Annexing the fairgrounds into the city

[Wilbur]

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.

You have to look at 'events' this way.  Does the event close a city street?  If so, the event sponsor submits an application to the city's special event committee, who approves or disapproves (usually approves), then the event application goes to the Mayor and finally the city council for approval.  Part of that process makes the event sponsor responsible for police necessary to close the streets (police are hired, then the city sends a bill to the sponsor).  Two events usually get their police services waived (or paid by the city, however you want to look at it); MLK Parade and the Vets Day Parade.

Events that don't close a road are responsible for their own security.  I'm not aware of any law that says an event, whether it be a book fair at Holland Hall or Octoberfest, must hire their own security.  Most events do just to put on a safer event.

While the event sponsor is responsible for their own event security, police will still be responsible for law enforcement both inside and outside the event.  If an arrest needs to be made, an on-duty law enforcement person must still make the arrest.

And talking about event security/law enforcement, look at the upcoming PGA.  The city will be giving untold numbers of police officers dedicated to the streets around the event, all at no cost to the PGA (The PGA hires their own 'inside the fence' security).  Just depends how much stroke your event has as to how much city services you will be given.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by 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......

That would be fairer. Does the city attorney serve at the pleasure of the Mayor? Hmmm.

Regardless of the reasoning for why this effort is happening at this time, the motivations of the personalities involved and the fairness of tax collections, no one has effectively refuted the claim that Conan and I have made:

"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.  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'."

Its not that they legally have to provide that level of security, obviously they don't, its that they don't feel it necessary in order for the events on the fairgrounds to be successful. They see it as a freebie given by the county that should be charged to the promoters. But operationally, as Kiah notes, that isn't their decision to make. Granted this is all fomented by the County Sheriff's determination that they need not provide that level of security since the city is jumping into their "swimming pool". Throw the man a bone. Or a preserver as the analogy demands.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by 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......

That would be fairer. Does the city attorney serve at the pleasure of the Mayor? Hmmm.

Regardless of the reasoning for why this effort is happening at this time, the motivations of the personalities involved and the fairness of tax collections, no one has effectively refuted the claim that Conan and I have made:

"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.  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'."

Its not that they legally have to provide that level of security, obviously they don't, its that they don't feel it necessary in order for the events on the fairgrounds to be successful. They see it as a freebie given by the county that should be charged to the promoters. But operationally, as Kiah notes, that isn't their decision to make. Granted this is all fomented by the County Sheriff's determination that they need not provide that level of security since the city is jumping into their "swimming pool". Throw the man a bone. Or a preserver as the analogy demands.

If the county so decides, since they will retain ownership of the fairgrounds, they still can be the security force for any or all events there, that does not change. Just like the county is the security force in the County Courthouse, which is also inside (annexed) the city but is owned by the county. The jail is run just the same way.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by 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......

That would be fairer. Does the city attorney serve at the pleasure of the Mayor? Hmmm.

Regardless of the reasoning for why this effort is happening at this time, the motivations of the personalities involved and the fairness of tax collections, no one has effectively refuted the claim that Conan and I have made:

"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.  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'."

Its not that they legally have to provide that level of security, obviously they don't, its that they don't feel it necessary in order for the events on the fairgrounds to be successful. They see it as a freebie given by the county that should be charged to the promoters. But operationally, as Kiah notes, that isn't their decision to make. Granted this is all fomented by the County Sheriff's determination that they need not provide that level of security since the city is jumping into their "swimming pool". Throw the man a bone. Or a preserver as the analogy demands.

If the county so decides, since they will retain ownership of the fairgrounds, they still can be the security force for any or all events there, that does not change. Just like the county is the security force in the County Courthouse, which is also inside (annexed) the city but is owned by the county. The jail is run just the same way.

Exactly right. The operative word is "can". It was the county sheriff's determination that this case of annexation would preclude him from providing, at county expense, that level of security. I was never clear on what state law he based that on. But, I believe there is a sense of personalities clashing here rather than law. The sarcastic remarks that Turner made, such as, "we'll be glad to show you how to get those details..." etc. implying dishonesty or malfeasance were enough to raise the hackles of any self respecting public entity. And they did.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Its not that they legally have to provide that level of security, obviously they don't,

Period.

quote: its that they don't feel it necessary in order for the events on the fairgrounds to be successful. They see it as a freebie given by the county that should be charged to the promoters. But operationally, as Kiah notes, that isn't their decision to make. Granted this is all fomented by the County Sheriff's determination that they need not provide that level of security since the city is jumping into their "swimming pool". Throw the man a bone. Or a preserver as the analogy demands.

Outside of the normal police and fire protection that any other square block of Tulsa is entitled to, Expo would have no special status that requires the City to do anything in regards to security at Expo, or at Expo events.  They don't provide security for Mayfest or Octoberfest (on city property), yet security in some form exists.  Either the County is furnishing security as part of it's current events structure at Expo (already figured in to rental fees, usage fees, taxes, normal Sheriff's Dep't Operating Expenses, etc), or they are contracting themselves to provide security (in one lump sum).

Annexing the property does not allow the County to abdicate all responsiblity for it's property and it's events.  If the County is trying to say they plan on letting Expo go to hell if it's annexed, so be it.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Its not that they legally have to provide that level of security, obviously they don't,

Period.

quote: its that they don't feel it necessary in order for the events on the fairgrounds to be successful. They see it as a freebie given by the county that should be charged to the promoters. But operationally, as Kiah notes, that isn't their decision to make. Granted this is all fomented by the County Sheriff's determination that they need not provide that level of security since the city is jumping into their "swimming pool". Throw the man a bone. Or a preserver as the analogy demands.

Outside of the normal police and fire protection that any other square block of Tulsa is entitled to, Expo would have no special status that requires the City to do anything in regards to security at Expo, or at Expo events.  They don't provide security for Mayfest or Octoberfest (on city property), yet security in some form exists.  Either the County is furnishing security as part of it's current events structure at Expo (already figured in to rental fees, usage fees, taxes, normal Sheriff's Dep't Operating Expenses, etc), or they are contracting themselves to provide security (in one lump sum).

Annexing the property does not allow the County to abdicate all responsiblity for it's property and it's events.  If the County is trying to say they plan on letting Expo go to hell if it's annexed, so be it.

One wonders if it is worth posting if no one reads them. Read my posts without defensiveness, in other words, an open mind. The only thing you seem to have understood is that the security level provided is most likely figured into fees.

The annexing does not "allow" them to abdicate responsibility? Neither does it preclude them from doing so. Its simply a business decision with business ramifications. It is obvious the city does not have to provide extra security for private festivals, they force the promoters to pay which is passed on in the form of increased booth rent, concessionaires fees etc. YOU pay for that increase. Off duty officers are paid for providing it.

The county provides that security level for the fair and if they decide that they won't in the case of annexation, well, they won't. Their budget, their choice. The city can provide it or if forced to, the promoters will, but it will be passed on to the consumer and have an effect on profitability.

Look for the subtext of what's going on. The legal details are beyond this forum.

[MichaelC]

Again:  If the County is trying to say they plan on letting Expo go to hell if it's annexed, so be it.  That's your entire argument waterboy, that the County is so demented that it will just take a big dump on itself possibly in order to spite the City.  

How does one argue that the County is NOT in to ritualistic suicide?  Call BS on it?  That's all I'm seeing so far, a very weak "shotgun" anti-annexation attack throwing out hypotheticals that assume zero County responsibility, and zero concern on the County level for their own events and property.

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Look for the subtext of what's going on. The legal details are beyond this forum.

You've already stated that "obviously" the City will not be obligated to provide security.  Whatever other legal ramifications you can think of, feel free to bring them up.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

Again:  If the County is trying to say they plan on letting Expo go to hell if it's annexed, so be it.  That's your entire argument waterboy, that the County is so demented that it will just take a big dump on itself possibly in order to spite the City.  

How does one argue that the County is NOT in to ritualistic suicide?  Call BS on it?  That's all I'm seeing so far, a very weak "shotgun" anti-annexation attack throwing out hypotheticals that assume zero County responsibility, and zero concern on the County level for their own events and property.

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Look for the subtext of what's going on. The legal details are beyond this forum.

You've already stated that "obviously" the City will not be obligated to provide security.  Whatever other legal ramifications you can think of, feel free to bring them up.

Not just that, but the county is not a business.

If they abdicate responsibility then as citizens the solution is to vote the bastards out.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

Again:  If the County is trying to say they plan on letting Expo go to hell if it's annexed, so be it.  That's your entire argument waterboy, that the County is so demented that it will just take a big dump on itself possibly in order to spite the City.  

How does one argue that the County is NOT in to ritualistic suicide?  Call BS on it?  That's all I'm seeing so far, a very weak "shotgun" anti-annexation attack throwing out hypotheticals that assume zero County responsibility, and zero concern on the County level for their own events and property.

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Look for the subtext of what's going on. The legal details are beyond this forum.

You've already stated that "obviously" the City will not be obligated to provide security.  Whatever other legal ramifications you can think of, feel free to bring them up.

Not just that, but the county is not a business.

If they abdicate responsibility then as citizens the solution is to vote the bastards out.

Listen up boys. Back during the 80's everyone jumped on the bandwagon to have government run more like business using people with business experience. That is what happened and now you think they should act like public servants? They operate like businessmen because most of them are.

Michael, you make an assumption of what the county is going to do, "let the fairgrounds go to hell..." and then attack them and me for something neither one of us assert. Nice. That is not my argument at all but if it was, I wouldn't have the skills necessary to write this sentence. The rest of your remarks are akin to yelling from the grandstands.

Using the word abdication is a red herring. Swake, you know that. There is no legal responsibility by either city or county to provide the LEVEL of security presently afforded to the fair without extra fees. Note the tepid response by TPD on this issue? The officers stand to make some good freelance pay if the city succeeds and the county holds firm on not providing the LEVEL of security the public is used to. This is a struggle between two powerful public entities, neither one of which looks very professional at the moment. And for such a meager return as per both city and state predictions.

Imagine for a moment that you are a director of a government bureau and the director of another bureau, who's budget is shrinking, makes a play to grab off some of your budget because he thinks you:
a. Can't ably defend yourself
b. Are not in good standing with the public
c. May not be in complete control of your operation

Both parties are public servants with healthy ego's and capable. Do you:
a. Admit your weaknesses and for the good of the public bend over and take one for the team
b. Question the motives and operations of your attackers with some measure of defensiveness
c. Use all that you have learned in politics to defend your territory and send the attacker away with tail between legs

Well, what do you do?

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

Again:  If the County is trying to say they plan on letting Expo go to hell if it's annexed, so be it.  That's your entire argument waterboy, that the County is so demented that it will just take a big dump on itself possibly in order to spite the City.  

How does one argue that the County is NOT in to ritualistic suicide?  Call BS on it?  That's all I'm seeing so far, a very weak "shotgun" anti-annexation attack throwing out hypotheticals that assume zero County responsibility, and zero concern on the County level for their own events and property.

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Look for the subtext of what's going on. The legal details are beyond this forum.

You've already stated that "obviously" the City will not be obligated to provide security.  Whatever other legal ramifications you can think of, feel free to bring them up.

Not just that, but the county is not a business.

If they abdicate responsibility then as citizens the solution is to vote the bastards out.

Stick a fork in Randi Miller, she's done. Too bad there won't be a Medlock/Miller Republican primary. I'd buy tickets to that.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

Stick a fork in Randi Miller, she's done. Too bad there won't be a Medlock/Miller Republican primary. I'd buy tickets to that.

Has Miller always been this way?  I don't remember her being so media hungry during LaFortune's term.

[shadows]

Let the posters sit in the Jury Box.   Sort out the intertwining of which is obligatory on both taxpayer holdings [city and county] that has other effects on who is in control of all areas within the city limits.   The right of private ownership is protected by many laws.  The rights of private ownership is not to be taken likely whereas it is extended into the lease agreements.

The business has the responsibility of security within the confines of the building they own or lease.  This could also include private parking areas owned and patrolled by the owner or leasers of the building or areas that is used for business purposes.   The easement extends from the property line to the middle of the street.  That part of the easement that is used for sidewalks and street purposes is obligatory on the city to secure that area for the citizen as an obligation of the charter issued by the state officers.  It becomes duty for the city to maintain the streets as well as any parking area on public owned lands within the city.

The city annexes the fair grounds.   Security will be furnish by the leaser within building or area the same as if it were a shopping center.  It will become an obligation of the city to maintain all the parking area and streets within the fence that is for public use.   Due to the fact there no residents inside the fence, then the city will not receive money from the road tax fund.
Due to it being a public domain the cost will revert to the city to secure and maintain the roads/ streets/ parking areas in the fair grounds.   This can and possibility be decided by the courts.   The reporters have many records of case law of obligation in the same area.    

When we annex the fair grounds we take on many obligations or if possible we must suspend nearly all the ordinances that cover the areas that are in the Tulsa public domain.  Nuisance control to inspections to RV's, to camp trailers, to live stock will become obsolete.  The standing ordinances will become an infringement of the rights of all the county residents.  

When the fence line it taken down, that separates the two governmental domains, the city says they do not want to control the fair grounds but  the conflict of interest of who will furnish what will be the starting point for litigation through the courts that cost the taxpayers millions of dollars.

Tulsa only wants the sales taxes but they do not want the obligation that goes with the collection.   In the end it could have standing in the court but when we take the fence down the expense to the taxpayer could and possible will outdistance any income Tulsa will get or is entitle too.  It would only take another $2 dollars on the water billing to run the fair grounds sales tax collection as we are hell bent on annexing.

The city attorney has an opinion but why do we have to hire outside attorneys to do their work when the city goes to court?          

[Conan71]

Perhaps my paradigm is too entrenched in "There is no free lunch."

The council is trying to fast-track this deal and that concerns me.  I just don't think it's going to turn into this free, huge revenue bonanza that Roscoe keeps saying it is.  Even if it's worth $1mm+ in new revenue as Roscoe believes, that works out to .2% of our annual budget.  

OTC seems to believe it will be a third of Roscoe's projections.  Sales tax enforcement at trade shows and the fair is going to be very difficult, especially at a gun show like this last weekend with hundreds of vendors.  The only thing easily traceable is concessions sales.  Either that, or put a tax on every admission to an event.

Attorneys get taken to task in court every day over their legal opinions and are frequently proven wrong.

Maybe I'm just too obtuse to be able to see the great benefit as others are seeing in this.  I just fail to see how this is such a great no-strings attached deal.

[MichaelC]

I actually agree there.  Sales tax enforcement could be somewhat difficult.  I would suspect that the OTC numbers are based on known figures, rather than "pie in the sky figures", but who knows.  I suspect that currently, there is far more money being exchanged there, than is being taxed.  

Of course, quite frankly, many small businesses already inside city limits can get away with it, and do.  I don't know how much that argument is worth, since enforcement is already a likely issue in this City.

As for the "no free lunch" deal, it's not much different from annexing a shopping center, like Sapulpa did with Town West.  They did indeed build a fire department closer to the area, taxes went considerably higher (they're higher in Sapulpa than here), and even though business owners complained a bunch, Town West seems to be managing just fine.

[Conan71]

About the only way to be able to enforce the collection of tax from vendors at trade shows is to make an assessment based on the size of booth space.  That being said, it's unfair to vendors who don't have a good weekend, whilst the biggest grossers are assessed the same amount as the ones who made less revenue.

Getting 700 vendors to track and properly account for mostly cash sales would be a huge enforcement cluster-f#$%.