Annexing the fairgrounds into the city

[Wrinkle]

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

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

I think I'm starting to see the problem here.

Seems a large number of the public and, in particular, county persons, think of the 'Fair' as a Government Function. It's not.

Besides already being segregated from regular 'County' functions by means of an 'Authority', it's a for-profit enterprize. No different than a collection of stores at the mall.

It is indeed on County-owned property, which resides fully inside the body of the City of Tulsa, yet having an island boundary surrounding it, exluding it from being a citizen of the City.

City Sales Tax, for that matter, County Ad Valorem tax, has therefore never been collected on things which occur ON that County-owned (Authority operated) land.

Just what is it about it being County-owned which excludes it from the City? IF the land sat there vacant, it wouldn't be much of an issue. But, the County uses the land to produce income via various methods. In fact, the County actually has little control (by definition, not in pratice) of the Fairgrounds operations. Those functions have been assigned to an Authority (Public Trust). These things are supposed to segregate politics from operations.

The Authority, meanwhile, is supposed to be doing everything it can to make the operations there run smoothly, make repairs and improvements, and last, but definitely not least, to make it profitable.

It's a for-profit operation, not a function of government.

Being wholly surrounded by miles of City landscape, it's hardly unreasonable to think of it in terms of being a citizen of the City, just as any other mall, business or single-family homestead.

What makes them special that they think City Sales Taxes should not apply?

It flat doesn't make sense.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

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

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

I think I'm starting to see the problem here.

Seems a large number of the public and, in particular, county persons, think of the 'Fair' as a Government Function. It's not.

Besides already being segregated from regular 'County' functions by means of an 'Authority', it's a for-profit enterprize. No different than a collection of stores at the mall.

It is indeed on County-owned property, which resides fully inside the body of the City of Tulsa, yet having an island boundary surrounding it, exluding it from being a citizen of the City.

City Sales Tax, for that matter, County Ad Valorem tax, has therefore never been collected on things which occur ON that County-owned (Authority operated) land.

Just what is it about it being County-owned which excludes it from the City? IF the land sat there vacant, it wouldn't be much of an issue. But, the County uses the land to produce income via various methods. In fact, the County actually has little control (by definition, not in pratice) of the Fairgrounds operations. Those functions have been assigned to an Authority (Public Trust). These things are supposed to segregate politics from operations.

The Authority, meanwhile, is supposed to be doing everything it can to make the operations there run smoothly, make repairs and improvements, and last, but definitely not least, to make it profitable.

It's a for-profit operation, not a function of government.

Being wholly surrounded by miles of City landscape, it's hardly unreasonable to think of it in terms of being a citizen of the City, just as any other mall, business or single-family homestead.

What makes them special that they think City Sales Taxes should not apply?

It flat doesn't make sense.

Thats a lot to digest and to parse out what is opinion and what is law. If what you say is true its doubtful there would have been anything but perfunctory enforcement of a sales tax by the city. Since the city seems to be unsure of their power to do so, one wonders how sound your information may be. They apparently feel that they cannot without annexing the area.

Sounds like the River Parks Authority, which is supposedly separate from the city and county but has representatives of each on its board. They pay little attention to either entity on difficult decisions. They are also a for profit operation though it amounts to begging from the business community and the city/county/state.

Perhaps the county should just sell the property to a private entity and allow the area to be developed. They could then purchase land outside of Tulsa city limits to operate a fairgrounds, 48th street west might be a good location, and continue to offer the lower taxes until Tulsa annexed that area. Then we could start all over.[]

I have addressed most of what you have posted but I see no reciprocity on your part. Not even to these two simple questions, "would this be happening if the fairgrounds was not well managed and made very little money?" the answer to that has implications.

And, "You want to shift the cost of security to the event planners who will shift it to the gate. You think this will not affect its marketability but offer no basis for that belief. Why?"

[Wrinkle]

quote: I have addressed most of what you have posted but I see no reciprocity on your part. Not even to these two simple questions, "would this be happening if the fairgrounds was not well managed and made very little money?" the answer to that has implications.

Of course the City sees it a potential new revenue, we wouldn't be discussing this if that wasn't true. So, if it weren't making money, it wouldn't matter much. I still believe it should be a Citizen of the City, by being included in the City Limits, and thus subject to City Sales Tax on whatever miniscule revenues it did have.

For that matter, if it were losing money. We're paying for it either way. But, it happens, ALL the Fair, and most other things which occur on the Fairgrounds, are by contract with third parties. It's they whom would stand to gain/lose for the most part. The County makes money on ticket admissions and cuts from the third party vendors. So, in fact, it could never actually lose money. Just make it. The question is how much. We've already provided all the facilities, so they, in effect are doing exactly what they (and some here) are suggesting of the City, and that is scraping the cream off the top with no overhead. If they aren't providing security costs either, then it really is a no overhead situation, and larger profits.

I seem to recall a special insurance arrangement, too, where Bob Dick and his agent buddy once got caught not really having actual insurance. Another one of those pesky overhead cost things.

quote: And, "You want to shift the cost of security to the event planners who will shift it to the gate. You think this will not affect its marketability but offer no basis for that belief. Why?"  

Ha!
You, above anyone, should understand free markets and overhead costs.

The responsibility for security has *always* been the Authority's. Thus, the cost for the overhead. There's no shifting going on here.

If they've gone behind the backs of their constituants and obtained a 'grant' from the State Board to pay for it using our money instead of theirs, that's just wrong to start with.

Sure, that would affect the Authority's take. It's easy to make money when you have no overhead.

If I bought your boat, your paddles, lifevests for a dozen tourists, paid your insurance and provided you a car to get to and fro, do you think you could profit from a riverboat business?

Security is an overhead cost of a Special Event called the Fair, on County Fairgrounds property, Operated by the Fairgrounds Trust Authority, and for a profit.

What's hard about this?

[Wrinkle]

quote: Since the city seems to be unsure of their power to do so, one wonders how sound your information may be. They apparently feel that they cannot without annexing the area.  

Uh, I don't think anyone's questioning the ability of the City to annex, or collect Sales Tax.

The issue is that in order to collect City sales tax, it must be a part of the City. It currently is not. So, must first be annexed.

[Wrinkle]

quote: Perhaps the county should just sell the property to a private entity and allow the area to be developed. They could then purchase land outside of Tulsa city limits to operate a fairgrounds, 48th street west might be a good location, and continue to offer the lower taxes until Tulsa annexed that area. Then we could start all over.

I think you were trying to be cute here, but it actually makes more sense than you might think.

IF the City annexes the Fairgrounds, the County certainly has the option of selling. If they feel they can make more money being outside the City limit and not charging City Sales Tax, then I'd actually expect them to do so.

Even they (speaking more of our former set of Commissioners) are not so lacking as to know the importance of location, and the physical facilities we've given them. They know the value, they just want to keep the revenue to themselves. It's that intrinsic value of location together with surrouding infrastructure which provides the City's claim.

There really isn't another IPE building within a two hour flight of here. Only a couple in the country.

[shadows]

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

This quotation just makes my day.   I am looking at "Your ad valorem tax distribution for the current year is as follows"  

It list amounts for Health, Schools 4-mils, School District, Tulsa Technology Center, Tulsa Community College, Emergency Medical Service 0, CITY, County and Library.

Now what name should I use in this letter telling county treasure, Semler, that I have reduced these tax statements by the assessment amount having been advised he is collecting taxes Illegally for the city of Tulsa?

He may have missed the 4th grade civics class,

He may be unaware that a "public trust" operates  as a for-profit corporation, aside from the budgeting  process of a government of the people.  I sure was not aware of it until  I read it on the form.  The assessor may need to be advised that such public trust acting as a for-profit corporation should be on the corporation tax rolls and be taxed accordingly.

I am not aware that the annexing of the fair grounds would require a vote of the people.

[Breadburner]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote: I have addressed most of what you have posted but I see no reciprocity on your part. Not even to these two simple questions, "would this be happening if the fairgrounds was not well managed and made very little money?" the answer to that has implications.

Of course the City sees it a potential new revenue, we wouldn't be discussing this if that wasn't true. So, if it weren't making money, it wouldn't matter much. I still believe it should be a Citizen of the City, by being included in the City Limits, and thus subject to City Sales Tax on whatever miniscule revenues it did have.

For that matter, if it were losing money. We're paying for it either way. But, it happens, ALL the Fair, and most other things which occur on the Fairgrounds, are by contract with third parties. It's they whom would stand to gain/lose for the most part. The County makes money on ticket admissions and cuts from the third party vendors. So, in fact, it could never actually lose money. Just make it. The question is how much. We've already provided all the facilities, so they, in effect are doing exactly what they (and some here) are suggesting of the City, and that is scraping the cream off the top with no overhead. If they aren't providing security costs either, then it really is a no overhead situation, and larger profits.

I seem to recall a special insurance arrangement, too, where Bob Dick and his agent buddy once got caught not really having actual insurance. Another one of those pesky overhead cost things.

quote: And, "You want to shift the cost of security to the event planners who will shift it to the gate. You think this will not affect its marketability but offer no basis for that belief. Why?"  

Ha!
You, above anyone, should understand free markets and overhead costs.

The responsibility for security has *always* been the Authority's. Thus, the cost for the overhead. There's no shifting going on here.

If they've gone behind the backs of their constituants and obtained a 'grant' from the State Board to pay for it using our money instead of theirs, that's just wrong to start with.

Sure, that would affect the Authority's take. It's easy to make money when you have no overhead.

If I bought your boat, your paddles, lifevests for a dozen tourists, paid your insurance and provided you a car to get to and fro, do you think you could profit from a riverboat business?

Security is an overhead cost of a Special Event called the Fair, on County Fairgrounds property, Operated by the Fairgrounds Trust Authority, and for a profit.

What's hard about this?

Mr. Medlock is that you...?

[waterboy]

I do appreciate your effort to address some questions. I'm not swayed by your answers. It still is a basic power/money grab. Two entities of government arguing like mobsters over territory. Unseemly.

The fairgrounds was once located just east of downtown. When the city grew it relocated. The buyers were not the city but a private foundry. It may be time for it to move again. The buyer may not necessarily be the city. Perhaps a non-profit or the ever popular religious facility. Both non-taxable.

[Chris Medlock]

quote:
Mr. Medlock is that you...?

Nope...not me. And you can call me Chris.

[shadows]

IGNORE THIS POST.   IF IT IS READ IT COULD CHANGE SOME POSTER'S MINDSET.

Residents of Tulsa do not pay sales taxes on the water because it is public owned.

Residents do not pay sales taxes on admission to the zoo.

The admission charged at the fair grounds are used by the trust to maintain the fair grounds.   I would not assume that one governing body [city] would have authority to tax another governing body established by the same citizens.  If such has standing then the anticipated $210,000 admission tax becomes a moot item on which sales taxes can be charged.

By the same argument if the admission charged at the IPE building is a set  percentage fee, secured by an underwrite guarantee [only the money paid by the underwriter would be subject to sales taxes.]

Without the knowledge of how the trade shows are charged but it would be to the economic advantage to the county for the shows to enter into an agreement whereas the cost was tied onto the attendance.

True, the peoples government of the city furnished the infrastructure for the two weeks of the fair but they also furnish the same infrastructure for more than a 100,000 workers that commute to jobs in the city 52 weeks a year paying nothing.   The city receives $1 dollar per month for each man, woman and child in the last census count, for street repairs, from the gasoline taxes.

The concession stand's deal in cash during the fair as well as the flea market, weekly.   They do not give receipts so they estimate the sales taxable income.   By adding another 100 city auditors they could collect the sales taxes at the end of each day the businesses are open.   Many of the local concession have tax permits and pay sales taxes on their sales during the fair through their regular tax number permit.

The health department will not develop any sales taxes but the city taxpayers will incur street repairs on the provided infrastructure even at present it is a joint adventure by the city and county governments.
The fair has a large attendance from the rural areas.  Any items they purchase that is used in the  production of crops or live stock is exempted from state and city sales taxes.  This could cause a cloud on the payment of admission cost if the purpose was relative to purchasing farm supplies or machinery during the fair or trade shows.  [home & garden etc]  
This group could ask for a refund on the sales taxes they paid or show their sales tax number at the time of purchase.   Items delivered by the seller are taxed at the point of delivery which would most likely outside the city.. .

Annexing the fair grounds would be liken to the sales taxes on liquor, liquor by the drink, horse racing, gamming at the fair grounds race track, etc.  The profits that was to be created seems to have evaporated in thin air.  

The figures used of a little less than $400,000 dollars in sales tax losses could be near right but the 1.1 million dollars should be moved to the other side of the profit/loss line because that could be the amount the taxpayers would be assessed for to collect the $400,000 dollars in sales taxes.

Let the sleeping dog lie and in the end he will not eat as much.

[Double A]

I am completely unconvinced. Riddle me this, if sales taxes are such a event killer at the fairgrounds why does the County collect sales taxes there? If the County is so worried about a new sales tax from the annexation negatively impacting events, they can choose to stop collecting their portions of sales taxes at the fairgrounds to offset the city sales tax.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

I am completely unconvinced. Riddle me this, if sales taxes are such a event killer at the fairgrounds why does the County collect sales taxes there? If the County is so worried about a new sales tax from the annexation negatively impacting events, they can choose to stop collecting their portions of sales taxes at the fairgrounds to offset the city sales tax.

You're leaving out the word "additional" taxes. Sure, the county should just collect taxes for the city and offer them up as tribute to the almighty council. Get real.

Look, price affects sales. WalMart built a dominant position in retailing based on that principle. How's your poll going?

[Double A]

Super, thanks for asking. I'd guess that would be pretty close to numbers it would pass by if it came to a vote. If the County wants to keep sales low at the fairgrounds, all they have to do is stop collecting their portion, problem solved.

[shadows]

Waterboy quoted:  "You're leaving out the word "additional" taxes. Sure, the county should just collect taxes for the city and offer them up as tribute to the almighty council. Get real."

I am unaware even if the county collects sales taxes.  Sales taxes are collected by the business and submitted to the OK Tax Commission who remits to the city 97% of their share of city sales taxes.  There is to be displayed at the business a OTC tax permit with a number showing they must collect the tax.

One could go to the county commissions office and see if they even have a permit to collect taxes and then check with the OTC to see the amount of taxes that was submitted on the county permit if it exist which I believe they are exempted.  

It is required by the statute that the amount of the product purchased and the taxes collected be separated on the invoice or receipt.   At that point the sales taxes collected is held in trust by the seller and must be remitted to the Oklahoma tax commission.

Sales taxes collected and remitted from roving venders for the city would not, unless authority is changed, be obligatory on the county.  

The state statutes by their authority grants the city's budget to increase 10% yearly but it must reduce it's budget by the amount of unspent funds from the previous year.  I cannot remember when the city ever had unspent budget funds

Is there anyone with the assumption that in time the city's income will outdistance the demanded budget, now is the time to come forward and explain.  You will be given 5 minutes to explain to the councilors any protest to the spending of some $500,000,000 [500 million] dollar budget.  

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

Super, thanks for asking. I'd guess that would be pretty close to numbers it would pass by if it came to a vote. If the County wants to keep sales low at the fairgrounds, all they have to do is stop collecting their portion, problem solved.

So listen to Shadow. They don't collect anything now and won't be doing that. Lame idea anyway.

Last time I saw your poll on this forum it was all "no". Haven't seen it lately. But for goodness sakes, get it on a ballot and lets see if we can spend some more $ to re-arrange the deck chairs.