hey mayor, you got my vote & $- where's the beef?

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur


To say the Mayor's proposal to raise money through a fire protection district is not a tax increase is just flat wrong.

Wow.  Asking to switch a funding stream from sales tax to property tax change is not the same as a tax increase.  That's not spin, that's logic.  If the ability for the City to form a fire district were granted, then I presume the voters would have been given a chance to decide.  Maybe they would have demanded an offset; maybe Tulsa would have lowered its sales tax.  I don't know and neither do you.  All I know is that the state legislators denied us this opportunity for self-determination because they want to preserve an archaic county government power structure that does Tulsa no good.  It's all a moot point now, but at least Taylor tried...and I hope she keeps trying until we have a way to prosper in the future.

quote:And for the good councilor to say taxes haven't been raised in Tulsa since 1980 is just flat wrong.  

An increase in revenue to a government through new fees or an increase in existing fees is a tax increase, regardless if you say those fees will be used for a specific purpose or you don't call it a tax.  That raise in my water/sewer rates equals a tax increase.

 No, water and sewer is fee-for-service.  It's a different revenue stream.  Water and sewer fees can only be used to maintain those systems.  But if you insist that clean water is a tax, then have your water shut off and give yourself a tax break! []

quote:That new EMSA subsidy added to my water bill (I opted out - don't forget to opt out by June 30) equals a tax increase.

 By definition, taxes are involuntary payments demanded by government.  This is not compulsory and therefore not a tax.  It's a fee, if you are okay with a lower level of service, then you can opt out.

quote:That 911 subsidy added to my phone bill equals a tax increase.

Yes, it is because it's compulsory. But it's also targeted.  911 fees go to support 911, not the general operations of the City.  

quote:The increase in sales tax for Vision 2025, of which the majority of the money goes to the City, equals a tax increase.

 It's a county tax.  Per capita, surrounding communities got far more than Tulsa.  I never liked the arena either, but don't obfuscate by saying that the arena money is being spent only for the benefit of Tulsans.

quote:That temporary Whirlpool tax equals a tax increase.

Tax abatements s*ck, you'll get no argument from me, but again, that was a county thing.  

quote:All of these have happened since 1980.  Shall I go on?

Yes, you'd better, because, of the four examples you have cited, not of your "taxes" could have been used to support police salaries, fire salaries, and other general operations (Streets, Parks, Finance).  That funding source has been the same 2% since 1971.  And that's why our streets are cruddy, our parks are overgrown, and our public safety folks are fighting everyone and every thing in order to get what they need to protect us.  There's no place left to cut.

Think about how this city has changed since 1971.  It is more spread out, meaning, in order to keep response times down, you need more fire stations, ambulance crews, policemen, patrol cars, and gasoline per capita to maintain the same level of service.

Now consider all of those personnel and capital costs that have outpaced inflation:  education, health care, energy (gas and electricity), and even concrete and steel (thanks, China).    

The City changed but the revenue hasn't.  

quote:The problem with the spin that comes out from City Hall is they only quote ONE section of the City's total budget picture, and that is the operating budget.  Problem is, there are lots more budgets, such as the capital budget and others.  I will totally agree that 2 cents of our sales taxes goes to fund the operating budget and no other taxes are identified to operating expenses.  But whose fault is that?  We add taxes on top of taxes but always specifically say those new taxes can't be used for operating expenses.  Nothing says Third Penny can't be used for operating expenses, it's just that is how Third Penny is offered up to the tax payers.

Like I have said before, you must look at total city expenditures, not just one section of the budget.  I will stand by my previous statement, the city is spending record amounts of money.

You mention the City's budget is flat when compared to inflation.  I agree the operating budget is flat when compared to inflation.  And personnel costs, health care costs, fuel costs, all go into inflation, just as it does for every citizen in this town.  That is what inflation is.  

I know what inflation is.  I also know that the city doesn't buy groceries, clothes, plama tvs, and sports equipment.  Globalization, for better or worse, has made lots of these things cheaper since the 1970s.  On the other hand, costs associated with personnel, energy, and facilities have gone up.  The city skews towards these things and they have outpaced inflation.

quote:Additionally, a budget that keeps up with inflation, such as Tulsa's, is what many people want.  

Yes, but it doesn't keep up.

quote:They don't want new programs creeping up every time government finds new money to spend.

I agree with everyone at City Hall that employee costs are the majority of city expenditures in the operating budget (but not the total budget picture).

 Tell us what you'd cut, then.  Martinson showed us that things like Parks and Finance have been severely cut already.  Where's the fat?  

quote:Government is strictly non-profit, we don't sell a product, so as with any non-profit agency, the majority of our expenditure will be on personnel.  I also agree public safety is the majority of the operating budget (but not the total budget picture), as it is with every government agency.  Fire trucks, ambulances, police cars, ........ are expensive.

I get tired of hearing how poor the City SAYS they are, but we seem to have plenty of money to buy a new City Hall, or some other pet project depending on who the mayor is.  Again, it all comes down to priorities in spending.

We're not that far apart on many things, Wilbur.  You recognize the problems, but your "solution" is grounded in rhetoric, not reality.  Tulsa is pretty efficient right now; several rounds of cuts will do that to a bureaucracy.  And the mayor keeps looking for new ways to save money.  Should we combine the City, County, Riverparks Systems and share personnel and equipment?  Why the h*ll not...it's worth a look anyway?  What about fire departments? Police forces?  Let's keep looking.  
Does it make sense to consolidate in a new city hall in a spanking new building and sell off several older properties for redevelopment.  We're all waiting on the numbers, but it, too, was worth a look.  If it makes financial sense over the long haul, is it really a "pet project"?

[AVERAGE JOE]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

Wilbur,

You should read Councilor Martinson's report, "Municipal Revenues and Fiscal Constraints" (March 2008).

quote: As the previous slide clearly shows, we've maintained our focus on public safety, but this has forced us to eliminate services in other areas.

I don't want anyone to miss the point that our realneeds exceed our resources. The budget balances because it has to.

In some cases we have cut beyond the fat and are deep into the muscle. We are working on implementing LEAN processes, but they will take time and will not cover the entire gap.

People talk about tax increases, but the last time the City of Tulsa had a tax increase was with the first 3rd penny in 1980. The 3rd Penny is a temporary tax, approved by the voters, and is essentially restricted to fund capital projects.

The City has relied on a 2% sales tax since 1971 to fund operations. Granted, sales taxes rise with the price of goods purchased, but as those prices increase, so do our costs. We could probably maintain services in such an environment, but other factors are working against us as you will soon see.

To say the Mayor's proposal to raise money through a fire protection district is not a tax increase is just flat wrong.  And for the good councilor to say taxes haven't been raised in Tulsa since 1980 is just flat wrong.

An increase in revenue to a government through new fees or an increase in existing fees is a tax increase, regardless if you say those fees will be used for a specific purpose or you don't call it a tax.  That raise in my water/sewer rates equals a tax increase.  That new EMSA subsidy added to my water bill (I opted out - don't forget to opt out by June 30) equals a tax increase.  That 911 subsidy added to my phone bill equals a tax increase.  The increase in sales tax for Vision 2025, of which the majority of the money goes to the City, equals a tax increase.  That temporary Whirlpool tax equals a tax increase.  All of these have happened since 1980.  Shall I go on?

The problem with the spin that comes out from City Hall is they only quote ONE section of the City's total budget picture, and that is the operating budget.  Problem is, there are lots more budgets, such as the capital budget and others.  I will totally agree that 2 cents of our sales taxes goes to fund the operating budget and no other taxes are identified to operating expenses.  But whose fault is that?  We add taxes on top of taxes but always specifically say those new taxes can't be used for operating expenses.  Nothing says Third Penny can't be used for operating expenses, it's just that is how Third Penny is offered up to the tax payers.

Like I have said before, you must look at total city expenditures, not just one section of the budget.  I will stand by my previous statement, the city is spending record amounts of money.

You mention the City's budget is flat when compared to inflation.  I agree the operating budget is flat when compared to inflation.  And personnel costs, health care costs, fuel costs, all go into inflation, just as it does for every citizen in this town.  That is what inflation is.  Additionally, a budget that keeps up with inflation, such as Tulsa's, is what many people want.  They don't want new programs creeping up every time government finds new money to spend.

I agree with everyone at City Hall that employee costs are the majority of city expenditures in the operating budget (but not the total budget picture).  Government is strictly non-profit, we don't sell a product, so as with any non-profit agency, the majority of our expenditure will be on personnel.  I also agree public safety is the majority of the operating budget (but not the total budget picture), as it is with every government agency.  Fire trucks, ambulances, police cars, ........ are expensive.

I get tired of hearing how poor the City SAYS they are, but we seem to have plenty of money to buy a new City Hall, or some other pet project depending on who the mayor is.  Again, it all comes down to priorities in spending.

The move of City Hall would only happen if the city would realize cost SAVINGS by consolidating offices into one facility. As someone who appears to be anti-tax, small-government, you should support the motivation behind the effort. Unless you're just against everything.

[daddys little squirt]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

Originally posted by Wilbur


  And the mayor keeps looking for new ways to save money.  Should we combine the City, County, Riverparks Systems and share personnel and equipment?  Why the h*ll not...it's worth a look anyway?  

Give that man a cigar! Not just equipment. There are plenty of savings to be had with this idea as well as the added benefit of unified planning. All the sacred cows need to be herded together and culled. The lunacy of city parks, county parks and river parks all within the same trade area with different budgets, different goals, security etc is the very definition of wasteful duplicative government. Go after that one.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

Have you ever seen a town fight to keep a business that was considering leaving?  I certainly have.  The fact that Inhofe let the oil industry abandon Tulsa without so much as a whimper makes one question his loyalties, who he was serving and where his bread was buttered.  I think most of us know the answer to those questions.

I'm certainly no spring chicken Conan.  I guess you could say I have the long view.  If you were from Tulsa you would know to show some respect for your elders.

Heh, heh, heh.

That makes as much sense as saying "Who was buttering Mayor Savage's muffin when Texaco finally packed up and Amoco finally closed their research center?" or "Was Bill LaFortune smoking pot with Hugo Chavez when CITGO left Tulsa?"

I really don't recall more than token efforts by those mayors either.  I don't hold them accountable for it, it boils down to corporate economics.

Like it or not, companies frequently move operations for the sake of convenience, efficiency, and economic considerations.  Corporations are beholden first to share-holders not local politicians or legislators.

Large-scale migration and consolidation of the oil industry to Houston was already happening back when Inhofe and his brother Bud were still scheming on time-shares down on Padre` Island before he was in elected office.  What happened during his tenure was inevitable, regardless of who was in office or what incentives were thrown toward oil companies.

Just because the downtown skyline no longer has titles like "Texaco", "Cities Service", Amoco, or "Occidental" on building caps doesn't mean we aren't still a player in the oil industry.  Williams, SEM, Samson, and OneOk are just a sampling of well-respected players who still call Tulsa their HQ.  There is an oil patch fabrication industry which is kicking donkey in Tulsa right now.  

FWIW, Forbes Magazine (whoops, there's another hateful capitalist) in 2006 ranked Tulsa as second in the nation in income growth.

Yeah, Inhofe is really keeping Tulsa from bringing home the bacon these days.

It's not all politics HT.

[daddys little squirt]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

My dear friend Conan, you weren't here when Tulsa was the Oil Capital of the World.  I was.

Some day we are going to have to talk about who was in charge when the oil industry bailed on Tulsa (Inhofe) and why they let the industry leave without putting up a good fight.

Meanwhile, Kathy Taylor is just about the best mayor we can hope for, but she can't turn things around by herself.

Yes, I know HT, you are so old you taught Jesus carpentry. []

So it was that creep Inhofe's fault.

And here all along I've always believed what my petroleum geologist (former) step-father and grandfather, who was in the biz, were telling me at the time:

The bottom fell out of oil prices, consolidation of operations was necessary for survival, large volume oil fields in Oklahoma and Kansas were playing out, U.S. exploration was shifting from the continental U.S. to the Gulf of Mexico, and Houston was 500 miles closer to the Gulf, ICW, and refineries;  more direct airline transportation to foreign countries where oil exploration had gone, etc.

I guess my step-dad and grandfather really were lying bastards after-all.  Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Maybe. If you receive your career sustenance from the industry you tend to believe their propaganda. People who have escaped often tell a different story. I was one of them. The oil industry is a population of bleating sheep. If one large company moves to Houston for whatever reason, the others will follow. Same thing with their justifications for pricing. All of what your lying bastard grandfather said may be true but most likely had little to do with moving out of Tulsa. It presupposes that we didn't have working telephone lines, and that the company jets ran out of jet fuel.

[Rico]

   And the mayor keeps looking for new ways to save money. Should we combine the City, County, Riverparks Systems and share personnel and equipment? Why the h*ll not...it's worth a look anyway?



Give that man a cigar! Not just equipment. There are plenty of savings to be had with this idea as well as the added benefit of unified planning. All the sacred cows need to be herded together and culled. The lunacy of city parks, county parks and river parks all within the same trade area with different budgets, different goals, security etc is the very definition of wasteful duplicative government. Go after that one.






^

Very Good points from both of you.. Another thing that needs to be looked at hard are the contracted work that is done for the City of Tulsa...

Go down to the fellows office in charge of "contracts" at City Hall .. Ask him... how many people, the City, has to verify the work contracted for is ever completed or is done at all..? I know of several instances where the Contractor was on time and complete with one thing submitting his Invoice for Payment....

It worked better than you would think it would for quite some time.

That is one Contract of hundreds that Mister Hardt (sp?) feels the City saves money by contracting the services rather than having a work force capable of doing the work... and mind you... many of the contracts are for mowing the grass.

If the City and County were to combine employees it would be interesting to see if a savings could be realized with joint use of equipment and personnel...?

[Hometown]

Yes, and it's expected that cities will look out for their own self interests but our leadership didn't look out for Tulsa's interest when they could have made an effort to staunch the flow.  Maybe it's because Inhofe thought his personal self interest was best served by taking care of the oil industry instead of his constituents.

There's a story in little ole Tulsa's slavish support of the Republican party and the Republican party's complete disregard for Tulsa.

I like the story behind the story.  Don't you Conan?

Now, I've asked you before and you've never told me, I'm from Tulsa, where are you from and where are you going?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

Yes, and it's expected that cities will look out for their own self interests but our leadership didn't look out for Tulsa's interest when they could have made an effort to staunch the flow.  Maybe it's because Inhofe thought his personal self interest was best served by taking care of the oil industry instead of his constituents.

There's a story in little ole Tulsa's slavish support of the Republican party and the Republican party's complete disregard for Tulsa.

I like the story behind the story.  Don't you Conan?

Now, I've asked you before and you've never told me, I'm from Tulsa, where are you from and where are you going?

Born in Tulsa in the pink palace in 1965, lived here for all but 6 months back in my early 20's.  Yeah I know, I was dragging sh!tty diapers across the carpet while you were starting to make your bones.

I'm going to gut it out here another 10 or 15 years, then planning to move off-shore to a place with abundant clear salt water, low crime, low or no taxes, no Democrats or Republicans other than those on vacation or fellow expatriates, and plenty of rum drinks and Carib Beer.  I plan to refrain from reading USA Today.  Hopefully it's a place the environmentalists will allow me to have a viking funeral when my poor liver finally gives out or I die of skin cancer. []

Little secret this youngster learned before he could even vote:  Political parties don't care about individuals, just their votes and the corporations and PACs who give them money and keep them in a lazy job.

You will never convince me that Inhofe could have done anything different to change a logical trend in the oil industry.  The die was cast and there wasn't a thing Tulsa could do about it.  I'd say the same thing if it were Hewgley, LaFortune I or II, Savage, Randall, or whomever.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by daddys little squirt

Maybe. If you receive your career sustenance from the industry you tend to believe their propaganda. People who have escaped often tell a different story. I was one of them. The oil industry is a population of bleating sheep. If one large company moves to Houston for whatever reason, the others will follow. Same thing with their justifications for pricing. All of what your lying bastard grandfather said may be true but most likely had little to do with moving out of Tulsa. It presupposes that we didn't have working telephone lines, and that the company jets ran out of jet fuel.

Yep, still doesn't buttress Hometown's assertion that we can blame Inhofe for "monkey-see, monkey-do" along with obvious economic advantages which follow by being close to the competition, vendors, and customers.

[Hometown]

Conan!  My baby homeboy.  You're going to blow a hole in my argument about Tulsans knowing how to act in public.  Anyway, rest up and remember Mayor Taylor in your prayers.  Maybe there's hope for you yet.

Hey Squirt, oil has one thing I like and one thing Tulsa really needs.  Big Money.

Two points.  We still have a critical mass of oil business; and, Bartlesville brought back significant operations from Conoco / Philips.  Tulsa needs to take a look at what our little sister to the north has done.

Meanwhile, the old regime that got us in this mess is still in power and folks if you like what you've been getting keep on voting for Inhofe and his friends.

[daddys little squirt]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by daddys little squirt

Maybe. If you receive your career sustenance from the industry you tend to believe their propaganda. People who have escaped often tell a different story. I was one of them. The oil industry is a population of bleating sheep. If one large company moves to Houston for whatever reason, the others will follow. Same thing with their justifications for pricing. All of what your lying bastard grandfather said may be true but most likely had little to do with moving out of Tulsa. It presupposes that we didn't have working telephone lines, and that the company jets ran out of jet fuel.

Yep, still doesn't buttress Hometown's assertion that we can blame Inhofe for "monkey-see, monkey-do" along with obvious economic advantages which follow by being close to the competition, vendors, and customers.

I had no intention of buttressing anyone's opinion, just looking out for reasonable assertions and backing them with personal experience.

I was working for the tenth largest oil company in America, Cities, when one of the bigger guys located in Houston. We hung out here for what, another 25 yrs? And if it makes sense to be near the competition, vendors and customers why didn't all these companies move to Lake Charles, La or the home of Exxon? There are no "defensible" economic advantages. Especially true with the internet.

Cities Service moved here in the 60's because of the proximity of this area to the oil producing and refining areas, not because there was oil reserves or their refineries in Tulsa. Housing prices were cheap compared to New York and the living environment was tons better than Texas and La. Many executives with New York and Chicago salaries became nouveau riche at Tulsa prices. That was an important factor. We could build a huge new office building for cheap and spend the savings on jets and communications, which we did. Lots of oil industry white collar workers here too.

That being said when the lead sheep left it caused tremors in the rest of the flock. Soon after I was in another industry whose VP was shocked that no one in Tulsa leadership circles was making much of an effort to keep these companies from leaping off the cliff. We had taken them for granted. Whether an effort would have mattered I don't have the same confidence you have. But no one tried. We then began to lose retail and services that had depended on those players. By then it was too late. The oil and banking collapse of the early eighties took hold and we started looking for another sugar daddy...technology. Then the cycle repeated. I'm sure COC people could fill in the details.

Inhofe is one of many who made sure his stuff was secure but let Tulsa blow in the wind. Can't say the same for Randle and Savage though. Wasn't much left to bribe by then.

[Hometown]

May I quote you Squirt?

"Inhofe is one of many who made sure his stuff was secure but let Tulsa blow in the wind."

Now, Mayor Taylor has clean up duty.  Not an easy job.  But, hang in there Ms. Mayor.  Time is on our side.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

May I quote you Squirt?

"Inhofe is one of many who made sure his stuff was secure but let Tulsa blow in the wind."

Now, Mayor Taylor has clean up duty.  Not an easy job.  But, hang in there Ms. Mayor.  Time is on our side.

Yep, she sure is walking into tough times, #2 in the nation in income growth, estimated $29 billion in GDP, record employment, etc.

Times are tough, what will we ever do?

[Hometown]

Conan, You're no spring chicken either and your party is where my party was in 1978.  You are headed into the valley of darkness and that is where you will be for most of the rest of your life.

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

Wilbur,

You should read Councilor Martinson's report, "Municipal Revenues and Fiscal Constraints" (March 2008).

quote: As the previous slide clearly shows, we've maintained our focus on public safety, but this has forced us to eliminate services in other areas.

I don't want anyone to miss the point that our realneeds exceed our resources. The budget balances because it has to.

In some cases we have cut beyond the fat and are deep into the muscle. We are working on implementing LEAN processes, but they will take time and will not cover the entire gap.

People talk about tax increases, but the last time the City of Tulsa had a tax increase was with the first 3rd penny in 1980. The 3rd Penny is a temporary tax, approved by the voters, and is essentially restricted to fund capital projects.

The City has relied on a 2% sales tax since 1971 to fund operations. Granted, sales taxes rise with the price of goods purchased, but as those prices increase, so do our costs. We could probably maintain services in such an environment, but other factors are working against us as you will soon see.

To say the Mayor's proposal to raise money through a fire protection district is not a tax increase is just flat wrong.  And for the good councilor to say taxes haven't been raised in Tulsa since 1980 is just flat wrong.

An increase in revenue to a government through new fees or an increase in existing fees is a tax increase, regardless if you say those fees will be used for a specific purpose or you don't call it a tax.  That raise in my water/sewer rates equals a tax increase.  That new EMSA subsidy added to my water bill (I opted out - don't forget to opt out by June 30) equals a tax increase.  That 911 subsidy added to my phone bill equals a tax increase.  The increase in sales tax for Vision 2025, of which the majority of the money goes to the City, equals a tax increase.  That temporary Whirlpool tax equals a tax increase.  All of these have happened since 1980.  Shall I go on?

The problem with the spin that comes out from City Hall is they only quote ONE section of the City's total budget picture, and that is the operating budget.  Problem is, there are lots more budgets, such as the capital budget and others.  I will totally agree that 2 cents of our sales taxes goes to fund the operating budget and no other taxes are identified to operating expenses.  But whose fault is that?  We add taxes on top of taxes but always specifically say those new taxes can't be used for operating expenses.  Nothing says Third Penny can't be used for operating expenses, it's just that is how Third Penny is offered up to the tax payers.

Like I have said before, you must look at total city expenditures, not just one section of the budget.  I will stand by my previous statement, the city is spending record amounts of money.

You mention the City's budget is flat when compared to inflation.  I agree the operating budget is flat when compared to inflation.  And personnel costs, health care costs, fuel costs, all go into inflation, just as it does for every citizen in this town.  That is what inflation is.  Additionally, a budget that keeps up with inflation, such as Tulsa's, is what many people want.  They don't want new programs creeping up every time government finds new money to spend.

I agree with everyone at City Hall that employee costs are the majority of city expenditures in the operating budget (but not the total budget picture).  Government is strictly non-profit, we don't sell a product, so as with any non-profit agency, the majority of our expenditure will be on personnel.  I also agree public safety is the majority of the operating budget (but not the total budget picture), as it is with every government agency.  Fire trucks, ambulances, police cars, ........ are expensive.

I get tired of hearing how poor the City SAYS they are, but we seem to have plenty of money to buy a new City Hall, or some other pet project depending on who the mayor is.  Again, it all comes down to priorities in spending.

The move of City Hall would only happen if the city would realize cost SAVINGS by consolidating offices into one facility. As someone who appears to be anti-tax, small-government, you should support the motivation behind the effort. Unless you're just against everything.

I'm all for a new city hall when the city believes they can afford it.  This city cries "no money" consistently, then, all of a sudden, decides they have enough millions to buy a new city hall.  Are we broke or not?  (I say not)

I think the new city hall would be cool and I believe a new city hall is needed.  I'm just not convinced this is the correct time.

And I'm against putting all of your people in one building.  Homeland Security recommends against this as well.  One event targeted towards your one building and you've lost everything in one swoop.  Not to mention a glass structure isn't the most secure.  That, and I don't think the citizens will find it as easy to access as the current facility.