Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details

[Conan71]

Sounds like the south Tulsa dam will be funded by Tulsa sales tax, but will benefit Jenks and the Creek Nation.  Fabulous idea.  If you're Jenks or the casino.

Instead, we could fund the Elm Creek flood remediation plan.  It's crazy when you look at the flood maps of areas east and south of downtown, and realize how much land is unavailable for development because it's in the flood plain.  With this one simple fix, you could open up hundreds of parcels of land in desperate need of redevelopment.  Tons of opportunity to turn vacant or horribly underutilized land into productive, tax-generating space. It would benefit local property owners who can't sell their land b/c it's in the flood plain.  It would help developers who want to create good, walkable places conveniently near downtown.  It would help "connect the dots" between various historic neighborhoods.  And it would solve the flooding problem.

Why is this opportunity ignored so completely?  

Because it makes perfect sense?

[TheArtist]

Sounds like the south Tulsa dam will be funded by Tulsa sales tax, but will benefit Jenks and the Creek Nation.  Fabulous idea.  If you're Jenks or the casino.

Instead, we could fund the Elm Creek flood remediation plan.  It's crazy when you look at the flood maps of areas east and south of downtown, and realize how much land is unavailable for development because it's in the flood plain.  With this one simple fix, you could open up hundreds of parcels of land in desperate need of redevelopment.  Tons of opportunity to turn vacant or horribly underutilized land into productive, tax-generating space. It would benefit local property owners who can't sell their land b/c it's in the flood plain.  It would help developers who want to create good, walkable places conveniently near downtown.  It would help "connect the dots" between various historic neighborhoods.  And it would solve the flooding problem.

Why is this opportunity ignored so completely?  

I would MUCH rather do what you have laid out there than the dams in the river.  Would have a much larger positive economic and improved lifestyle impact on the city.

[SXSW]

I would MUCH rather do what you have laid out there than the dams in the river.  Would have a much larger positive economic and improved lifestyle impact on the city.

Agree, Hopefully it can make it into a future package.  Get the dams passed and out of the way and then some of these ancillary proposals such as Elm and Crow Creek redevelopment can begin to gain more public support. 

[Conan71]

Agree, Hopefully it can make it into a future package.  Get the dams passed and out of the way and then some of these ancillary proposals such as Elm and Crow Creek redevelopment can begin to gain more public support. 

Honestly, I think they could have had better public support than dams in the river if anyone in a leadership position would have latched onto the concepts and worked it out like they have the dams.  Even after two or so years of studies on the dams, there's still no demonstrated economic benefit to them.

[AquaMan]

Conan, the dams have very little to do with demonstrated economic benefit. The one thing I have learned about development in Tulsa, and the Riverparks specifically, is that the powers lean towards large concepts backed with known players and/or corporate identity. We don't tend to grow organically. Thus we are slow to grow new players in their group.

This forum tends to measure success by local grass roots involvement leading to smart, planned growth. We find it easier to talk to small businessmen like the Artist or Blake because they are hands on managers. Or planners like Ponder. We speak the same language. 

Power measures success in different terms: national franchises attracted, large single source retail tax development, deep pocket foundation support, political support and corporate involvement. They find it easier to talk to board members, commercial developers and other players. Hence, they like Crossland, Flintco, Casinos, Outlet Malls etc. Cherry Street wasn't successful til they rid it of the organics and brought in a Chipotle. They talk the same language.

We have different goals as well. If they can get the taxpayer to carry the heavy load to achieve their goals, then ours are inconsequential.

[ElTurnado]

Wow!  Tons of proposed changes today at Vision meeting.  Taking Public Safety off the ballot.  Tossing out Transportation hub.  Removing funding for Langston.
Bynum offered to take money from the river package to help fund Rawspace. 

[Townsend]

Wow!  Tons of proposed changes today at Vision meeting.  Taking Public Safety off the ballot.  Tossing out Transportation hub.  Removing funding for Langston.
Bynum offered to take money from the river package to help fund Rawspace. 

Anyone have specifics?

[PonderInc]

Kevin Canfield is tweeting about this.  Sounds like more meetings on Tuesday at 5 & 7 pm in city council chambers.  Lots of talk of cutting things, but no decisions yet.

[ElTurnado]

So is Jarrel Wade, @JWPrairieDog

[Tulsasaurus Rex]

Lol no, Canfield is tweeting about something else.  The funding of "Ross Base."

https://twitter.com/KCFrontier

[cannon_fodder]

Lol no, Canfield is tweeting about something else.  The funding of "Ross Base."

https://twitter.com/KCFrontier

He sent out a correcting tweet minutes later. The guy does some pretty good reporting, but when you are trying to live tweet things go south sometimes...

[patric]

Wow!  Tons of proposed changes today at Vision meeting.  Taking Public Safety off the ballot. 

Its looking like that will end up as a separate tax rather than a separate V2025 ballot issue.

[Conan71]

Vision 2025 proposal in flux as councilors ponder public safety funding

"It doesn't matter where the money comes from. It just matters that we can keep this city safe, and we know what we need to do," said Clay Ballenger, president of Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 93.

Council pic Vision 2016-01-21 at 1.12.21 PM
City councilors discuss the city's Vision 2025 proposal at City Hall Thursday. Pictured, left to right, are councilors G.T. Bynum, Phil Lakin, Anna America, Connie Dodson and Karen Gilbert. KEVIN CANFIELD/The Frontier
Talks on a new Vision 2025 package took a sharp and unexpected turn Thursday, with City Councilor Karen Gilbert proposing that the city look into finding an alternate funding source for public safety.

Gilbert made her suggestion after City Engineer Paul Zachary presented an analysis showing that the city's proposed Vision 2025 renewal package would leave Tulsa without funding for major street rehabilitation projects and other capital improvements from fiscal years 2020 through 2023.

The city's Vision proposal includes $320 million for public safety, $60 million for transit, $177 million for dams and other infrastructure in the Arkansas River, and the remainder for economic development projects.

"If there is another option that we could possibly use to fund public safety, which we also know is a need in the city, then let's hold off and cool our jets a little bit and see what other options are out there," Gilbert said.

Approximately $135 million a year in funding for capital improvements would be lost from fiscal years 2020 to 2023 if the existing Vision proposal went into effect, Zachary told councilors.

Other capital improvements that would be cut or reduced in those years include replacement of guardrails, maintenance of Police and Fire department facilities and construction of sidewalks, according to Zachary's report.

The cuts and reductions would be necessary because the $1.1 billion Vision package being considered by city leaders calls for capturing the Improve Our Tulsa revenue stream once it expires and using it to pay for Vision projects.

The existing countywide Vision 2025 program is funded through a 0.6 percent sales tax. Area municipalities announced last year they were going to disband the countywide Vision program and come up with their own renewal packages.

The city's plan calls for renewing 0.55 percent of the 0.6 percent Vision sales tax within the city of Tulsa. Funding for public safety (0.2 percent) and transit (0.5 percent) would be permanent taxes, with the remaining 0.3 percent a 15-year tax.

In addition, nearly all of the Improve Our Tulsa sales tax — commonly known as the third-penny sales tax — would be extended for two years no later than July 2021. The Improve Our Tulsa general obligation bonds would be extended three years, beginning in 2020.

Zachary told councilors that capturing Improve Our Tulsa revenue after the package expires and diverting it to the Vision renewal package would lower the the city's Pavement Condition Index, which measures the condition of the streets.

Reallocating that funding would result in the score for arterial streets dropping from 68 in 2021 to 60 in 2025. The score for non-arterial streets would drop from 65 in 2019 to 57 in 2025, according to Zachary's analysis.

The city's stated goal when proposing the $918 million Improve Our Tulsa package was to get the Pavement Condition Index for arterial and non-arterial to 64 by 2019, Zachary said.

When asked after the meeting how much money it would take to keep the city's scores at the level they are projected to be when the Improve Our Tulsa sales tax and bond programs end, Zachary estimated $344 million.

Above is the list of ongoing capital improvement needs the city would not have funding for if the current Vision 2025 sales tax proposal were approved. The city would be without $135 million annually from 2020 to 2023. PROVIDED
Above is the list of ongoing capital improvement needs the city would not have funding for if the current Vision 2025 sales tax proposal were approved. The city would be without $135 million annually from 2020 to 2023. PROVIDED
Complicating matters further is the city's effort to come up with nearly $44 million for Expo Square and a entrepreneurial center for manufacturers.

In all, the city could be looking at hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts in the Vision proposal if another funding proposal can't be worked out.

Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 93 President Clay Ballenger said he's confident the City Council and Mayor Dewey Bartlett will come up with a way to fund the city's public safety needs.

"It doesn't matter where the money comes from," Ballenger said. "It just matters that we can keep this city safe, and we know what we need to do."

Bartlett said he would not support any reconfiguration of the Vision proposal that results in a tax increase.

"I think a tax increase is a death sentence for the (Vision) concept," Bartlett said.

Gilbert said that as far as she is concerned, everything is on the table when it comes to funding public safety  — including a tax increase.

"I think we owe it to the citizens to do what we can to make sure we're doing this properly," she said.

City Councilor Blake Ewing may have done the best job of anyone at Thursday's day-long meeting in describing the predicament the city finds itself in.

"I think there is a general sense in the public that Vision was for big new ideas, third penny was for maintenance and upkeep, the general fund was for year-to-year maintenance and operations.

"Because there hasn't been a political will to increase the revenue at any point with a tax increase, we've shuffled things that might have been in operations — from what I'm hearing today — into third penny and general obligation bonds. We have shuffled things that ... might have been in general obligation bonds into Vision.

"And then, instead of using Vision for the big, fancy stuff, we are lopping off part of Vision to take care of operations. Do we see the vicious cycle?"

Councilors voted to continue Thursday's meeting until 5 p.m. Tuesday. The meeting will take place in the City Council chambers. Councilors also plan to call for a separate special meeting at 7 p.m. the same day to address any other matters that not addressed on Thursday's agenda.

https://www.readfrontier.com/vision-2025-proposal-in-flux-as-councilors-ponder-public-safety-funding/

[PonderInc]

Perhaps we should focus our attention on changing state law, so that property taxes can be used for municipal operations. 

That way, we wouldn't be 100% reliant on an unpredictable, regressive tax to run our city.  And we would suddenly have an incentive to care about land use planning, not just sales tax whoring.  Once we start caring about intelligent land use, we would make more productive use of the land within our city.  By increasing the productivity of the land (for example, not wasting 2/3 of our commercial space on surface parking), property values would go up which would increase funding for schools.  Which would make Tulsa a more desirable place to live, which would bring more people and jobs to Tulsa, which would increase tax revenues...

[Conan71]

Perhaps we should focus our attention on changing state law, so that property taxes can be used for municipal operations. 

That way, we wouldn't be 100% reliant on an unpredictable, regressive tax to run our city.  And we would suddenly have an incentive to care about land use planning, not just sales tax whoring.  Once we start caring about intelligent land use, we would make more productive use of the land within our city.  By increasing the productivity of the land (for example, not wasting 2/3 of our commercial space on surface parking), property values would go up which would increase funding for schools.  Which would make Tulsa a more desirable place to live, which would bring more people and jobs to Tulsa, which would increase tax revenues...

I think we worked it out before, it's technically 65%, but who's counting 

The issues you brought up NEED to be a primary focus of this next mayoral campaign.  Bartlet (sic) claimed at the town hall last Weds. at TCC he's actually either doing something about changing the municipal funding mechanism or is planning to.   If I understood correctly, one thing he referenced was trying to harness sales tax on internet purchases.  It was also mentioned that Tulsa's sales tax remittance has been relatively flat for 30 years.

I call that fiscal insanity.  We've been doing the same thing over and over and the net result has not changed in 30 years.  The national internet sales tax initiative is DOA unless someone can figure out a way to A) Make it compulsory for everyone; B) Make it enforceable; C) Come up with a simplified method for small businesses to track, calculate, and remit the proper sales tax to literally thousands of taxing authorities or at the very least the 40-some-odd states that have sales tax.  I own an on-line retail business and the idea of tracking, ensuring we collect the correct % for the state and city or county is daunting.

Whomever the next mayor is, they need to make lobbying for a change in municipal funding one of their top three priorities and they need to be held to that.  If it were me, I'd make that my economic development director's primary function lobbying for that change until it happens.  We simply cannot cheap-sell our way to prosperity with retail projects which do not import enough sales tax dollars to produce a noticeable gain in revenue.

The problem we have in this is exactly what Bartlet (sic) is afraid of with the public safety tax and what every GOP legislator in Oklahoma is afraid of: "tax increases".  Whether it's personal income-based or property tax-based they don't want to be labeled with raising taxes even if it means abolishing one method of funding for another they still consider it an increase even if the net cost is negligible to most people.