City Sales Tax Revenues UP 3.28% for year.....

[Wilbur]

I'm down about the same and yet I don't feel the need to repeatedly lambaste the head of my organization in a public forum. Myself and my coworkers get to keep their jobs so I'm willing to be reasonable and suck it up.

The head of 'my organization' does everything in a public forum.  Of her 4500 employees, plenty disagree with her handling of the budget and her mandatory furlough days, including some of the council.  Once again, her 'team' approach is great when you are only allowed to agree with 'the team.'  The amount of money she is trying to cut compared to the entire city list of expenditures is extremely small, yet she chooses to do so on the backs of government employees who are already paid at a level WAY BELOW private industry and/or cities of equal size.  But, we get a new stadium, we get a new city hall, we get a new .......

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't police generally working a lot of overtime already? Wouldn't this mean theoretically they get to charge up to 8 days to overtime instead of regular pay?

Overtime is not something every officer works and you just can't work overtime when you feel like it.  

We could go Christiansen's route and just lay some people off.

According to the police contract, layoffs are the only option open to the city when reductions are made in the name of cost savings.  Imagine that..... follow the rules/contract.  Would it be politically correct to do so?  Probably not.  But that is a chance you take.

[Oil Capital]

+ ~$7,000,000 in sales tax revenue

+ ~$1,500,000  in savings from the new City Hall (15.2mil over 10 years)

+ 3 new taxes on the way or here (road, expo, downtown ballpark)

+ Increase in real estate market in Tulsa

+ County with more money (city not covering county duties)

+ BOk Center paying for itself, new bond issues passed just fine, no unexpected crisis to cover (another ice storm, for example).



I'm not trying to be obtuse, but why are we in a budget crisis?

Not to mention the increased efficiency we are supposed to be achieving through the consolidation of offices at the new city cube.

[Wrinkle]

Original post said receipts were up over last year, but did not provide comparison of receipts to the budgeted projections for this year - which is where a shortfall will occur.  Continued, albeit slower, sales tax revenue growth is better than what many cities are facing around the country, but it doesn't mean we don't have a budget shorfall that must be closed.

Furloughs may be the better solution to the problem if you believe the problem to be a one year hiccup.

Maybe the better question would be who and/or why are they 'projecting' 8%-9% increases in revenue for budgeting purposes when all the experience shows 2-3% increases are typical (20-year history)?  In fact, Mike Kier uses, by his own statements, a 2.75%-3.00% escalation rate for Bond revenue projections, why are they using something different for city budgeting?

With those kind of 'projections', there couldn't help but be a 'shortfall', when none really exists.

We are actually performing quite well, especially under the current economic circumstances. Certainly no need for the alarmist proclaimations and wild measures being promoted.

Could it be that the Borg Cube is actually costing us $10M rather than saving us that much? And, are we still paying the cost of the former City Hall since we do still own it as well?

I think a performance review of each of these 'benefits' that have been added to our city is warranted, especially City Hall.

The ballpark will cure itself over time and in court, where, imo, it will be ruled invalid, unconstitutional and bad management. Wouldn't surprise me to find criminal violations, though, at this point, government is stacked in businesses' favor, leaving the public to fend for itself.

[Chicken Little]

Why the "budget fuss"?  Could it be that Tulsa, like the rest of the country, is in a recession?  I'm thinking, "Maybe".  I'm also thinking, "Duh!".

Americans are self-reporting a 40% decrease in spending? 

May sales tax receipts were down 8.1% from last year?

Everybody's coming up short, including the State? 

So, naturally, there has to be something wrong with the city hall purchase.  Here's a thought, Wrinkle:  instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on an audit of the OTC purchase, why don't we just ignore your whackadoodle advice for free?

[Conan71]

I literally had someone say to me this morning:

"Our budget shortfall is exactly the amount we paid BOK for the GPA settlement"

:rolls eyes:

[cannon_fodder]

So, naturally, there has to be something wrong with the city hall purchase.  Here's a thought, Wrinkle:  instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on an audit of the OTC purchase, why don't we just ignore your whackadoodle advice for free?

Great!  Then I assume you can explain how we collected MORE money this year in several categories and still have a multi-million dollar budget shortfall.  "There's a recession" would work as a great excuse if the revenues were down - but they aren't.

To me it seems simple:  we anticipated an increase that was twice what could realistically be expected. 

Wouldn't it be prudent to budget for NO increase or a very modest increase and then if/when we had a surplus we could spend it?   

[Conan71]

Great!  Then I assume you can explain how we collected MORE money this year in several categories and still have a multi-million dollar budget shortfall.  "There's a recession" would work as a great excuse if the revenues were down - but they aren't.

To me it seems simple:  we anticipated an increase that was twice what could realistically be expected. 

Wouldn't it be prudent to budget for NO increase or a very modest increase and then if/when we had a surplus we could spend it?   

Absolutely not, that makes too much sense for government!

[Wrinkle]

Why the "budget fuss"?  Could it be that Tulsa, like the rest of the country, is in a recession?  I'm thinking, "Maybe".  I'm also thinking, "Duh!".

Americans are self-reporting a 40% decrease in spending? 

May sales tax receipts were down 8.1% from last year?

Everybody's coming up short, including the State? 

So, naturally, there has to be something wrong with the city hall purchase.  Here's a thought, Wrinkle:  instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on an audit of the OTC purchase, why don't we just ignore your whackadoodle advice for free?

You used to be kind of fun.
Who, besides you, said anything about an audit?

[Chicken Little]

Great!  Then I assume you can explain how we collected MORE money this year in several categories and still have a multi-million dollar budget shortfall.  "There's a recession" would work as a great excuse if the revenues were down - but they aren't.

To me it seems simple:  we anticipated an increase that was twice what could realistically be expected. 

Wouldn't it be prudent to budget for NO increase or a very modest increase and then if/when we had a surplus we could spend it?   

Yes, I can offer a good reason for the shortfall...the city took in less revenue than projected due to declining retail sales.   

What do you or I know about what was a "realistic" projection a year ago?  I can tell you though, I can think of some decent reasons why the projections would be higher than 2007 collections:  1) the December 2007 ice storm was a big hit, 2) hundreds of thousands of square feet of retail opened at Tulsa Hills, and 3) the budget was completed months before the meltdown, which was in September 2008. 

Things were looking a lot rosier a year ago than they are today.  And although collections were decent through the end of last year, it was only a matter of time before the recession caught up with us.  It has now, and based on May sales tax collections, it looks as if this next year is going to suck.

And no, it's not prudent to budget higher or lower than your projections.  Budget too high and you are laying off people, putting holds on projects, etc.  Budget to0 low and the surplus gets spent on something you didn't expect...and probably something not well thought out.

[Chicken Little]

You used to be kind of fun.
Who, besides you, said anything about an audit?

"performance review"...that's personnel and/or productivity.  I think you mean a financial review, aka audit of some kind.  Regardless of the terminology, when's the last time something like that cost the taxpayers less than $100,000?  Why jump out and dump a bundle on a study when the reasons for their problems are so painfully obvious...and beyond their control?

Believe me, I'm still fun.  What's really tedious is this endless stream of half-baked conspiracy and half-truths.  Maybe y'all should try using more than half your brain.

[cannon_fodder]

Yes, I can offer a good reason for the shortfall...the city took in less revenue than projected due to declining retail sales. 

Either you didn't read the article you cited, or you aren't being honest. 

Link Article Headline:

Tulsa area suburbs hit by plunging sales tax revenues

It mentions Jenks, Skiatook, Sapulpa, Bixby, Muskogee, Claremore, Broken Arrow, and even Oklahoma City.  That article doesn't mention Tulsa at all.  So I agree that the suburbs have seen an annual drop in sale tax revenue and it explains well why they would have budget problems.  But it has been referenced that Tulsa is UP for the year . . . so that article is off base.

What do you or I know about what was a "realistic" projection a year ago? 

Per Wrinkle, they budgeted an 8% increase in revenue when the historical trend is a 2-3% increase.  To me, tripling the statistical expected revenue increase isn't realistic.  Particularly when everyone has known for a couple years that hard times were coming (remember the presidential primaries were about the economy even).  If this information is incorrect, please educate me.  I admit to being lazy in my research here.

If you received a raise every year that varied between -4% to +8% and averaged 2-3%, would you ever make your annual budget to PLAN for the 8% raise?  Of course not.  Unless it wasn't your money or your job you were playing with.

[Chicken Little]

Either you didn't read the article you cited, or you aren't being honest. 

And either you are acting thick or you are thick.  Here...8.1% down for May

When Tulsa officials received their May sales-tax check, which was down 8.1 percent, Mayor Kathy Taylor announced that her $578 million proposed budget would have to be trimmed an additional $7 million to $10 million because of lower revenue projections for the upcoming fiscal year.

But it has been referenced that Tulsa is UP for the year . . . so that article is off base.

Up over last year, but still below projections.  That's what a budget shortfall is.

Per Wrinkle, they budgeted an 8% increase in revenue when the historical trend is a 2-3% increase.  To me, tripling the statistical expected revenue increase isn't realistic.

I listed my theories why they would expect higher revenue, i.e. 2007 ice storm, 2008 Tulsa Hills, and pre-meltdown.  

I admit to being lazy in my research here.

Not the first time.  Nor is it the first time you have cast judgment based solely on your 20/20 hindsight.  You listed some new savings and revenue sources.  You know why they don't fill in the gaps?  Because they don't bring in $18 million a month like sales tax does.  When sales tax takes a dump, so does Tulsa, plain and simple.  And why did sales tax take a dump?  The recession. 

If you received a raise every year that varied between -4% to +8% and averaged 2-3%, would you ever make your annual budget to PLAN for the 8% raise?  Of course not.  Unless it wasn't your money or your job you were playing with.

It's not the same. Cities are required to spend down end-of-year surpluses...there's no slack.  Compounding this, sales tax fluctuates wildly even in normal times (ice storm, a plant closing, someone puts a nickel in a piggy bank instead of buying a piece of gum, etc.). 

So the city has to hit a bullet with a bullet every year.  And they missed this year.  A whole lot of people missed this year...that's why it's a recession.  Based on the factors I listed, I think it's pretty reasonable and realistic for them to have aimed higher last year, but you disagree based on personal experience or some such.  Okay, fine.  I don't have any personal experience, but I can read and try to find out.  What really p8sses me off is that you assume they did something irresponsible...and wrinkle goes further and thinks there's a conspiracy.  That's just dumb stuff.

[Rico]

CL I applaud you.. You have staved off the impending wrath of possibly another "Friendly Bear".

Conspiracy is a term not taken lightly on this board. Many have vanished never to be seen or heard from again by the nasty "C" word.

I, personally, see no conspiracy in the agenda of this administration, either past or present.

I see "business as usual".  Although, after reading your posts, I have to wonder if the amount of money spent on financial advise and economic solutions, by this administration, was worth more than we received.

In the, now infamous, Council Committee meeting where Councilor Martinson and Mayor Taylor had their little spat. There was one statement that should have received more attention.

"Discretionary spending"

I have a few questions regarding "discretionary spending".

1. How much is "Discretionary spending" ?

2. How much of  discretionary spending is directly tied to "Executive Order" contracts. (contracts made between the City of Tulsa and private parties or organizations that require only the Mayor's signature and no other ratification)

As I understand these contracts they are vacated each time the Mayor's office changes occupants and must be re-established or canceled  by the incoming Mayor.

Is it part of an open and transparent review, of expenditures, for these "discretionary" items to be laid out and at least examined, modified, temporarily suspended, etc. to lessen the impact of "Sales Tax" shortfalls?

I heard a tearful story of how these harsh economic times had affected one Tulsa native. He had made acquisitions of very large amounts of what some would call little more than junk. Used cardboard, empty aluminum cans, plastics of all shapes and sizes, and.... lo and behold the market value of these products plummeted.
While some were content to say "he should have known better to wager so high on junk" I realized the, recession,  had not only reached Tulsa but we were in danger of it taking everything we hold dear.

This story, while hard to read, because of the immense impact it has on so many lives.... Makes me believe that maybe the City of Tulsa has vested itself a little bit too heavy in "junk".
Anytime you spend so much money on the advise and aid to make money.... and wind up so far in the hole. Something needs to change.

No Conspiracy.... Just some very poor decisions.

By the way CL have any money on the Belmont?

[RecycleMichael]

I heard a tearful story of how these harsh economic times had affected one Tulsa native. He had made acquisitions of very large amounts of what some would call little more than junk. Used cardboard, empty aluminum cans, plastics of all shapes and sizes, and.... lo and behold the market value of these products plummeted.

That guy is an idiot. Landfills, that's where the real future of Tulsa is.

[Wilbur]

It's not the same. Cities are required to spend down end-of-year surpluses...there's no slack.  Compounding this, sales tax fluctuates wildly even in normal times (ice storm, a plant closing, someone puts a nickel in a piggy bank instead of buying a piece of gum, etc.). 

I would be curious if you can cite the statute that requires city governments to 'spend down end-of-year surpluses."  If I understand your sentence correctly, no government is allowed to have left over money at the end of the year, regardless of more/less revenue and/or more/less expenditures.