Should City of Tulsa annex Expo Square?

[perspicuity85]

Here's an interesting article from Micheal Bates:
http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A15426

Maybe this could alleviate some of the Bell's problems.

[perspicuity85]

If you haven't seen it, there is a poll under the opinion section of this forum.

http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5480

[Trams]

And two new county commissioners oppose the annexation.

New leaders oppose annexation
By KEVIN CANFIELD World Staff Writer
12/9/2006

The two incoming county commissioners say they object to a proposal for Tulsa to annex Expo Square.

Incoming County Commissioners Fred Perry and John Smaligo on Friday stated their objections to a proposal to have the city annex Expo Square.

"Why would we want to tinker with what is already working?" Smaligo asked in a joint press release from the newly elected officials.

He added that Expo Square has been estimated to have a $100 million annual economic impact on the metropolitan region.

"The attraction for many consumers is that the big-ticket items can be purchased at a lower tax rate," Smaligo said.

Expo Square patrons now pay 5.517 percent in state and county sales taxes. That figure would increase by 3 percent -- the amount of the city's sales tax -- if the city were to annex the 260-acre site.

Perry said it is important that the city and county cooperate on the issue.

"I respectfully believe that city and county officials need to be working together to attract and keep employers to build the tax base rather than eroding each other's revenue sources," he said in the news release.

City Councilor Roscoe Turner made the proposal last month. He continued  

Friday to maintain that annexation makes good economic sense for the city.

"The city is providing water, sewer" and other services, he said, "and we're not getting anything out of it."

Turner dismissed the argument that an additional 3 percent sales tax would hurt business at the fairgrounds.

"People who go out there or go anywhere expect to pay whatever it takes to do whatever is being done," he said.

County Commissioner Randi Miller said she is working with Mayor Kathy Taylor to ensure that no decision on annexation is made without a proper understanding of its potential impact.

"We will work on a cost analysis on this," she said. "I will always do what is in the best interest of the community."

Taylor has vowed that she will make her decision based on what makes the best economic sense for the city. She has ordered a cost analysis to compare the potential sales-tax revenue the city would collect at the fairgrounds with the cost to the city to provide services there.

In a telephone interview late Friday, Smaligo said he and Perry decided to make a statement on the annexation issue now because they will be dealing with whatever decision is made for the next four years.

"We just wanted to make sure the city knows the two new commissioners are opposed to this idea and that they (city officials) should take that into account when making their decision," he said.

Perry won a GOP runoff in August to succeed District 3 Commissioner Bob Dick, who is retiring. Smaligo, a Republican, defeated District 1 Commissioner Wilbert Collins in last month's general election.

The two will be sworn into office in January.

[Trams]

Debate continues on Expo Square annexation
By KEVIN CANFIELD World Staff Writer
12/10/2006

City Councilor Roscoe Turner favors annexation, while two incoming county commissioners oppose it.

Measuring what the city would gain by annexing Expo Square is an inexact science at best.

The short answer, though, is not much. The 260-acre site would still be owned and operated by Tulsa County through its Public Facilities Authority.

The long -- and somewhat difficult to quantify -- answer is cash, in the form of the city's 3 percent sales tax.

City Councilor Roscoe Turner, who initiated discussions on the subject last month, has made it clear that he believes it's time the city received something in return for the infrastructure and other services it provides in and around Expo Square. He has also said he's concerned that Tulsa is losing tax dollars to the suburbs.

Incoming County Commissioners Fred Perry and John Smaligo announced Friday that they oppose the proposed annexation.

Of course, annexation would come with more than the potential for a sales tax windfall. It would also come with an obligation to deliver sometimes costly services at the site, such as law enforcement duties during the Tulsa State Fair.

With those conflicting considerations in mind, Mayor Kathy Taylor  

has asked for a complete financial analysis of the proposal before the matter is considered further.

Paula Ross, spokeswoman for the Oklahoma Tax Commission, said Friday that her agency would be happy to cooperate in any such analysis. But getting specific figures on sales taxes collected at Expo Square could be difficult, she said.

"It's not just going to be a number that's sitting there," she said.

The reason for that is the nature of the fairgrounds business itself, she said.

Expo Square, for example, has a few regular tenants, such as the Tulsa Drillers and Big Splash, whose tax receipts can be linked to the fairgrounds. But the great majority of vendors who do business at Expo Square are there for only a brief time, and their sales taxes are sent directly to the state, providing no easily traceable tie to the fairgrounds.

What is known about Expo Square's finances is this:

Over the past five years, it has reported total revenues ranging from $14,816,406 in fiscal year 2001-02 to $17,046,745 in 2004-05.

Expo Square President and CEO Rick Bjorklund cautioned Friday that those numbers do not reflect the total sales at the fairgrounds. The figures come primarily from admission fees and payments made by vendors for the use of Expo Square space. They do not directly reflect the sales made by those vendors, he said.

"The Expo Square budgetary figures are only a partial picture of the park's economic impact," Bjorklund said.

What he could speak to with more authority, however, was the positive impact the reconstruction and upgrades at the fairgrounds are having on business there.

Millions of dollars of 4 to Fix the County and Vision 2025 funds have been spent on a number of projects, including upgrades to the pavilion, the construction of several new buildings, and an overhaul of the livestock area.

The new look is helping attract new business, Bjorklund said.

"The pavilion is a good example of that," he said. "In November and December last year, there were only a handful of events and no concerts. This year, there have been more, and, in fact, there have been five concerts in the facility."

The question no one has a definitive answer to is whether an additional 3 percent city sales tax -- on top of the 5.517 percent in state and county taxes already being charged at Expo Square -- would have a negative impact on business at the fairgrounds.

That, in the end, could be what makes or breaks the annexation proposal.

[Sangria]

I don't think the city should annex it if the county still has the expense of running it. That's crap.

All that means is the City gets to collect all the tax money from it and the county tax payers will be stuck footing the bills.

Nice for Tulsa - sucks for everyone else.

[carltonplace]

The city would collect sales tax and provide police, fire and other city services (we already do provide these services regularly, plus we pay for the infrastructure around the fairgrounds). What we need to understand is: Will we collect more money in sales tax than we would lose when the fairground's water is reduced to the city rate. My knee-jerk response would be "yes".

[Kiah]

quote:Originally posted by Sangria

I don't think the city should annex it if the county still has the expense of running it. That's crap.

All that means is the City gets to collect all the tax money from it and the county tax payers will be stuck footing the bills.

Nice for Tulsa - sucks for everyone else.

The City of Tulsa provides services for Expo Square, just as it provides services to other businesses within the city.  The city doesn't 'run' Woodland Hills Mall, but collects sales taxes there.  BA doesn't 'run' Bass Pro, but collects sales taxes there.  Imposition of city sales tax won't affect county or state sales taxes, already imposed.

[tim huntzinger]

On the radio, Commissioner-elect Perry was extolling the regional benefits of the County controllng the Fairgrounds, and did not dispute the idea that the City was going bankrupt.

He seemed to be confused regarding who the 'County' is and its role with the V.2025 dispursement process, mainly noting that 'the County' came to the rescue of the City and provided funds for the overbudget Arena.

Inasmuch as the Arena will indisputably lose money for the City, but benefit the County and Region, what will it take for the City to deed the Arena to the County?

[Kiah]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

On the radio, Commissioner-elect Perry was extolling the regional benefits of the County controllng the Fairgrounds, and did not dispute the idea that the City was going bankrupt.

He seemed to be confused regarding who the 'County' is and its role with the V.2025 dispursement process, mainly noting that 'the County' came to the rescue of the City and provided funds for the overbudget Arena.

Interesting.  Last time I looked, citizens of the city of Tulsa make up more than 2/3 of the county population.  The county doesn't (or should I say 'shouldn't'?) do anything without the assent of the citizens of the city of Tulsa.

[tim huntzinger]

And 100% of Tulsans live in the County; in fact, 100% of City Tulsans live in the County.

I understand the concept that the BOK Center is a loss leader for the City, but that it will generate revenues for the region.  Got it.  My point is that if the County sees the benefit of the Center to the tune of a $45M bailout, why should not the County assume all responsibility?

It is not like if the County assumes control of the Center City Tulsans would be barred.  The City would be able to focus its energies and resources into fightin' crime, improving streets, et al.

Furthermore, does Perry even understand the V2025 process? He said 'the County' gave the $45M.  No, it was the V.2025 Authority which voted the dough, was it not?