Tulsa: Fixing the Streets VOTE in July

[Rage]

A Plan For Fixing Tulsa's Streets

Tulsa voters could soon cast their ballots to improve city streets.  News On anchor Jennifer Loren reports Mayor Kathy Taylor and city councilors hope they've come up with a plan voters will like to fix Tulsa's streets without raising taxes.

Tulsa residents have made it clear: it's past time to fix the streets.  Tulsa's mayor agrees.

"If we do not get our streets back in the right pavement condition index, it's going to continue to build a mountain of expense that will be even more expensive every year as they further deteriorate and the quality will simply not be acceptable," said Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor.

That's why the mayor and Tulsa City Councilors hope to do something about the bad roads now.  They're working on a proposal to fix Tulsa's streets.  It would go on a July ballot, ultimately leaving it up to voters.  And, the mayor thinks voters will embrace the plan.

"We will not increase the sales tax. We just all have agreed that that is too burdensome on our citizens, that what we need to do is redeploy the sales tax that we currently have and use for street maintenance," said Tulsa Mayor Kathy Taylor.

At this point, the proposal would extend the current third penny sales tax and the city's general obligation bond when they expire.  But, some voters aren't buying it.

"I believe we're over-taxed now. The money is somewhere and they need to pull it out of the reserves and spend it where it belongs," said voter LeMon Banks.

Other voters don't care where the money comes from, including their own pockets, as long as potholes go away.

"I'd vote yes. Cause they need the money and we need better roads. So why not vote and get better roads?" said voter Ricky Arthur.

City leaders hope the sooner the proposal gets to voters, the sooner the roads will be repaired.

The city council will hear public comments on the subject at their weekly meetings.  Meanwhile, town hall meetings will be held in each district, answering any questions voters have about the proposal.

[Wrinkle]

Question: Why are they making a permanent Ordinance for a Temporary Tax?



and, why are they authorizing an election when the first public hearing has yet to be held?



Source:

http://www.cityoftulsa.org/Agendas/agendax.asp?FN=0007CF6F&num=4

and, http://www.cityoftulsa.org/Agendas/agendax.asp?FN=0007CF6F&num=5

Also, note the addition of the second item for $62 Million, making the total near $700 Million.

[PonderInc]

OK, I've read that.  Now, where can we find information that truly tells us what the plan is?  Where do we get the proposal in plain English with all the details?  

Does this mean that they are reallocating all the 3rd Penny Sales tax funds that we already voted on?  Will that affect the non-street projects that have yet to be funded?  

I understand the desire to increase the amount that goes to Tulsa's infrastructure, as temporary county taxes expire. It sounds good.  Is it wise?

Now: what happened to the "Complete the Streets" recommendations?  Where does transit fit into the Council plan for fixing the streets?  If the problem is ever-increasing vehicle miles travelled (and ever-increasing lane miles to be maintained), how do they propose to reduce those needs/costs?  Where do they specifically promote alternative mobility options such as transit, cycling and pedestrians?  (Tulsa ranks at the bottom of cities our size when it comes to investing in public transit...and it shows!)  Where do they talk about the impact of urban design on alleviating transportation problems?

What impact does this proposal have on the Comprehensive Plan?  What if the decisions that we (as a community) make regarding Tulsa's future transportation needs, include MORE than just fixing holes in the asphalt year after year after year?  What if gas goes to $5 a gallon, and the citizens demand real/workable transit options...can this money be allocated for THAT?

Anybody have any answers?

[Wrinkle]

I think it's just an added 1.7667% to the existing Sales Tax, making it 10.18%, then waiting to 2011 for the 4-to-Fix to expire, 2012 for the Third Penny to expire (sure), and then 2017 for V2025 to exire, getting us back to the current Sales Tax Rate of 8.517%.

Plus, a 3.3 Mill increase in your Ad Valorem tax to fund road reconstruction projects at $6.2 million/year indefinitely, but grows with the value of Tulsa property.

So, it's sort of a 'get the money first' plan, then they'll decide how to spend it.

They said they would put up a project list soon. But, if you're looking for light rail, you might need to go to the Long Range Planning meetings and hope they bring it up.

[sgrizzle]

The sales tax hikes don't take effect until 2012 and 2017 respectively.

[RecycleMichael]

Thanks sgrizzle. I kinda thought what wrinkle was saying was wrong from what I had heard, but I hadn't read enough to refute it.

So, this is no additional sales tax?

[sgrizzle]

No additional sales tax.

Makes it hard for the county to raise more funds for $2M parking lots.

Raises property tax, but only a small amount to OKC levels.

Requires South Tulsa sprawlers to pay more if they want their streets widened.

Will end the "low bid" and crappy contractor issues by making street rework and repair done by the same people, the City of Tulsa's new "streets" department.

By replacing every upcoming expiring tax, it puts the "lets extend the tax to build an island" people at bay for years.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

The sales tax hikes don't take effect until 2012 and 2017 respectively.

I'll need to ask your source.
Think I've read everything put out so far and no one's stated that to be the case, or even explicitly what I concluded either. Though today's World did mention a 1.76% tax 'extension', whatever that means.

It's all in the wording of the proposed Proposition, which hasn't been written yet.

[Wrinkle]

I'm getting more bothered by the Ad Valorem issue.

It's 'just' 3.3 mills for everyone in Tulsa, which if the 'District Plan' is adopted, pays only half the cost of any road reconstructions.

The other half would be by 'special assessment' to only those property owners in the District.

So, basically, one ninth of the area/citizens would need to pick up the equivalent of 3.3 mills over the entire city. In round numbers, that would represent something in the range of 25-30 mills if we speak of the total funding level.

If one district receives 30% of the road reconstruction projects (District 9 has almost half of those currently on the list), a property owner could expect their Ad Valorem to increase by an additional 10 mills or more, or 13.3 total.

That starts to sound real expensive.

[blindnil]

The plan is to NOT add on those taxes until the current ones expire, thus not adding to the sales tax rate.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by blindnil

The plan is to NOT add on those taxes until the current ones expire, thus not adding to the sales tax rate.

I'd be considerably more convinced if an official made some public statement of that sort. To my knowledge, that hasn't yet happened.

But, if so, wouldn't we also then be extending temp taxes out twenty years, and most not starting until at least after one more Mayor/Council election?

Did we not learn anything about long term issues established by short term officials (i.e., 40-year water contracts, 6-year 3rd Penny)?

[RecycleMichael]

wrinkle...

Why are you saying that it will raise sales taxes to over ten cents, then admitting that the language is not clear? Now you are saying outrageous stuff like 30 mills?

Is this some sort of early scare tactic dis-information strategy?

You have been writing post after post finding fault with the street package and now it turns to be stuff you just made up or assumed?

Remind me to not believe you until one thing you say is proven true.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by blindnil

The plan is to NOT add on those taxes until the current ones expire, thus not adding to the sales tax rate.

I'd be considerably more convinced if an official made some public statement of that sort. To my knowledge, that hasn't yet happened.

But, if so, wouldn't we also then be extending temp taxes out twenty years, and most not starting until at least after one more Mayor/Council election?

Did we not learn anything about long term issues established by short term officials (i.e., 40-year water contracts, 6-year 3rd Penny)?

The sales tax takes effect in 2011,2012, and 2017 but I believe the property tax takes effect in 2009 or 2010. Construction wouldn't start until 2010 or 2011 but it takes a few years to plan all this out.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

wrinkle...

Why are you saying that it will raise sales taxes to over ten cents, then admitting that the language is not clear? Now you are saying outrageous stuff like 30 mills?

Is this some sort of early scare tactic dis-information strategy?

You have been writing post after post finding fault with the street package and now it turns to be stuff you just made up or assumed?

Remind me to not believe you until one thing you say is proven true.

This is a forum, as I understand it.

The plan is void of detail and left for us to speculate as to what's being said. The 10-Cent plus Sales Tax was based solely on the actual statements made. It fits. Someone here suggesting it otherwise needs to put the language down as to how that lays out, because I flat don't see it working at all that way, and don't see wording of a proposition which makes that practical.

Either it'll be too expensive from a bonding standpoint, will take at least two more years to begin work or will not solve the immediate problem of bumps and dents in the roads (i.e., resurfacing rather than reconstructions).

So, come to your own conclusions.

Here's a little game for you:

You have $62 million and need another $62 million.

You can use only 1/9th of the population to produce the extra $62 million.

How do you see that working out?

If 3.3 mills by 9/9ths produces the correct amount, then 1/9th doing the same is 29.7 mills.

Scare tactics???

Disinformation???

I do believe it's called 'analysis'.
It was put out as not only a possible resolution as to what was presented, it is quite probable.

If someone says it doesn't kick in until 2011, 2012 and 2017, then just how is that worded in the proposition and on the ballot, in one proposition? And, how does that pay out?

I'm open to suggestions.

Going a step further, how does a tax which doesn't begin for three or four years solve today's problems?

We'll get a bond, you say?

So, we add the cost of unusally long term bonding to taxpayers, making it that much more expensive? Actually, just getting much less for each $1.00.

The tax which would start next year, Ad Valorem, won't resurface any roads, it's dedicated to capital projects of road reconstructions.

Somebody needs to provide more detail before any of this can really be evaluated at all.

But, what I've stated in my postings are the only logical scenarios which tie all the ends, as I see it. And, that's only if you agree with the political aspects of what's presented.

Tell me how you see it happening.

Believe what you want.

RM, in the future it may benefit your sensitivities if you assume I have no inside tract. I don't. Only what the public is given.

[inteller]

can I vote to deannex and annex with bixby?  Looks like the city just declared war on the county.