvious.

And the raising of property taxes won't fly. Those of us who pay it in lump sums are quite aware of how much it has risen the last few years. No one votes on these increases, they just happen by the assessor and you're supposed to be assuaged by the increase in value of your home. That increase in appraisal value doesn't matter if you aren't selling or refinancing. Just another increase.

My prediction is that Tulsans want roads but are unwilling to pay for them during a perceived economic shock wave. If it can be packaged as a re-allocation of existing tax revenues together with an extension of existing taxes it will pass. But if they figure out that its a shell game and you really don't get something for nothing...ixnay.

[sgrizzle]

By only asking for mild increases and extensions I think they can get this passed. The main deal is that they can start work on the backlog today thanks to guaranteed funds in the future. Now that TCC isn't getting any more of my taxes, put that money to the roads.

Also, if it means people have to pay actual costs for city services instead of diverting road money to pay your water bill, then so be it. Tulsans conserve gas, conserve electricity and use water like it's going out of style. Our water rates are so low right now you could probably put a small hydroelectric plant in your backyard, run it off city water, and save $100 month on electricity.

Anyone else notice the "coincidence" that this has to be turned in 1 day before the drillers stuff has to be turned in?

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

By only asking for mild increases and extensions I think they can get this passed. The main deal is that they can start work on the backlog today thanks to guaranteed funds in the future. Now that TCC isn't getting any more of my taxes, put that money to the roads.

Also, if it means people have to pay actual costs for city services instead of diverting road money to pay your water bill, then so be it. Tulsans conserve gas, conserve electricity and use water like it's going out of style. Our water rates are so low right now you could probably put a small hydroelectric plant in your backyard, run it off city water, and save $100 month on electricity.

Anyone else notice the "coincidence" that this has to be turned in 1 day before the drillers stuff has to be turned in?

If I understand the components correctly, that there is very little "new" taxes in this package, I might vote for it.

Besides, I don't expect to be around to have to pay off the bonds.

Teh-heh.  Don't tax you, don't tax me --- Tax that man behind the tree.

[]

[FOTD]

Looks like the city strategy of letting the streets decay to this point may work in driving voters to the polls to continue on with those previous promises of expirations. But there are no other solutions to raising enormous infrastructure funding short of toll roads all over the place. I'll vote for it as long as the entire public diswerks department gets gutted along with the avenues.

Might as well, might as well.

GO.