He says they would be better off raising taxes on their own.
Cities should "cut out the middle man" and pursue their own visions rather than voters approving the $748.8 million Tulsa County Vision2 tax proposal, an opponent of the effort said Wednesday.
"What I propose is that we would raise our own tax to replace Vision 2025 when it expires so the overall tax rate would remain the same but the money would be flowing into the city of Tulsa to pay for city of Tulsa needs," blogger and Republican activist Michael Bates said at a Leadership Tulsa luncheon.
"The outlying communities could do the same thing."
But Tulsa County Commissioner John Smaligo, speaking in favor of Vision2, which will be on the Nov. 6 ballot, said communities wanted to come together for a "regional outlook."
"They wanted to work with one another and have a regional cooperation on quality-of-life issues," said Smaligo, a Republican.
As Vision2 is structured, Bates said, the seven largest municipalities in the county would be donors to the package based on their sales-tax strength.
For example, he said, the city of Tulsa is allocated $158 million for quality-of-life improvements in Vision2, but if it had its own 13-year tax, it would generate roughly $553 million.
Even adding in the $254 million in Vision2 for airport industrial park improvements, which would benefit tenants such as American Airlines, the city's share falls about $140 million short, Bates said.
Broken Arrow has a $44 million Vision2 share but could have at least double that with its own tax, he said. The same can be said for several other cities.
"Ultimately, it's the municipalities that pick up your trash, keep your streets paved and keep your house from burning down," Bates said. "County government has its role, but that's not what it does."
Smaligo said he initially favored pursing a package that dealt only with the airport improvements because of the American Airlines bankruptcy urgency and the desire by leaders to save jobs.
"But we heard from all of the municipalities, including the city of Tulsa and their representatives from City Council, and they said we wanted quality of life addressed in this if we're going to renew Vision 2025," he said.
Bates' suggestion of each city going on its own, Smaligo said, would leave many needs out in the cold.
"You're ignoring an investment into the infrastructure at our regional airport," he said.
"You're also ignoring a job-closing fund that all communities can use to recruit businesses to their communities."
The needs of the county, which has a $92 million share of Vision2, also would be left behind, Smaligo said.
The county projects that would be funded include a new juvenile justice center and improvements to the countywide park system, among others, he said.
Bates countered that the city could decide to fund airport industrial park improvements with its own tax. Also, the county has its own revenue sources to pursue its projects, he added.
The two sparred a bit over the deal-closing fund, which totals $53 million, but revenue projections have shown it could easily triple since it doesn't have a cap.
Bates said the city of Tulsa would be underrepresented on the authority that would dole out the money, with one vote out of seven.
Read more from this Tulsa World article at
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=717&articleid=20121025_11_A8_CUTLIN121300
