Annexing the fairgrounds into the city

[shadows]

The grouping of all the merchants and events at the fair grounds, to compare them with grouping of merchants of a mall in the city, is like holding a orange up and describing a grape.

If you look at your property tax distribution statement you will find the city collects about a fifth more than the county on property taxes already.

If you take the figures posted of the possible $210,000 dollars loss in uncollected sales taxes on the million tickets sold at the fair and the city estimate that policing the fair grounds cost the city $500,000, it is hard to correlate the advantage of trying to enforce the city ordinances on the un-platted, undivided acreage as being cost efficient.

The purpose proposed, [it seems] from the city is to purchase three new wheelbarrows for the county to fill with the 3% sales tax revenue, hire three more city employees to push them to the fair gates for the city treasure to pick up and take the money down to city hall.

Someone should look up case law on if the county has not prevailed over city ordinances in Federal courts.  And how large an un-platted acreage a city can enforce its ordinances on.

Its easy to see why Bell is getting his stuff together to-get-to-hell out of an ensuing squabble.    

[Wrinkle]

quote: Its about the money Wrinkle. I ask the question again. Would this be happening during good economic conditions? If the county totally mismanaged the fairgrounds would the city even be looking at them? No. Its not about serving the best interests of the city to exploit success with an additional tax. If anything their success points to a scary proposition. That lower taxes may boost sales activity! Uh-Oh! Don't tell MTTA that lower prices spur growth! This could be big!

Perhaps charging additional sales tax during the fair when there is a natural flow of outside money into the fairgrounds regardless of the cost would be possible. It is naive to think that raising the tax 3% is not going to effect sales. Shame on Roscoe and Henderson for not realizing what most folks take for granted. Its cheaper to buy a washer/dryer at the home show and people are inclined to consider that.

I really hate it when people espouse these "simple" solutions. Nothing is simple.

The annexation is about money, sure. The opposition is about accounting, however.

Sales Tax, per se, doesn't take anything from the county, money-wise, if you discount the County's claims of inferior marketing skills when competing on a level field.

It's 'simply' additive.

As for whether it would be happening in good economic times, I can't say for sure. But, it's been wrong the entire time. I see this as correcting the situation, and that it needed an opportune time to implement. A major change in Commissionors and Council/Mayor is as good a time to do this as any.

There used to be a prominent local business, Reeves, at 15th and Harvard. They even built a brand new building there a few years back.

With people waiting to buy their washer/dryers, dishwashers, etc during the Fair, since they could save $15 or so in Sales Tax, the place was completely shut down and since remains empty.

If people paid sales tax at the fair, then they'd be just as likely to shop Reeves as the fair. It'd become a matter of fair competition and other intrinsics like service and friendliness.

The Fair brings potential customers, it shouldn't also need to be subsidized to make it work.

I'm of the opinion the City should be receiving Sales Tax regardless of any economic or political situation.

If it solves a problem, so much the better.

Besides, the County DID, in fact, wrestle Sales Tax into their portfolio, thus making it unavailable as potential for the City, which it really could use better.

I'm hoping voters see the light a stop renewing it (at least, the part they can).

Meantime, I'm just as opposed to the City's recent launch of efforts to seek Ad Valorem Tax as another revenue source, which currently is illegal.

It really is pretty simple.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by shadows

The grouping of all the merchants and events at the fair grounds, to compare them with grouping of merchants of a mall in the city, is like holding a orange up and describing a grape.

If you look at your property tax distribution statement you will find the city collects about a fifth more than the county on property taxes already.

If you take the figures posted of the possible $210,000 dollars loss in uncollected sales taxes on the million tickets sold at the fair and the city estimate that policing the fair grounds cost the city $500,000, it is hard to correlate the advantage of trying to enforce the city ordinances on the un-platted, undivided acreage as being cost efficient.

The purpose proposed, [it seems] from the city is to purchase three new wheelbarrows for the county to fill with the 3% sales tax revenue, hire three more city employees to push them to the fair gates for the city treasure to pick up and take the money down to city hall.

Someone should look up case law on if the county has not prevailed over city ordinances in Federal courts.  And how large an un-platted acreage a city can enforce its ordinances on.

Its easy to see why Bell is getting his stuff together to-get-to-hell out of an ensuing squabble.    

You'll recall, perhaps, the promoter of Special Events is, by law, responsible for their own security.

If they wish to contract for TPD to provide this service during the Fair, fine. That'll be $500,000 please, making Tulsa's take likely well over $1,000,000 by the time one adds inside sales, too. And, that's figuring less than $10 (a large pop and a corndog) for inside sales, too.

That's just the Fair.

IF Sheriff's Office wants to continue to provide security, I'm sure the County has pretty consistantly dropped that money into the Sheriff's budget.

Net effect = Zero.

Security isn't the issue.

By the time we add a season of Horse Races, Baseball, Bell's or whatever it becomes, Big Splash, Horse shows/arena, Car Shows, Chili Bowl, Boat Shows, Gun Shows, Home & Garden shows, ...

We already know the revenue from some of those from the Bell's flap. IAC, I'll admit to purely guessing here, but I'd say the 3% would add up to something closer to $3,000,000 or more.

[waterboy]

I see some mistakes in your simple logic. I believe you are interested in keeping taxes low and every part of government on a fair and balanced platform. No problem with the first dream but good luck with the last.

Lets start with why this is happening now. A new council make-up is perceived as weak without the old boys around to keep it strong. The city knows Miller, assesses the newcomers and thinks they can strongarm them now. Don't shrug off the money issue. It wouldn't happen without it.

Reeves TV was not the right example. Flint closed for many reasons but NONE of them were related to the fairgrounds. I could go into more detail because I know him and used to do business with him. Try advancing age, stronger competition, poorly designed new building, loss of key employees. But not the fairgrounds. His competitors did operate during the remodeling shows which usually increased his traffic. No one kept him from marketing in that manner as well anymore than they kept him off the internet.

Your assertion that the city could spend the tax monies better than the county comes from what insight? Would it be the city's propensity to shut off street lights on one side of the expressway? Would it be the city's intelligent use of asphalt instead of concrete on streets so that we always have repairs to be made? I don't see them as any better than the county. More professional I'm sure but no more effective.

Lastly, the accounting issues. The county has instituted an audit of all areas of spending. Has the city? It has been alluded to that there is improper use of revenues but nobody seems to have specifics. If you do know of any make them public and we'll take them behind the wood shed, otherwise its just character attacks.

The real issue is who can provide the administration of the fairgrounds at the level of service and security we have now. And at what cost. Short of a failure in those areas one wonders why we are trying to tinker with something that is working pretty well. What is that compelling reason?

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by shadows

The grouping of all the merchants and events at the fair grounds, to compare them with grouping of merchants of a mall in the city, is like holding a orange up and describing a grape.

If you look at your property tax distribution statement you will find the city collects about a fifth more than the county on property taxes already.

If you take the figures posted of the possible $210,000 dollars loss in uncollected sales taxes on the million tickets sold at the fair and the city estimate that policing the fair grounds cost the city $500,000, it is hard to correlate the advantage of trying to enforce the city ordinances on the un-platted, undivided acreage as being cost efficient.

The purpose proposed, [it seems] from the city is to purchase three new wheelbarrows for the county to fill with the 3% sales tax revenue, hire three more city employees to push them to the fair gates for the city treasure to pick up and take the money down to city hall.

Someone should look up case law on if the county has not prevailed over city ordinances in Federal courts.  And how large an un-platted acreage a city can enforce its ordinances on.

Its easy to see why Bell is getting his stuff together to-get-to-hell out of an ensuing squabble.    

You'll recall, perhaps, the promoter of Special Events is, by law, responsible for their own security.

If they wish to contract for TPD to provide this service during the Fair, fine. That'll be $500,000 please, making Tulsa's take likely well over $1,000,000 by the time one adds inside sales, too. And, that's figuring less than $10 (a large pop and a corndog) for inside sales, too.

That's just the Fair.

IF Sheriff's Office wants to continue to provide security, I'm sure the County has pretty consistantly dropped that money into the Sheriff's budget.

Net effect = Zero.

Security isn't the issue.

By the time we add a season of Horse Races, Baseball, Bell's or whatever it becomes, Big Splash, Horse shows/arena, Car Shows, Chili Bowl, Boat Shows, Gun Shows, Home & Garden shows, ...

We already know the revenue from some of those from the Bell's flap. IAC, I'll admit to purely guessing here, but I'd say the 3% would add up to something closer to $3,000,000 or more.

It may add up to zero for the city but not the special event! They now need to pay $500,000 under your plan as the Sheriff made it clear he would be granted no budget by the state board to provide such. Now how many new special events are going to see us in the same light? It will undoubtedly have an effect on demand for the fairgrounds for events as they will raise the cost to the general public or decide to not play at all. So where do you want to pay? Through taxes or at the gate?

[Breadburner]

I was for the annexation at first but the more I listen the more I think well enough should be left alone....I think it will be a wash in the end and possibly cost the city some money....I say it's not broke so don't F with it...

[RecycleMichael]

[quote]With people waiting to buy their washer/dryers, dishwashers, etc during the Fair, since they could save $15 or so in Sales Tax... [/quote]

Where were the washers and dryers for sale at the Fair?

I thought I went all through the fair this year, saw cars, boats, goats, sunglasses, corn dogs, even fried cookies, but don't remember seeing the kitchen appliance sales booths.

[protulsa]

The city could save the same amount of money by downsizing the HUGE fire stations they are building right now.  4 or 5 million dollar fire stations...two of them being built right now.

Sounds like Senator Edwards designed it.

[Double A]

Hey, Waterboy where do you get off calling someone an insider when you had your little sweetheart deal for your failed Arkansas river boating adventure? Annexing the fairgrounds is in the best interest of Tulsa. Most people on this board agree(the majority of those that don't probably don't even live in the city anyway) and when it comes to a vote, the majority of Tulsans will approve it. So, cry me a river(pun intended).

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Maybe you could clarify that sovereignty issue between the state and the tribes while you're at it. Its all so simple really.

IMO I think that the tribes - inasmuch as their land was stolen from them - should have free reign to do anything they like.  But that's just me.

What of Fred Perry's observation of the differences in number of events per year between OKC and Tulsa?(KOTV)

That is because of the sales tax funded improvements at the fairgrounds and a very dedicated public servant named Denny Tuttle(RIP), not  lower sales taxes at the fairgrounds. If sales taxes are such a deal breaker for events at the Fairgrounds why does the County collect them? The County can choose not to collect their share of sales taxes at the Fairgrounds to offset the new sales tax created by the annexation and keep their lower sales tax "marketing tool". BTW, if the county is so opposed to this annexation they could probably get the council to drop it if they were willing to give back the 3 mils. It looks like the County will have to make some tough choices and some sacrifices for a change. Turnaround's a b#*tch, ain't it?

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by shadows

The grouping of all the merchants and events at the fair grounds, to compare them with grouping of merchants of a mall in the city, is like holding a orange up and describing a grape.

If you look at your property tax distribution statement you will find the city collects about a fifth more than the county on property taxes already.

If you take the figures posted of the possible $210,000 dollars loss in uncollected sales taxes on the million tickets sold at the fair and the city estimate that policing the fair grounds cost the city $500,000, it is hard to correlate the advantage of trying to enforce the city ordinances on the un-platted, undivided acreage as being cost efficient.

The purpose proposed, [it seems] from the city is to purchase three new wheelbarrows for the county to fill with the 3% sales tax revenue, hire three more city employees to push them to the fair gates for the city treasure to pick up and take the money down to city hall.

Someone should look up case law on if the county has not prevailed over city ordinances in Federal courts.  And how large an un-platted acreage a city can enforce its ordinances on.

Its easy to see why Bell is getting his stuff together to-get-to-hell out of an ensuing squabble.    

It'd be far more constructive if you were to actually describe the orange and grape. How are they different?

The one difference I acknowledge is that the Mall is run by a Management company, the Fairgrounds by an Authority. But, they act in virtually identical roles.

Oh, and the Fairgrounds receives huge amounts of public funding.

quote: If you look at your property tax distribution statement you will find the city collects about a fifth more than the county on property taxes already.

You should look again. Tulsa, the City, receives ZERO Ad Valorem tax proceeds.
In fact, it's illegal.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

[quote]With people waiting to buy their washer/dryers, dishwashers, etc during the Fair, since they could save $15 or so in Sales Tax...

Where were the washers and dryers for sale at the Fair?

I thought I went all through the fair this year, saw cars, boats, goats, sunglasses, corn dogs, even fried cookies, but don't remember seeing the kitchen appliance sales booths.
[/quote]

That was from recollection in years past. I suppose the current situation would more likely find them at the Home & Garden Show or such. Same thing, really.

Only the name changes. The tax situation remains the same.

[Wrinkle]

It may add up to zero for the city but not the special event! They now need to pay $500,000 under your plan as the Sheriff made it clear he would be granted no budget by the state board to provide such. Now how many new special events are going to see us in the same light? It will undoubtedly have an effect on demand for the fairgrounds for events as they will raise the cost to the general public or decide to not play at all. So where do you want to pay? Through taxes or at the gate?
[\quote]

What's this State Board stuff?
More importantly, why are they providing public funding to the Sheriff's Office for Fair security? It's the Authority's overhead.

The Authority is responsible for Fair security, no matter the source.

I'm sure the Sheriff isn't going to work for nothing, he's a Republican after all. So, the Authority would need to make up whatever is required there. If they've been using public monies to do that in the past, well, that needs to stop as well.

In fact, I'd be inclined to ask for a refund of past proceeds.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

Hey, Waterboy where do you get off calling someone an insider when you had your little sweetheart deal for your failed Arkansas river boating adventure? Annexing the fairgrounds is in the best interest of Tulsa. Most people on this board agree(the majority of those that don't probably don't even live in the city anyway) and when it comes to a vote, the majority of Tulsans will approve it. So, cry me a river(pun intended).

[:O]Maybe you could enlighten me as to my sweetheart deal? Were you one of those sweethearts that charged me 10% and required a million dollar insurance coverage for every vehicle I drove across the parking lot? Were you the sweetheart that kept me from operating during the Octoberfest no matter what percentage I was charged? Some sweetheart.

You're getting personal AA because of remarks you misunderstood on another thread. Its not necessary. Wrinkle can handle himself well and did.

Ps. Let me emphasize this. Your attempt to show some conspiracy of insiders is just wrong. I knew no one at the RPA when I presented to them. I knew nothing about contracting with a public authority. I never to my knowledge received any special treatment stemming from my very common name and background. I took a good idea to them and they responded. I have met Randi Miller twice. Once at a Channels meeting and once to deliver a letter encouraging her to continue river development efforts. I don't work for the county, the city, the state or any other government agencies. I'm clean and unpaid for. How about you?

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

It may add up to zero for the city but not the special event! They now need to pay $500,000 under your plan as the Sheriff made it clear he would be granted no budget by the state board to provide such. Now how many new special events are going to see us in the same light? It will undoubtedly have an effect on demand for the fairgrounds for events as they will raise the cost to the general public or decide to not play at all. So where do you want to pay? Through taxes or at the gate?
[\quote]

quote: What's this State Board stuff?

Sheriff Glans referred to them when asked by the council who would cut his funding for security at the fairgrounds.


quote:More importantly, why are they providing public funding to the Sheriff's Office for Fair security? It's the Authority's overhead.

Because they can? And decided to do so? Not surprising since they are a county funded operation.


quote:The Authority is responsible for Fair security, no matter the source.

So? So the city says they may not provide that security if they annex the area and put it under their jurisdiction.


quote:I'm sure the Sheriff isn't going to work for nothing, he's a Republican after all.

I'm a democrat and I won't work for nothing.


quote:So, the Authority would need to make up whatever is required there. If they've been using public monies to do that in the past, well, that needs to stop as well.

Confusing to me. You expect a public authority to provide security for public land but you don't want them to spend public monies?


You guys may be right. You may be on to some major discoveries of corruption in govt. I just didn't see any compelling arguments at that city council meeting to support a major change. I saw reason enough for them to sit down and discuss grievances and the impact of changes.