City/County--the fight continues

[pmcalk]

The County says that they will not pay their share of the downtown assesment:

Tulsa County officials made it known Monday that they don't think their constituents should have to pay to build a downtown ballpark.

In a 5-3 vote, the county Budget Board — which is made up of the county's eight elected officials — voted to ask Tulsa city councilors to exclude 11 county-owned properties from Tulsa Stadium Improvement District assessment fees that will be dedicated to the ballpark project in the Greenwood District.

The amount being challenged is about $102,000, or two-thirds of the $155,000 the county is scheduled to begin paying in fiscal year 2010.

"We felt like there was not a direct benefit to our taxpayers," said County Commissioner and Budget Board Chairman John Smaligo.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090317_16_A1_TulsaC288290

Smaglio insisted that the decision has nothing to do with the fight over the jail.

[Neptune]

"We felt like there was not a direct benefit to our taxpayers," said County Commissioner and Budget Board Chairman John Smaligo.

Seeing as how probably 70% of their constituencies live in the City of Tulsa, how so?

I suppose I'm ok with it all, as long as the County never takes any sales taxes out of a downtown Tulsa.

Smaligo is beginning to piss me off.

[cannon_fodder]

I imagine it has as much to do with the city taxing Expo as anything else. 

[DowntownNow]

The county would have to use property tax revenues to pay its portion of the assessment fees, meaning residents countywide would be tagged with the bill, Smaligo said.

The first thing that should be pointed out is that this proves all Tulsa County property tax payers will be paying for the assessment just as I have said in all my past posts and a majority in here argued against.  They argued that only downtown property owners would pay...an increase due to assessment on County and even City owned property within the IDL must be passed on to the taxpayers as a whole, it is not divided up by address, zip, etc.  So yes, again, everyone will be paying for this new ballpark assessment.

"We've seen a benefit to the county coffers," Taylor said, because downtown property values have increased since the ballpark's construction was announced.

The increases, the mayor added, mean more property tax revenue for the county "without having to raise people's property tax rates."

The second thing to be asked is where is the benefit in the county coffers?  Mayor Taylor elludes to the increase in property values and therefore there must be a property tax must increase?  There has been no word from the County Assessor's office (who by the way has already stated is not in favor of this assessment and can not translate a presumed increase in property values to the tax roles just cause someone says so) that in fact property values have increased as a result of the ballpark.  

The most recent downtown properties that have been purchased are those immediately around the ballpark.  These were sold at prices that were at or below the asking price before the ballpark was announced.  Had those previous property owners known what was to come right after, Im sure they'd have increased the sales price.  

Of the 5 large City owned parcels downtown that are being marketed by Jones Lang LaSalle, not one has sold, let alone for its asking price or below even.

Truth of the matter is, there is no factual data to support the Mayor's claim that the property prices in downtown (that have actually sold) have increased as a result of the ballpark.  Speculation and therefore "asking price" has but not sold parcel price.  Sorry Mayor, just cause you say it doesn't make it so.

Everyone should keep in mind that the State, Federal, County, City and Churches are the largest land owners in the IDL.  Federal, State and Churches are exempt from the BID assessment, as are homesteads.  

In fiscal year 2008, the county paid $14,811 in assessments covering eight properties under the Downtown Improvements District. In fiscal year 2010, the year the Tulsa Stadium Improvement takes effect, that figure is slated to jump to $154,660 on 11 properties the county owns in the assessment district, according to figures provided by the Tulsa County Fiscal Office.  The Tulsa Jail would see the largest increase in its annual assessment — nearly 6,000 percent from $1,714 to $101,102.

For whatever reason, the Tulsa World and the City have yet to provide these same facts on City owned property within the IDL, I'm sure the numbers will be just as high if not much higher.

This increase can easily become a significant burden on IDL small businesses.  Take for example the small business that has occupied the same building for years (sometimes decades), operating out of a portion of it, unable to get the increased needed revenue or financing to renovate and lease or expand operations to fill the entire building.  These people were paying an assessment that they could cover before and still make ends meet and make money.  Now comes the BID assessment and raises their property taxes by lets say the nearly 6000% like the jail.  How many will be forced out of business or left struggling?  How many vacant buildings will be left on the outskirts of the IDL as a result?  This is a possibility, is that what the intention was or to have a thriving downtown?

[RecycleMichael]

I imagine it has as much to do with the city taxing Expo as anything else. 

I agree.

[Neptune]

A pitfall of the City declaring war on the County for sure.  The Bells deal may have been an underhanded travesty, and the City (and a few councilors) didn't have to be all knee-jerk about it.  But this thing has gone too far.

When the City was hurting a few years ago, it looked the City and County could work together.  That all seems "off" now.

Someone needs to find out where the big people pants are stored.

[DowntownNow]

Actually Neptune, you're pretty right on - based on 2000 data there were 393,049 City of Tulsa residents and 563,299 within Tulsa County (which would include some portions of Jenks, Sand Springs, Sapulpa, Owasso, Broken Arrow, Bixby, etc.)  Thats a 70/30 ratio.  

But since the high of 2000, it is estimated that the City of Tulsa has been losing residents to the outlying suburbs with a 2007 estimate of 370,000 City of Tulsa and 585,068 in Tulsa County, a 63/37 ratio.  

http://www.city-data.com/us-cities/The-South/Tulsa-Population-Profile.html
http://www.cityoftulsa.org/Community/Planning/CompPlan/documents/Dec11Demographicspresentation.pdf

But the arguement here isnt about who pays but how they were forced to pay for something they neither voted for nor recommended.  Mayor Taylor and the ballpark donors did their best to say over and over that this BID assessment would only be paid by those within the IDL...they just forgot to say that in fact everyone's property taxes would be going up to pay for it as well and that is where the problem is.  Nothing is ever straight foward, transparent, open or by the will of the people anymore.

[RecycleMichael]

So...according to DowntownNow...the County is being forced to pay $140,000 more in taxes and they have 585,000 people in the county.

The higher taxes work out to about two cents more in taxes per resident per month.

The ballpark is worth that much to me...but that is just my two cents worth.

[carltonplace]

Seeing as how probably 70% of their constituencies live in the City of Tulsa, how so?

I suppose I'm ok with it all, as long as the County never takes any sales taxes out of a downtown Tulsa.

Smaligo is beginning to piss me off.

But they do assess sales tax on down town businesses and they will assess sales tax on goods sold at the baseball stadium or from any businesses that go in around it. I suspect that county proceeds from this development would exceed $154,00 per year. In addition these new properties will produce ad veloram tax that the county will collect.

If they tell us no, maybe we can tell them no

[DowntownNow]

Recycle...you're missing my points here. 

• Taylor opted not to put a tax vote to the poeple because she knew she'd never get it passed, comes up with the idea to create a BID assessment by extension of the existing and soon to end Main Mall assessment
• Taylor and Donors said repeatedly throughout the process and to Council that Tulsa taxpayers would not be paying "one penny" towards this assessment - true on the surface but not when you get to the meat of the matter - can't just be forthright and honest about it?
  

• Was any consideration given to the effect this would have on the existing downtown businesses?
  
• Is there any concrete, factual data to support Taylor's assumptions as detailed in the article?

• The argument is not about how much and who pays, its about how was it presented and were the people that will be paying even "one penny" given a chance to support/oppose?  The answer is no, this was taxation without representation...thats the arguement here.
  

I'm in favor of a ballpark built with Donor funds if thats what they want to do for the benefit of the City.  I'm not in favor of trampling over established law to do it.  There are protections against taxation without representation.  Perhaps this is why the case before the courts on behalf of some downtown property owners is still in play and hasnt been dismissed.  It has gone so far that property owners in favor of the ballpark, namely the donors themselves, have stepped in with attorneys to block the case from moving forward.  If it had no merit, why are they worried?  Are they afraid of summary judgement? Because I've heard thats been offered but Dorwart was unwilling.

If you really want something to consider Michael, you should worry that if that case is found worthy and the assessment is struck down, how much are you willing to pay out of your personal pocket beyond 'your two cents" to make sure the ballpark gets completed?

If you want to take it your way Michael then let's say this.  In the case of the County Jail, Taylor/City argue that while there may have been no contractual terms establishing the continued cooperation and set fees that should be carried over, there was verbal assurance that it would be at the end of the term.  Fine, Taylor/Donors made verbal assurances to the people outside the IDL that they wouldn't be spending "one penny" on this stadium, so exempt all the County and City owned lands, structures and see where that gets ya.
[/list]

[Renaissance]

One more reason the County is probably being pissy: the Drillers occupying the new ballpark also means the county loses revenue from the current Drillers' Stadium.

[DowntownNow]

Floyd, I doubt they are pissy about that given that the City has recently annexed the fairgrounds.  Unless of course the Ballpark Trust seeks a tax abatement for that area as has been suggested by some of those in the know. 

Whether the Drillers move or stay (from one existing ballpark to another, just outside the fairgrounds) the County would see the same revenue from its operations.  One might argue that with a new stadium the Drillers will have greater ticket, concessions and gear sales that are all taxable...but thats a big if, theres no proven statistics or study to support that or ensure such.  Today in a ballfield that is paid for, the Drillers cant fill seats, have to give tickets away and offer pour nights on beer to get people in the stands. 

With a new stadium tickets will more than likely be increased as events have been with the BOKCenter arena (i.e. Talons and Oilers tickets).  Food will be more expensive likely.  Parking will have to be paid for (where plenty was free and close by before).  The increased costs to have a day in the sun will likely cut into the amount of traffic the stadium produces...did anyone do a study on that?  No...they did a study to determine the economic impact based on a best case, good guess formula with no hard data to back it up.  There was no due diligence done to see if there was support from Tulsa citizens to determine if they will pay increased fares for tix, food, etc. 

Does everyone want to see a shiny new big ballpark?  Of course they do...do they want to pay for it, to the tune of $60mil?  The likely answer is no...or it would have been put to a vote and all this would be behind us.

[RecycleMichael]

Of course they do...do they want to pay for it, to the tune of $60mil? 

You are not telling the truth.

The landowners inside the inner disersal loop are only paying one million dollars a year for 25 years. The private donations of 30 million and the Drillers rent equal the remaining 5 million dollars.

One million dollars a year total from all the landowners inside a three square mile area. The same area where we have now already spent 200 million dollars in improvements in the last five years. We as a county and city have spent all that money in one small part of our county (equal to less than 2% of the area) and now ask only those property owners to pay a little extra as well.

I paid a lot of taxes and will continue to pay for years to come for all this to happen. Now the property owners who benefit the most are asked to help pay a little more to keep the momentum going. That sounds fair to me.

[Wilbur]

As I've said before:  businesses don't pay taxes, their customers do.

An increase in anything downtown simply gets passed on to the patrons who go downtown.  Prices charged to the customer go up because the cost of business goes up.  It makes no difference what the cost is, it is simply passed on.  The city charging more to do business downtown is a tax increase, plain and simple.

[Wrinkle]

Let the County pay their IDL Tax like everyone else. And, let the Jail Authority charge per prisoner, IF it is warranted (along with County prisoners paying the daily charge to the Authority as well). We DID vote to supply the County/Authority with revenue dedicated to jail operations specifically. If they can't operate it for what we already give them, then there's some questions to be answered.

I found it particularly odd that a person I know was recently a tenant of said facility and couldn't eat their meals because they didn't provide their own plate and fork.

Also, are you aware each prisoner is charged that $50/day fee for their fines, so the County is already double-dipping.

Something stinks all around here. Politics is just that. But, not doing what we expect, have been charged for and told they are doing is another thing all together.