Annexing the fairgrounds into the city

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

Christainsen to oppose annexation.

From KTUL

quote:Tulsa - A Tulsa City Councilor is voicing his opposition to the City of Tulsa annexing the Tulsa County Fairgrounds.

District 8 Councilor Bill Christiansen says it's his intention to vote against the annexation of the Tulsa County Fairgrounds. The idea was first addressed in November as a plan to save Bell's Amusement Park. But, since then, Bell's has already begun moving out and the plan is now seen as a way to allow the city to share in tax revenues.

"After wrestling for months with the issue of annexation from the perspective of a city councilor, I decided to step back and view the situation with the eyes of a citizen," Christiansen says. "The people want their leaders to work together, but annexation has become a divisive issue that threatens the cooperative working relationship we desire with our friends at the county."

Christiansen says it's his opinion that any benefit the city might get from the annexation of the fairgrounds isn't worth risking that relationship.

"Many of my constituents have expressed concern that they already pay more than enough in taxes and they view annexation as a backhanded tax increase on those who enjoy making purchases at the fairgrounds free of city sales tax."

Christiansen adds those who come to the fairgrounds make other purchases at surrounding restaurants and stores and that annexation would 'remove that enticement' and that businesses would suffer as a result.

As we told you last week, a petition is being circulated by a group called "Stop Annexation". Organizer Dan Hicks says he circulated the petition so city councilors know the people who live here don't want an additional tax at their fairgrounds.

We also spoke with Councilor John Eagleton, who told us that petition could affect the vote.

"The people who have a direct interest in the fairgrounds, who live, are neighbors of the fairgrounds, the citizens of Tulsa, I care deeply about their best interests," Eagleton said.

Councilors are scheduled to meet April fifth to discuss the annexation plan.

The worst part about this petition is Dan Hicks is out there basically lying to people saying the city is levying a new tax.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

The worst part about this petition is Dan Hicks is out there basically lying to people saying the city is levying a new tax.

The problem is that anyone who isn't some kind of nut, isn't going to circulate a petition.  Now, if someone were to circulate a pro-annexation petition, councilors would have something to look at.

Better yet, talk to the Secretary of State, get annexation organized into a referendum.  It's costly and time consuming, but I believe there's a good chance it would pass.

[Double A]

Ooh, snap!

[Conan71]

Now that OTC has revealed it would work out to about $338K (based on $11mm + in sales) in new revenue for the city it's not looking like that great a deal.  Especially if the figure of $500K for TPD to provide security for the fair is accurate.

Somehow though, Roscoe still seems to think it's going to be a $1.1mm bonanza.  His whole point is (loosely paraphrasing) "No one really knows how much it makes."  Well, if the county and state are having a hard time figuring that little question out I don't think the city is going to do much better.

I think Roscoe needs to slink away from this one and let it die.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Now that OTC has revealed it would work out to about $338K (based on $11mm + in sales) in new revenue for the city it's not looking like that great a deal.  Especially if the figure of $500K for TPD to provide security for the fair is accurate.

The city lawyer determined that it was up to the County to provide it's own security.  It's not up to the city, the city won't have to pay for it, the County is spreading misinformation.

The county will still own the property, the county will still run the events, it's no different than a private entity.

From Tulsa World

quote: The council's lawyer says the $500,000 estimated cost should not factor into any annexation decision.


The city would not be obligated to provide security during the Tulsa State Fair if Expo Square were annexed, a cost the city had thought would be about $500,000, city officials say.

City Councilor Roscoe Turner said that means the city would not lose money if it annexed the county fairgrounds, based on a recent estimate from the Oklaho ma Tax Commission that collection of the city's 3 percent sales tax there would amount to only $338,000.

"The county has been telling us from day one that we would have to provide security for their event, and we know that is not true," Turner said.

The $500,000 cost for security was included in a January report commissioned by Mayor Kathy Taylor. The report estimated sales-tax collections ranging from $389,000 to $1.1 million without figuring in the $500,000 for security during the fair.

Budget Director Pat Connelly said the cost for security was included in the report because Tulsa County Sheriff Stanley Glanz said it would be the city's responsibility.

The report stated that the issue of security would have to be resolved
by elected officials.

Turner said it is clear that there is no security cost and that "the $500,000 is really a phantom figure."

He said the $500,000 actually should be looked at as possible additional funds if the county decided to contract with the city for police security.

Council Attorney Drew Rees said he found that the city has no special obligation to provide security for any event at the fairgrounds, including the two-week Tulsa State Fair held each fall.

[Conan71]

There has to be some sort of cost-shift to the city on this.  I get the point the county will not lose any revenue at all.  They will still get their taxes and event fees, but this can't possibly be a free-ride for the city.

I'm just envisioning this: the city pushes through annexation, relying on the city attorney's opinion on security.  Then there is a protracted court battle and the city winds up stuck with security after-all.

[Double A]

The County has been spreading misinformation about this from day one. I saw the newscast last night, (I would have been there, but I had a prior commitment) it looked like a really low turnout, maybe the County is misrepresenting the opposition to this, too.

[Kiah]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

There has to be some sort of cost-shift to the city on this.  I get the point the county will not lose any revenue at all.  They will still get their taxes and event fees, but this can't possibly be a free-ride for the city.

I'm just envisioning this: the city pushes through annexation, relying on the city attorney's opinion on security.  Then there is a protracted court battle and the city winds up stuck with security after-all.

Why would they?  Does the city provide security (security, not law enforcement -- there's a difference) at Promenade Mall?  At St. Francis Hospital?  They're both within city limits.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Kiah

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

There has to be some sort of cost-shift to the city on this.  I get the point the county will not lose any revenue at all.  They will still get their taxes and event fees, but this can't possibly be a free-ride for the city.

I'm just envisioning this: the city pushes through annexation, relying on the city attorney's opinion on security.  Then there is a protracted court battle and the city winds up stuck with security after-all.

Why would they?  Does the city provide security (security, not law enforcement -- there's a difference) at Promenade Mall?  At St. Francis Hospital?  They're both within city limits.

Kiah, that's what I get for taking a news story hook-line-&-sinker w/o fully checking it out.  It's not my normal M.O.  

Seems like in the past at the fair, I see sherrif's deputies out in full force patrolling the fair.  Maybe I am mistaking them for security guards.  Maybe the news story made me hallucinate.[]

Perhaps some clarification is in order, does the TCSD not presently provide security for the fair?  Or is that the point that Tulsa County puts on the fair, and they are responsible for security and they have used the TCSD in the past for that responsibility?

Even if that is the case, somehow, I just don't see how this is a complete free-ride for the city.  If it is, $338K would just about cover the requested raises for our city council and the attendant payroll costs associated with it.  Zero sum gain for the citizens of Tulsa.

If there was $1.1mm hiding out there on the fairgrounds for the taking I'd think the OTC would have been able to identify it.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by Kiah

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

There has to be some sort of cost-shift to the city on this.  I get the point the county will not lose any revenue at all.  They will still get their taxes and event fees, but this can't possibly be a free-ride for the city.

I'm just envisioning this: the city pushes through annexation, relying on the city attorney's opinion on security.  Then there is a protracted court battle and the city winds up stuck with security after-all.

Why would they?  Does the city provide security (security, not law enforcement -- there's a difference) at Promenade Mall?  At St. Francis Hospital?  They're both within city limits.

Kiah, that's what I get for taking a news story hook-line-&-sinker w/o fully checking it out.  It's not my normal M.O.  

Seems like in the past at the fair, I see sherrif's deputies out in full force patrolling the fair.  Maybe I am mistaking them for security guards.  Maybe the news story made me hallucinate.[]

Perhaps some clarification is in order, does the TCSD not presently provide security for the fair?  Or is that the point that Tulsa County puts on the fair, and they are responsible for security and they have used the TCSD in the past for that responsibility?

Even if that is the case, somehow, I just don't see how this is a complete free-ride for the city.  If it is, $338K would just about cover the requested raises for our city council and the attendant payroll costs associated with it.  Zero sum gain for the citizens of Tulsa.

If there was $1.1mm hiding out there on the fairgrounds for the taking I'd think the OTC would have been able to identify it.

Don't back down Conan. You're correct. The city attorney made an "opinion". He also made the "opinion" that the Native Americans have no legal interest in the river. They don't buy it either. Expect lawsuits to clarify both issues. Legal opinions are like the weather reports.

Nice try comparing Promendade with the fair Kiah. But no donuts for you. The police do provide regular law enforcement to a private entity. The Fairgrounds is not private and won't be private when the city annexes it. It is effectively owned by the taxpayers. Now if the city (taxpayers) owned the land Promenade operates on you may have a closer comparison.

The crux is that the city does not think they have to provide the same level of security that the county has found necessary for the fair crowds. [B)] They would cost shift that security cost to the promoters of the fair and other events like they do for events on city property. The result? The promoters will either reduce the quality of their production or increase the cost to the consumer. Bet on that. It then becomes obvious that the annexation will indeed be a subtle form of tax increase passed off as a "cost shift".

Here's another fact that is at play. When you produce a festival on public property, lets say...River Parks, a city-county property...you are required to provide your own security at your own cost. They strongly encourage you to use the security they always use because of their familiarity with practices & procedures. Otherwise they will have to pass scrutiny by the authority meaning more time & money. Who are these security personnel? Off duty city police and county deputies. Oh.

[Kiah]

Do you all even know what annexation is?  It's not in any way a transfer of ownership.  If the city annexes the fairgrounds, it will simply come within city limits.  It will still be owned by the county and operated by the Tulsa County Public Facilities Authority.  It would be in precisely the same situation as the Promenade - relative to the city.

I think you may be confusing annexation with eminent domain (condemnation).

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Kiah

Do you all even know what annexation is?  It's not in any way a transfer of ownership.  If the city annexes the fairgrounds, it will simply come within city limits.  It will still be owned by the county and operated by the Tulsa County Public Facilities Authority.  It would be in precisely the same situation as the Promenade - relative to the city.

I think you may be confusing annexation with eminent domain (condemnation).

Do you know what patronizing means? Why do you keep saying it doesn't change ownership when no one is asserting that? The Promenade is indeed within the city limits but is not owned by a public authority therefore is quite different than the annexation of the fairgrounds. It is private property. Don't fuzz it up with eminent domain talk. Obviously different and again, patronizing. Please stop assuming, like AA, that everyone is simply uninformed, poorly educated or just plain wrong. It might be you who misunderstands.

Most people on this forum thought it was a slam dunk, obvious proposition. Now the idea may not even pass muster with the council itself. I guess they all just don't understand.

[Rico]

Well H2O.... Seemed like you were on a roll there...

Keep rollin..

One note.... that does not even amount to a single donut..

The City Attorney that gave the "Opinion on River Ownership" and the City Attorney giving this opinion... are not one in the same...

For a fair comparison that is......

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by ricecake

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Kiah

Do you all even know what annexation is?  It's not in any way a transfer of ownership.  If the city annexes the fairgrounds, it will simply come within city limits.  It will still be owned by the county and operated by the Tulsa County Public Facilities Authority.  It would be in precisely the same situation as the Promenade - relative to the city.

I think you may be confusing annexation with eminent domain (condemnation).

Do you know what patronizing means? Why do you keep saying it doesn't change ownership when no one is asserting that? The Promenade is indeed within the city limits but is not owned by a public authority therefore is quite different than the annexation of the fairgrounds. It is private property. Don't fuzz it up with eminent domain talk. Obviously different and again, patronizing. Please stop assuming, like AA, that everyone is simply uninformed, poorly educated or just plain wrong. It might be you who misunderstands.

Most people on this forum thought it was a slam dunk, obvious proposition. Now the idea may not even pass muster with the council itself. I guess they all just don't understand.

Let's use a county owned & operated property that is already annexed into the city - say, LaFortune Park - for a hypothetical example.

If a jogger running along the park path gets mugged, then obviously, the Tulsa Police has jurisdiction and responsibility to respond and enforce the law.

But say the county wants to hold a massive jog-a-thon at LaFortune. The Tulsa Police would have jurisdiction and be required to respond to emergencies; but there is nothing that would force them to automatically provide free security for this county sponsored event. It would be the same if any other organization were holding a jog-a-thon at LaFortune.

After annexation the TPD would have jurisdiction over the fairgrounds, but security for special events - whether it is the Tulsa State Fair or a gunshow - rests on the producer of the event.    

And isn't it TPD that would be on the news when "disturbances" happened at Bells?

And doesn't the city maintain all the streets around the fairgrounds?

The city deserves the taxes and the effort to stop annexation is just sour grapes by Randi Miller who is bitter she isn't mayor and doesn't have Bob Dick's pull.

[Breadburner]

quote:Originally posted by Kiah

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

There has to be some sort of cost-shift to the city on this.  I get the point the county will not lose any revenue at all.  They will still get their taxes and event fees, but this can't possibly be a free-ride for the city.

I'm just envisioning this: the city pushes through annexation, relying on the city attorney's opinion on security.  Then there is a protracted court battle and the city winds up stuck with security after-all.

Why would they?  Does the city provide security (security, not law enforcement -- there's a difference) at Promenade Mall?  At St. Francis Hospital?  They're both within city limits.

The City does not provide security to the Promenade the officers work for the theatre and are paid by them....They are allowed to wear their uniforms while woking security jobs for private companies....