Tulsa Street Tax: Why Bother?

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle
That was September-December near-quarter, so a year is like $40M.

I really didn't mean to always be correcting your math, but I will at least one more time.

The entire TARE annual budget shows only 26 million dollars through billing of commercial and residential customers. Making $40 million extra in cash would be rather difficult.  

I don't know you Wrinkle, but please tell me your job doesn't involve counting.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle
That was September-December near-quarter, so a year is like $40M.

I really didn't mean to always be correcting your math, but I will at least one more time.

The entire TARE annual budget shows only 26 million dollars through billing of commercial and residential customers. Making $40 million extra in cash would be rather difficult.  

I don't know you Wrinkle, but please tell me your job doesn't involve counting.

So, do tell me how they acquired $11 million extra in less than four months to give to the Mayor. I believe that also left around $1.5M in their cash account for Milk Duds and such.

While you're at it, explain why an organization with this kind of cash flow required a $7 million loan in 2006.

[RecycleMichael]

TARE is not the focus of this thread. Start another and I will explain what I think about trash and local rates.

Despite what you think about city services, the trash providers have a reputation for good service. The amount of complaints are a small part of 1% each month. Tulsans seem very satisfied with trash and hopeful for more recycling.

Roads are a different story. You seem compelled to start conversations saying negative things about the upcoming street bond issue, even before the details are known.

I am not capable yet of debating the pluses and negatives of any street bond. But I know plenty of Tulsans who normally oppose any tax increase who are supportive of paying a little extra for streets. This measure seems well-researched and timely.

I know that passage will be hard anyway. 40% of the people will vote no on any tax and costs are rapidly rising for food, fuel and other city services.

The streets need work. Now is the time to make that investment.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

That is very insightful. It is the numerous entrance/exits to the old neighborhoods that keeps traffic dissipated. It was the "cut through" streets they were trying to eliminate with the limited access neighborhoods out south. It backfired and causes bottlenecks that like you point out, results eventually in traffic signals.

Yes, and the more through streets, the less traffic burden any one residential street has to carry. Focusing an entire subdivision's traffic onto a "residential collector" creates the kind of traffic that leads to requests for speedramps, extra stop signs, and traffic lights. In midtown, I can plan my route out of a residential area so that I don't have to make a left-hand turn onto an arterial. You don't have that option in most of south Tulsa.

YoungTulsan's post is indeed insightful. Twenty years ago, I wrote Mayor Crawford urging mid-mile streets to be built in all newly developed areas. At some point, we may have to build those streets, even if it means  clearing a path through existing development. (Hey, they did it to midtown in the '70s.)

Building a through street between Memorial and Garnett to the north of Woodland Hills, Sam's, Best Buy, Target, and Kohl's would do more to relieve traffic on 71st St. than adding lanes to 71st would. Requiring adjacent parking lots to be connected would help, too.

Michael, I think you're right but you still have to keep in mind the reasoning behind why those limited access neighborhoods evolved. It was basically a move on the developers part to squeeze more lots out of the same space at less dollars. Same thing with irregular sized lots. Less paving, curbs, drainage etc. and more lots per acre.

Now that the homes are sold and the city maintains the bottleneck mess, if we go back in and recarve the layout it will be expensive and sets a precedent, or should, that new developments will have to abide by. Immediately you create two sets of angry opposition- developers and residential homeowners.

You could add a third set of opponents when you realize that the traffic on 71st is considered a positive thing by the nearby commercial businesses and billboard owners. They actually pay more in rent based on that traffic as they expect to snag impulse buyers and potential readers of their advertising.

Formidable opponents.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

TARE is not the focus of this thread. Start another and I will explain what I think about trash and local rates.

Despite what you think about city services, the trash providers have a reputation for good service. The amount of complaints are a small part of 1% each month. Tulsans seem very satisfied with trash and hopeful for more recycling.

Roads are a different story. You seem compelled to start conversations saying negative things about the upcoming street bond issue, even before the details are known.

I am not capable yet of debating the pluses and negatives of any street bond. But I know plenty of Tulsans who normally oppose any tax increase who are supportive of paying a little extra for streets. This measure seems well-researched and timely.

I know that passage will be hard anyway. 40% of the people will vote no on any tax and costs are rapidly rising for food, fuel and other city services.

The streets need work. Now is the time to make that investment.

The thread is about fixing out streets. I suggest the money we've been paying for 20 years to not own an incinerator plant is still being paid to TARE. That, to me, indicates excess revenue which could be used for roads instead.

Since the Council hasn't a clue yet as to how to resolve the fiscal aspects of what they've proposed, suggestions would be useful at this point.

The reason no details of their current plan have been revealed is they've discovered the same thing I did....it doesn't work.

I'd like for you to point out where I trashed the trash service. The discussion has been strictly held to economics.

But, even you would have to admit that TARE does nothing which could not, and should be done by Public Works. Heck, even I can hire outside consultants to do the work of evaluating trash service plans. Isn't that expertise supposed to be the reason for having an Authority, so we don't need outside consultants?

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle
That was September-December near-quarter, so a year is like $40M.

I really didn't mean to always be correcting your math, but I will at least one more time.

The entire TARE annual budget shows only 26 million dollars through billing of commercial and residential customers. Making $40 million extra in cash would be rather difficult.  

I don't know you Wrinkle, but please tell me your job doesn't involve counting.

Your careful wording has alerted me.

"...annual budget SHOWS only $26 million..."

Perhaps they're clever like the phone company and itemized charges, so only $26m is their share of the fees, with another fee dedicated to the former incinerator mortgage, now cash account.

I really don't know, but whatever was being paid toward the mortgage on the incinerator is still being paid.

Sounds like road funding to me.

[RecycleMichael]

Your careful wording has alerted me.

"...annual budget SHOWS only $26 million..."

Perhaps they're clever like the phone company and itemized charges, so only $26m is their share of the fees, with another fee dedicated to the former incinerator mortgage, now cash account.

I really don't know, but whatever was being paid toward the mortgage on the incinerator is still being paid.

Sounds like road funding to me.

Ok parse boy...

Total ACTUAL billings for TARE to all customers for the first ten months of the year is $18,291,000.

I just didn't have the financial documents that were presented at Wednesday's public meeting (attended by the media and a packed audience every month) so I wanted to be careful. You, on the other hand, when confronted with correct numbers as proof of your bad math skills, tried to imply some financial shenanigans.

Yes, the city of Tulsa paid $180 million to finance somebody else's trash to energy plant that has now closed. Blame Senator Inhofe for the most one-sided contract in our city's history. We paid through the nose for twenty years. When it closed last year, trash rates went down an average of 37% for every Tulsa home and business.

But that is not a valid argument against the street bond proposal. It is in the past and the roads need fixing today. Trying to argue that we shouldn't fix the streets because we spent too much on trash service is like saying I shouldn't join a gym because I wasted all that money on cigarettes when I was younger.