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

[Oil Capital]

Aside from the question of whether projecting an 8% increase in revenue was prudent...  We don't need a new study or audit to tell us the city hall move has not turned out as well as advertised, financially.

First, we haven't attained any of the promised revenues from sales of the surplus land and buildings, all of which we were repeatedly told were very valuable.  So far, nothing sold, just additional maintenance costs and marketing costs.

Second, the study that was used to justify the move, if read even somewhat carefully, told us that operating costs in OTC would be HIGHER than in the replaced facilities.  (They engaged in a little sleight-of-hand to come up with favorable numbers by including deferred city hall maintenance costs as part of the operating costs of the old city hall and thus compared operating and capital costs of the old buildings with only operating costs in the new building.)

[Chicken Little]

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.

Dude, you are the one that works for a city.  And since you guys are required to have a bachelors degree, I'm guessing that you have probably had at least one governmental accounting class.

Nevertheless, in the interest of ensuring that TNF remains content rich, and does not devolve into a collection of bloviating fools, I have attempted to do your research for you.  The proposed City budget for 2009-2010 is here.  Section 10 - Appendix, contains the following:

2. OPERATING BUDGET
a. The City of Tulsa shall comply with the provisions
of the Oklahoma Municipal Budget Act, 11 O.S.
Supp. 1979, Sections 17-201 through 17-216. It shall
be the responsibility of the Mayor through the Department
of Finance to ensure compliance and the
timely preparation of the City of Tulsa's annual
budget.
b. The budget will provide for adequate maintenance of
the capital plant and equipment and for their orderly
replacement.
c. The City will maintain a budgetary control system to
help it adhere to the budget.
d. The City administration will prepare regular reports
comparing actual revenues and expenditures to
budgeted amounts.
e. Each year the City will update revenue and expenditure
projections for the next five years. Projections
will include estimated operating costs of future capital
improvements that are included in the capital
budget.
f. The City will integrate key performance measurement
and productivity indicators within the budget.
g. The City will project its equipment replacement and
maintenance needs for the next several years and
will update this projection each year. From this projection
a maintenance and replacement schedule
will be developed and followed.
h. It shall be the goal of the City that current operating
revenues will be sufficient to support current operating
expenses and in no case shall more than five
percent (5%) of the operating budget be supported
by the use of prior year's fund balances.
i. Adjustments to Water, Sewer, Stormwater, and Solid
Waste Disposal service rates and fees shall be examined
on an annual basis as an integral part of the
City's budgetary process.

So, yeah, they can't just take a fund balance and roll it into a savings account for later use.  Your welcome to add information.

[Chicken Little]

Aside from the question of whether projecting an 8% increase in revenue was prudent...  We don't need a new study or audit to tell us the city hall move has not turned out as well as advertised, financially.

First, we haven't attained any of the promised revenues from sales of the surplus land and buildings, all of which we were repeatedly told were very valuable.  So far, nothing sold, just additional maintenance costs and marketing costs.

Second, the study that was used to justify the move, if read even somewhat carefully, told us that operating costs in OTC would be HIGHER than in the replaced facilities.  (They engaged in a little sleight-of-hand to come up with favorable numbers by including deferred city hall maintenance costs as part of the operating costs of the old city hall and thus compared operating and capital costs of the old buildings with only operating costs in the new building.)

How is deferred maintenance "sleight of hand"?  If the building you are in is about to cave in on you, then you should either abandon it or fix it.  Whether they used operating funds or rolled the money into a capital bond issue like the 3rd Penny, it'd still cost taxpayers the same to fix it, right?

On the new building, the purchase and the capital improvements were covered by the $76 million revenue bond, right?  What else is left to do?  The building is relatively new, right?  Just because the rent covers the cost of the improvements in this case doesn't mean that something evil is going on.  Honestly, guys...I thought you conservatives liked free enterprise.  I guess not.

I totally agree with you on the surplus buildings though.  I'm outraged, OUTRAGED, O-U-T-R-A-G-E-D! that those buildings haven't sold yet...at full price...in the middle of a recession.  Grow up, man.

[Wilbur]

h. It shall be the goal of the City that current operating
revenues will be sufficient to support current operating
expenses and in no case shall more than five
percent (5%) of the operating budget be supported
by the use of prior year's fund balances.

You're going to have us believe 'shall be the goal' means the city is prohibited from having left over money?  That is quite the stretch, and certainly not a mandate in any legal sense.

[Chicken Little]

You're going to have us believe 'shall be the goal' means the city is prohibited from having left over money?  That is quite the stretch, and certainly not a mandate in any legal sense.

Oh, give me a break.  I provide something tangible to back up what I'm saying and you rely solely on your gut.  Pay particular attention to the second half of that sentence.  I'll admit that I was 5% wrong if you'll admit that you are 95% full of beans.  Go ahead and argue with a piece of paper...it makes you look incredibly smart.

[Oil Capital]

How is deferred maintenance "sleight of hand"?  If the building you are in is about to cave in on you, then you should either abandon it or fix it.  Whether they used operating funds or rolled the money into a capital bond issue like the 3rd Penny, it'd still cost taxpayers the same to fix it, right?

On the new building, the purchase and the capital improvements were covered by the $76 million revenue bond, right?  What else is left to do?  The building is relatively new, right?  Just because the rent covers the cost of the improvements in this case doesn't mean that something evil is going on.  Honestly, guys...I thought you conservatives liked free enterprise.  I guess not.

I totally agree with you on the surplus buildings though.  I'm outraged, OUTRAGED, O-U-T-R-A-G-E-D! that those buildings haven't sold yet...at full price...in the middle of a recession.  Grow up, man.

It's sleight of hand for the very reason I already said.  They compared capital costs + operating costs of the old building to just the operating costs of the new building.  That masked the FACT that the projected operating costs in the new city hall are actually HIGHER than were the projected operating costs in the old buildings.

[Oil Capital]

Oh, give me a break.  I provide something tangible to back up what I'm saying and you rely solely on your gut.  Pay particular attention to the second half of that sentence.  I'll admit that I was 5% wrong if you'll admit that you are 95% full of beans.  Go ahead and argue with a piece of paper...it makes you look incredibly smart.

Dude, you just completely DISproved your own premise.  You told us that the city was required to spend all of its money each year, carrying over none.  That is, by your own evidence, absolutely 100% false. 

[Chicken Little]

It's sleight of hand for the very reason I already said.  They compared capital costs + operating costs of the old building to just the operating costs of the new building.  That masked the FACT that the projected operating costs in the new city hall are actually HIGHER than were the projected operating costs in the old buildings.

I think you are ascribing motive where none exists.  In the new city hall, what are the capital costs not covered by the revenue bonds?  That's the bottom line, isn't it?  The cost to the taxpayer?  Apples to apples.

If those additional capital costs don't exist, they don't exist.  Would you have been okay if they had put in a column called 'capital costs not covered' and then stuck a zero under it?  That seems pedantic, but hey, if it keeps you from cooking up conspiracies, maybe it's worth it.

[Chicken Little]

Dude, you just completely DISproved your own premise.  You told us that the city was required to spend all of its money each year, carrying over none.  That is, by your own evidence, absolutely 100% false. 

Now this is really pedantic.  What I said was:

Cities are required to spend down end-of-year surpluses...there's no slack.

Based on the evidence that I actually looked up for you and provided, I'm 95% right:

h. It shall be the goal of the City that current operating
revenues will be sufficient to support current operating
expenses and in no case shall more than five
percent (5%) of the operating budget be supported
by the use of prior year's fund balances.

They can't have a mandate to hit the nail on the head every year because sales tax is volatile; it goes up and down unpredictably (unlike property tax, which is a solid and predictable number).  Nevertheless, their goal is to try and hit the nail on the head every year.

And to reinforce that goal, they limit themselves to no more than a 5% carryover.  So, what happens if the surplus is greater than 5%?  They have to spend it down...fix a street or something.  What's the point in having the money if you can't spend it?

My premise is correct, and I'm 95% right on the details.  And I can even tell you why they have that goal.  It's to keep them from running up the budget and then turning back to us and crying about not being able to cover the bills and demanding a tax hike.  Go ahead and spend the extra in a good year, but don't abuse the situation and use it to jack with the taxpayer the next year.

I think you are taking this personally, and it's probably because I'm antagonizing you guys with comments like "try using more than half your brains", and "Grow up." I could be nicer, and I will be, when you guys start trying to understand how things work, and stop thinking with your guts.  Not everything that confuses you is a conspiracy...and that's easy to understand.

And by the way, I really do like you guys, I just think it sucks when you decide to revel in your own ignorance.  It's nothing to be proud of, and it holds us all back.

[Oil Capital]

Now this is really pedantic.  What I said was:Based on the evidence that I actually looked up for you and provided, I'm 95% right:They can't have a mandate to hit the nail on the head every year because sales tax is volatile; it goes up and down unpredictably (unlike property tax, which is a solid and predictable number).  Nevertheless, their goal is to try and hit the nail on the head every year.

And to reinforce that goal, they limit themselves to no more than a 5% carryover.  So, what happens if the surplus is greater than 5%?  They have to spend it down...fix a street or something.  What's the point in having the money if you can't spend it?

My premise is correct, and I'm 95% right on the details.  And I can even tell you why they have that goal.  It's to keep them from running up the budget and then turning back to us and crying about not being able to cover the bills and demanding a tax hike.  Go ahead and spend the extra in a good year, but don't abuse the situation and use it to jack with the taxpayer the next year.

I think you are taking this personally, and it's probably because I'm antagonizing you guys with comments like "try using more than half your brains", and "Grow up." I could be nicer, and I will be, when you guys start trying to understand how things work, and stop thinking with your guts.  Not everything that confuses you is a conspiracy...and that's easy to understand.

That is one of the lamest excuses ever.  There is no "95% right".  Your statement was flat-out wrong.  Not true.  False.  Incorrect.    The truth is, completely, 100% contrary to what you stated:  Cities are not required to "spend down end-of-year surpluses."

[Oil Capital]

I think you are ascribing motive where none exists.  In the new city hall, what are the capital costs not covered by the revenue bonds?  That's the bottom line, isn't it?  The cost to the taxpayer?  Apples to apples.

If those additional capital costs don't exist, they don't exist.  Would you have been okay if they had put in a column called 'capital costs not covered' and then stuck a zero under it?  That seems pedantic, but hey, if it keeps you from cooking up conspiracies, maybe it's worth it.

I am talking about the OPERATING COSTS.  The "study" they had done showed that the operating costs in the new city hall would EXCEED the operating costs in the old facilities. 

You are content to take them at their word that the "capital costs don't exist" and will never exist.  Me, not so much.  I would love to see a full financial report of the full costs of the move, remodeling of the building, purchase price, financing costs, and lease revenues.  Any chance you know where one could find that?

[Chicken Little]

That is one of the lamest excuses ever.  There is no "95% right".  Your statement was flat-out wrong.  Not true.  False.  Incorrect.    The truth is, completely, 100% contrary to what you stated:  Cities are not required to "spend down end-of-year surpluses."

That bit from the Oklahoma Municipal Budgeting Act Edit: City of Tulsa Financial Policies proves that they can't carry over a surplus greater than 5%.  I invited Wilbur to argue with a piece of paper, and I invite you to do the same...it makes you look stupid.

Nevertheless, you seem 100% sure of yourself.  So, what is the truth, Oil Capital?  "I don't know but and I'm unwilling to figure it out...but not that", is an unacceptable answer.  Knock us out with your research skills.  Make a case.  Something, anyway.

[Chicken Little]

I am talking about the OPERATING COSTS.  The "study" they had done showed that the operating costs in the new city hall would EXCEED the operating costs in the old facilities. 

You are content to take them at their word that the "capital costs don't exist" and will never exist.  Me, not so much.  I would love to see a full financial report of the full costs of the move, remodeling of the building, purchase price, financing costs, and lease revenues.  Any chance you know where one could find that?

And I can totally see how the operating costs on the old dump has repairs rolled into it.  I don't think it's necessarily a conspiracy...or sleight of hand.

I think you are probably chasing your tail, but fine.  I know exactly how to get the information you seek:  file an Open Records request...and you should probably copy your councilor.  Man, don't you read batesline?
   

So it's important for ordinary citizens concerned about the way government is being run to educate themselves on their rights and the government's responsibilities.

Like I said, it's not your point of view so much as your willful ignorance that bugs me.

[Oil Capital]

That bit from the Oklahoma Municipal Budgeting Act proves that they can't carry over a surplus greater than 5%.  I invited Wilbur to argue with a piece of paper, and I invite you to do the same...it makes you look stupid.

Nevertheless, you seem 100% sure of yourself.  So, what is the truth, Oil Capital?  "I don't know but and I'm unwilling to figure it out...but not that", is an unacceptable answer.  Knock us out with your research skills.  Make a case.  Something, anyway.

ROFL.   No further research necessary, man.  You've already done it and proved beyond argument that you were wrong.  Very simple.  Cities are NOT required to spend down end-of-year surpluses.   In fact, where it is addressed in the state statute at all, it says very simply "Any fund balance remaining in a fund at the end of the fiscal year shall be carried forward to the credit of the fund for the next fiscal year"

And you need to read the information you posted again.  It does NOT in any way disallow carrying forward surpluses greater than 5%.  It says that no more than 5% of the current years' expenditures shall be funded with funds brought forward.  It says nothing whatsoever about what percentage of the prior years funds can remain unspent and be carried forward.  Simply put, there is no limit on the percentage of a year's funds that can remain unspent and be carried forward.

[Chicken Little]

Cities are NOT required to spend down end-of-year surpluses.

Tulsa is, as previously noted [edited].  Argue with a piece of paper, man.