Glenpool wooing the fairgrounds?

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Kiah

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

And btw, "state of the art" in this case means erector set buildings that can be disassembled and moved like fair rides. The Armory? Who wants it? Same with the Ice Capades building. The Drillers? Get real, they want to move it downtown anyway. Big Splash? I'm sorry, its worn out. Did you not notice or have you not been in the last few years? Fair Meadows is a dirt track built on the old stock car raceway. Someone will run it. The only thing that couldn't either be discounted or carried away is the IPE. I'm sure someone, like Murphy Bros. or the city can run it, leaky roof and all.

That's an awfully cavalier attitude about facilities we've spent and are spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on.

Not at all. Its simply the method of construction. These are metal truss buildings with metal siding on poured slabs. I can buy one similar for a farm off the net. The largest expense was probably in having them custom designed. It seems you all are missing the point.

I don't care what happens with the fairgrounds, the annexation, the river authority, whatever.  Just pointing out what is obvious to anyone but those with a horse in the race. It was appalling to see how little the councilors and the county seemed to know about each others operations. The councillors were practically drooling, they were asking questions they really did not know the answer to and were oblivious to the impact of annexation.

To not have seen what the result would be says a lot about the insight of this august body we chat on.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Kiah

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Kiah

By the way, has anyone ever addressed why the county doesn't waive its sales tax for Expo Square vendors, as it's asking the city to continue to do?  Has the county asked the state to waive its sales tax?

The county doesn't collect the sales tax do they? I thought they were remitted by the vendors to the state to be redistributed. Its not collected I suppose because its not city property, that's why they want to annex it. The same reason would also apply to the state I guess. A gentlemen's agreement that bodies of govt don't tax each other.

The state collects sales tax for cities and counties.  That doesn't mean county and state sales taxes aren't applied.  That's like saying everything I buy online is free, because Amazon doesn't collect money from my bank account.  I remit it to Visa instead.

Vendors aren't "bodies of govt."  They're fully taxable, and are, in fact, taxed by the county and state -- not the city, even though the city provides many costly services and substantial infrastructure to make those vendors' sales possible.

We're not communicating here. I think I said the same thing. Except I didn't refer to vendors as bodies of govt. You asked if the county had asked the state to waive its sales tax. A strange question. My understanding is that the city cannot assess a sales tax because it is not within city confines. What is the state sales tax? What makes you think the county would ask or could waive state sales tax? The vendor is responsible for paying that tax to the state. The county does not collect it.

Lot's of questions for such a simple annexation.

[Kiah]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

We're not communicating here. I think I said the same thing. Except I didn't refer to vendors as bodies of govt. You asked if the county had asked the state to waive its sales tax. A strange question. My understanding is that the city cannot assess a sales tax because it is not within city confines. What is the state sales tax? What makes you think the county would ask or could waive state sales tax? The vendor is responsible for paying that tax to the state. The county does not collect it.

I see.  Let's put it this way.  Have the County Commissioners and Expo Square officials paraded vendors in front of the state legislature or the Oklahoma Tax Commission, pleading with them not to impose the state sales tax, as they have with the city?  Have County Commissioners declined to apply county sales taxes on Expo Square vendors?

[Kiah]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

they were asking questions they really did not know the answer to....

How is asking questions in a public hearing (and not knowing the answers before the questions are asked) considered ill-advised?  Isn't that what a public hearing is for?

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Kiah

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

they were asking questions they really did not know the answer to....

How is asking questions in a public hearing (and not knowing the answers before the questions are asked) considered ill-advised?  Isn't that what a public hearing is for?

Sorry. That's just a policy that most parties in a business setting adhere to. Never ask a question you don't already know the answer to. Not much good can happen when you do. The security issues raised by Glanz was a good example.  Maybe they couldn't discuss this stuff behind closed doors but they could surely have done research and not been surprised by the County's answers.

This was touted as a simple solution. One that just made sense and was fair and just. It didn't take long to show that was a simplistic view. I don't know beans about govt. and I saw this was misguided when a compromise should have been effected. Why didn't they?

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Kiah

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

We're not communicating here. I think I said the same thing. Except I didn't refer to vendors as bodies of govt. You asked if the county had asked the state to waive its sales tax. A strange question. My understanding is that the city cannot assess a sales tax because it is not within city confines. What is the state sales tax? What makes you think the county would ask or could waive state sales tax? The vendor is responsible for paying that tax to the state. The county does not collect it.

I see.  Let's put it this way.  Have the County Commissioners and Expo Square officials paraded vendors in front of the state legislature or the Oklahoma Tax Commission, pleading with them not to impose the state sales tax, as they have with the city?  Have County Commissioners declined to apply county sales taxes on Expo Square vendors?

I don't know. Why would they? Is the city asking that vendors be required to remit city sales tax when they are not transacting business within the city of Tulsa?

[TheArtist]

Regardless of whether those buildings could technically be moved or not, it would cost about the same if not more to do so and have them rebuilt elsewhere.  The pads would have to be redone, the stonework redone, many things like sheetrock, insulation, wiring, plumbing, sealants, etc. etc. could not readily be reused. Not to mention much would be damaged and could even become unusable during the whole dismantling and moving process.  Many things have fasteners and such that could not be reused, the new jobsite would be a mess, it wouldn't be as though they would be getting windows, for instance, right out of the box etc. And many times in construction, the labor cost just as much or more than the material, and you would have twice or more the labor costs. Its not as though these things are "a cherished old mansion" or something worth the cost and tender loving care.  I doubt what could be salvaged would be worth the time, effort, and frustration of trying to move.  Be cheaper to just build from scratch and sell the old ones.  Regardless we all know they wouldnt move the danged things and the point remains the suburb would have to spend hundreds of millions to be able to compete.  As soon as any tax came up for a vote in those suburbs to consider building a fairgrounds to equal Tulsa's, they would see the expense and balk real quick.

But again, if the economic benefit of having it outweighs the cost, and they think they can compete...There has never been anything stopping them from doing so. If thats the case, why lose money to the county, since they said they would not be annexing the fairgrounds and thus not collecting a city tax on the fairgrounds.  If the fairgrounds is not going to be paying to build and the suburb is,,, why doesn't the suburb just build it and tax it, or not, as they decide?  Why force yourself to deal with another entity when you can be the sole "decider" and control things yourself, especially if your paying for it?

[waterboy]

No mas. I give up.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by Double A

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

I got a crazy idea, they could compromise!

The city should only tax the fair and leave everything else alone.  Basically, because the fair will be there every year and essentially cant leave.  Events from outside the area (Arabian Horse show, sprint cars, etc.) could just decide to go somewhere else and therefor the city would lose out on all their money.

Hell, not sure if that is fair (no pun...) or not, but something like this should be workable.  Or tax it at a lower rate and invest the extra money in infrastructure/services for the area.  Something has to be workable.

This guy is not interested in compromise. Cannon, you have some insight as to how business/govt work. He has a grudge because of the 3 mills. This is a battle between hard headed okies that steal from each other and call the other a thief. If it happened in a city park with two thieves the guns would already be drawn. BTW, aa, city councilors have been known to lose their elections over pissy stuff like this too. If you're so sure this is going to happen, give us a date. I'm betting on compromise because they don't think like you.

Tulsa 1603, consider the possibilities. Anything is possible. The city could buy the property with buildings and operate it themselves. They don't have much confidence in the county anyway. The buildings could be disassembled and moved, they aren't all that permanent except the Expo. Or the entire operation could be farmed out to Murphy Bros. They operate much of it anyway (the water park, the fair). I am not naive. I know this couldn't be done quickly or easily but if this is going to be a continuous battle between the city boys and the country boys, it can be done.

Oh Waterbuoy, cry me a river. This will happen, the Councilors will support it. Why? Because the majority of Tulsans support this.

You linked to a poll that showed everyone who responded...against annexation.

You have all the inside info AA. I'm just a taxpayer.

I like your verve Artist. Thats pretty much what I'm saying. The county could dismantle those buildings and take them or sell them I suppose. Re-election be damned! And wherever they move, they could still compete with the original fairgrounds site if it still operated as a promotional venue. A taste of the free market thrust upon the government.

I'm just a blue collar greaser. BTW, about that poll, does no mean yes in your world? The ladies must love you.

[TheArtist]

^ If you look at the poll results its a Yes.  The opinions of posters on the thread are not the poll and do not reflect its results.

[Double A]

Bates and Medlock debunk the annexation myths.

[Double A]

IMO every time the County shows up to the City Council Meetings unprepared, with lame excuses, and spouting bogus doomsday paranoia about the economic collapse of Tulsa if this annexation goes through; they look increasingly ineffectual, irresponsible, incompetent, and irrelevant.

My favorite County revelation of the meeting:

Admittal that the County is losing money in the contract they signed with the Arabian Horse Show.

My favorite moment of irony:

When the County bemoaned sales taxes as economic development killers while they promote the Vision 2025/Four to Fix sales taxes as the greatest economic generators ever to grace Tulsa, claiming that every new private investment that that's made in the County is due to these sales taxes.

My favorite special guest appearance:

TIE: Lil' Jimmy Inhofe Jr and Dan "Caveman" Hicks.

[TheArtist]

I was talking to a friend last night who is in town now for a horse show, he works in the industry for a horse magazine to get advertising. I mentioned to him about the fairgrounds being annexed by the city.  He said it would be a terrible idea. He says the fairgrounds does a great job, why add another layer of beuracracy. Plus the horse show industry is extremely competitive and adding more taxes would definitely be a negative.  The economic impact of even this small show was about 10million but most of the money by far that is generated by these shows is done so outside the fairgrounds, at hotels, restaurants, etc. In other words the risk and the hassle for the small amount of revenue on the fairgrounds wouldn't be worth it.

So if they are losing money with the Arabian Horse Show, it would mean to me that the horse show is not paying enough to cover the expenses incurred by the fairgrounds to put the show on? That means the Arabian Horse Show is only going to pay so much or they will simply go someplace else.

It seems to me that if the industry says the fairgrounds is doing a good job, and that most of the economic benefit is going to the city, not the county, anyway.  Why mess with things?

[Double A]

You are such an easy mark. This Arabian Horse show thing is a bluff, just like the Glenpool move. Let me ask you this, if the County proceeds with some sort of river development tax, don't you think it would be collected at the fairgrounds? They sure would , IMO. I haven't heard anything but hysterical doomsday scenarios that can't be backed up from the people against annexation.

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

I was talking to a friend last night who is in town now for a horse show, he works in the industry for a horse magazine to get advertising. I mentioned to him about the fairgrounds being annexed by the city.  He said it would be a terrible idea. He says the fairgrounds does a great job, why add another layer of beuracracy. Plus the horse show industry is extremely competitive and adding more taxes would definitely be a negative.  The economic impact of even this small show was about 10million but most of the money by far that is generated by these shows is done so outside the fairgrounds, at hotels, restaurants, etc. In other words the risk and the hassle for the small amount of revenue on the fairgrounds wouldn't be worth it.

So if they are losing money with the Arabian Horse Show, it would mean to me that the horse show is not paying enough to cover the expenses incurred by the fairgrounds to put the show on? That means the Arabian Horse Show is only going to pay so much or they will simply go someplace else.

It seems to me that if the industry says the fairgrounds is doing a good job, and that most of the economic benefit is going to the city, not the county, anyway.  Why mess with things?

The "Real" question to ask is....

Are the Fairgrounds being used for their full earnings potential..?

In the opinion of the County it would appear so..

IMHO the Fairgrounds have assets that have yet to be realized.....

The City of Tulsa has plenty of motivation and the proper personnel in place to make that happen in a very rapid fashion..

For Tulsa to move forward it must discover and utilize new directions to "turn a buck"..

The Annexation of the Fairgrounds should be one of those means..