Bates Freaks Out at River Presentation

[Wrinkle]

quote: The county is not "obligated" at all to put water in the river between 81st and 31st. The dams even if built with 2025 money do nothing for that part of the river.

You're going to have expand on that, it doesn't make sense.

[Chicken Little]

Well, somebody mark their calendar...as of this moment, I'm officially on the fence.  I was leaning for this thing because I actually do believe that it could provide a great boost to our economy and quality of life.  I see it as a good investment.

But I feel that V2025 funding, as an idea should be explored.  If the language in V2025 covers the new scope as proposed, then why not take a look?  I'm not sure why it would take longer...if the revenue will eventually be there, why can't you bond it now?  

Miller owes the Tulsa (city) that much.  Remember a few months back when she was sniping at the City about doing a better job at managing their money?  The County's (her) budget is up what, 18%, this year?  And the City's is flat...again.  

I also think that, if there is some kind of overage, or if the current proposal is not eligible, then the County should look at a GO bond based on property tax, instead of a sales tax, and quit dipping into the City's well.  It doesn't seem quite fair that the County should be hitting the sales tax harder than the City when they have alternate revenue sources.  Wouldn't they be screwing with the City's bond rating?

[RecycleMichael]

Here is more of the discussion between Michael Bates and Randi Miller. KOTV just showed the last two seconds or so.

Thanks to DSchuttler for posting this on his website and you tube...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdmmBdXwOnU

Make you own conclusion.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

Well, somebody mark their calendar...as of this moment, I'm officially on the fence.  I was leaning for this thing because I actually do believe that it could provide a great boost to our economy and quality of life.  I see it as a good investment.

But I feel that V2025 funding, as an idea should be explored.  If the language in V2025 covers the new scope as proposed, then why not take a look?  I'm not sure why it would take longer...if the revenue will eventually be there, why can't you bond it now?  

Miller owes the Tulsa (city) that much.  Remember a few months back when she was sniping at the City about doing a better job at managing their money?  The County's (her) budget is up what, 18%, this year?  And the City's is flat...again.  

I also think that, if there is some kind of overage, or if the current proposal is not eligible, then the County should look at a GO bond based on property tax, instead of a sales tax, and quit dipping into the City's well.  It doesn't seem quite fair that the County should be hitting the sales tax harder than the City when they have alternate revenue sources.  Wouldn't they be screwing with the City's bond rating?

How sturdy is that fence? Room for two?

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Besides, it's a COUNTY SALES TAX. And, there's clearly funding in the V2025 to do the original estimated work, even if it delays it somewhat.

I don't know if there is a "besides" if V2025 only provided matching funds.  That's a proposal for partial funding at best.

Either that deal is dead and gone, or, the County is still obliged to provide that original match from V2025.  But how do you get from there to the point where the County is obliged to pay for 100% of it out of V2025?  It's an idea, but it doesn't seem like an obligation.

I still think the better argument is simply saying that the County is impinging on the City's sole source of revenue (an unstable source at that) by asking for more sales tax.  The City is already hundreds of millions behind on infrastructure repairs and the County continues to take big bites out of the only resource that the City can turn to, constitutionally.

Of course, that might imply that you were FOR the City raising taxes to fix streets, and I'm pretty sure I know where you stand on that[].

I'm still wondering if the County could raise property taxes to pay for these improvements instead of sales tax...anybody know?

Unless someone can show me the specific language, my read is that 2025 was not providing the "matching funds". The dams were a 2025 project and it was from the Fed gov. that they were seeking the matching funds. They had to have some contingency plan thought out for if they did not receive the hoped for matching funds. What does that plan say will happen?

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

Well, somebody mark their calendar...as of this moment, I'm officially on the fence.  I was leaning for this thing because I actually do believe that it could provide a great boost to our economy and quality of life.  I see it as a good investment.

But I feel that V2025 funding, as an idea should be explored.  If the language in V2025 covers the new scope as proposed, then why not take a look?  I'm not sure why it would take longer...if the revenue will eventually be there, why can't you bond it now?  

Miller owes the Tulsa (city) that much.  Remember a few months back when she was sniping at the City about doing a better job at managing their money?  The County's (her) budget is up what, 18%, this year?  And the City's is flat...again.  

I also think that, if there is some kind of overage, or if the current proposal is not eligible, then the County should look at a GO bond based on property tax, instead of a sales tax, and quit dipping into the City's well.  It doesn't seem quite fair that the County should be hitting the sales tax harder than the City when they have alternate revenue sources.  Wouldn't they be screwing with the City's bond rating?

The Bonding issue is that the longer the term, the more it costs. If that conflicts with the available amount of revenue, it matters.

IF, for example, $50 million of extra V2025 revenue is expected, you can't just bond $50 million. The TOTAL bond cost includes interest over the term and a bonding agent fee up front.

In that sense, it's just like any other loan, actually more like a mortgage with closing costs.

So, the shorter the period between the time of bonding and the end of revenue collections, the less it costs in terms of interest.

To pay for $25 million in dam costs today would take perhaps a 10 year bond at something around 7%. Over that 10 years, the interest adds up to around an additional $10 million. So, the excess V2025 revenues would need to be $35 mil to cover a $25 mil expense today.

If we wait 5 years, we'd save $5 mil in interest and make the total cost only $30 mil.

It depends on how much excess revenue is available, and if that's the best way to allocate.

Since the County's currently pulling around $57 mil per year on V2025, there's some chance the dams could be paid directly out of cash flow, but that depends on how other bonds were structured and the cash flow requirements of all V2025 projects taken together.

As a matter of record, the County's Four-Fixers portion portion of Sales Tax (0.417%) will also produce excess of approximately $200 million.

The entire County estimate was for $885 mil, while collections are expected to become around $1.35 billion by the end of 2016. V2025 gets about 60% of that, about $800 mil.

V2025 surplus was about $265 mil before arena was refunded with $45.5 mil in cost overruns.

I'm getting about $200 mil available yet in V2025, another $150-$200 mil available on the balance of County proceeds.

It appears money is a problem only in the sense of having to wade through it wherever they go.

Update: I should add that there's currently about $400 mil in bonds issued in two sets for V2025. Don't know the particulars, but the interest and fee costs for these would need be deducted.

At 6% and 10 years, that could add up to around $133 mil, knocking V2025 excesses down to around $65-$70 mil., which, I think, corresponds closely with current County claims.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist


Unless someone can show me the specific language, my read is that 2025 was not providing the "matching funds". The dams were a 2025 project and it was from the Fed gov. that they were seeking the matching funds. They had to have some contingency plan thought out for if they did not receive the hoped for matching funds. What does that plan say will happen?

From the comments made by county commissioners to the media during the campaign and after, and from the language in the ballot resolution itself, it appears that the excess sales tax receipts were the contingency plan.

I haven't seen anything to suggest that the county commissioners said before the Vision 2025 vote, "If we don't get the matching funds, you won't get the dams," or, "If we don't get the matching funds, we'll come back to ask you for another tax to pay for them."

[tim huntzinger]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael


Thanks to DSchuttler for posting this on his website and you tube...

I am seriously disappointed in you DS ('You are dead to me Fredo.') That is by far and away the most favorable part of the exchange, stopped just before he really lost it.  For the record I will post the rest taken from my phone.  As I was leaving the meeting, MB and DS were huddled together talking.

At least one of these number crunchers showed they have emotion, too bad it is about geeky number splitting.  It is telling that the same problem vexed Medlock last week when he popped off about the 12-year-old's mom: talking about the issue at an emotional level inappopriate for the circumstance.

I thank you MichaelBates for addressing your harshest critics and will not beat this dead horse any longer.  However, I would like an apology for you statement that I have exploded like that in a public meeting.  I assert that is either a deliberate lie or an honest mistake.

[Breadburner]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael


Thanks to DSchuttler for posting this on his website and you tube...

I am seriously disappointed in you DS ('You are dead to me Fredo.') That is by far and away the most favorable part of the exchange, stopped just before he really lost it.  For the record I will post the rest taken from my phone.  As I was leaving the meeting, MB and DS were huddled together talking.

At least one of these number crunchers showed they have emotion, too bad it is about geeky number splitting.  It is telling that the same problem vexed Medlock last week when he popped off about the 12-year-old's mom: talking about the issue at an emotional level inappopriate for the circumstance.

I thank you MichaelBates for addressing your harshest critics and will not beat this dead horse any longer.  However, I would like an apology for you statement that I have exploded like that in a public meeting.  I assert that is either a deliberate lie or an honest mistake.

Envy is the most sincere form of flattery....The obsession continues....

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger


At least one of these number crunchers showed they have emotion, too bad it is about geeky number splitting.  It is telling that the same problem vexed Medlock last week when he popped off about the 12-year-old's mom: talking about the issue at an emotional level inappopriate for the circumstance.

I thank you MichaelBates for addressing your harshest critics and will not beat this dead horse any longer.  However, I would like an apology for you statement that I have exploded like that in a public meeting.  I assert that is either a deliberate lie or an honest mistake.

Tim, I apologize if I gave the impression that you blew up during a public meeting, but I think it is fair to write what I did, that I've seen your passion get the best of you. I'll tell you what I had in mind when I wrote that:

(1) When you posted off-topic diatribes on numerous threads on this forum under your previous username, you were banned. The admin at the time found it worthy to email the TulsaNow board of directors about your behavior.

(2) The 2005 Tulsa County Republican Convention, when you became rather agitated that the newly elected chairman, Jerry Buchanan, "stole" your idea of focusing on rebuilding the precinct-level organization without giving you credit.

Anyone who has been involved in local Democratic or Republican politics knows that every new county chairman comes in with the intention of recruiting and training precinct officers who will actually work the precinct for funds, volunteers, and votes. It's an idea that is as old as the hills, but it's very difficult to get it done, which is why every new chairman sets out to rebuild the precincts.

While I don't think you blew up in the convention meeting itself, I seem to recall you making a spectacle of yourself out in the convention lobby with your complaints, and it started you on a snit against the Republican Party which is two years long and counting.

I believe you thought you had an original idea and would be greeted as a hero and a genius. What you had was a good idea, but one that a lot of other people had already had.

Here's what you wrote at the time, which seems to capture your state of mind:

quote:
The rift will be between those who want control and influence just for the sake of having control and influence and those who want control and influence because they have a mission.

When I was at the Convention Saturday, I was telling anyone who would listen 'Precincts, precincts, precincts,' including Chair Buchanan, who looked at me puzzled when I brought this up. On the radio yesterday, the first f******* word out of his mouth was 'Precincts'.

And look, not one Republicrat has said 'Do not leave us, we need as much help as we can.' but the Dems are saying 'The water is not too bad.'
The Republican crybabies can whine about media bias but the hypocrites cannot take the slightest bit of criticism.

So there it is. The Republicans have gained an enemy, and the Democrats an advocate.

So that was the basis for what I wrote. People can judge for themselves whether I mischaracterized your actions. The point was that people, like you and me, sometimes get carried away when they believe an injustice is being done.

And, without excusing my loss of temper, that is what got me angry on Sunday. I was not blowing up over "geeky" numbers. It was Randi Miller's bald-face denials of promises made by her and her fellow commissioners four years ago that set me off, denials made in the face of their clearly written commitment in the ballot resolution.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

Here is more of the discussion between Michael Bates and Randi Miller. KOTV just showed the last two seconds or so.

Thanks to DSchuttler for posting this on his website and you tube...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdmmBdXwOnU

Make you own conclusion.

KOTV showed a different discussion than the one in this video.

[MichaelC]

Yeah, KOTV's little slice wasn't present in that video.  Still, nice flailing arms there Batesy.  Twould have been hilarious had his majesty cold cocked Taylor.

At least Miller seemed to handle herself pretty well.

[MichaelC]

Anywho, Bates went crazy, then apologized, it's kind of over.  He's not making serious excuses, I dig that.  I find the episode slightly hilarious, but not everyone does I'm sure.

Seriously though, I don't remember any "promises" about the river, other than the matching funds.  But, you mentioned on your blog the concept of extending the current V2025 to include the river.  I don't know if it's possible, but it doesn't sound like a bad idea.  It would probably be, just guessing, a 4 year extension as opposed to a 7 year hike.  

Then you get into the question of when would the funds be available, etc.  Better now than later, but it doesn't sound like a bad idea.  Again, whether or not it's possible, I don't know.

[sgrizzle]

How about a 1.483c tax for a shorter time period.

I would love it if taxes were a round number.

[RecycleMichael]

Interesting idea sgrizzle.

How about a 10,000 dollar tax just when there are lots of visitors in town?

For every dollar they spend, we would collect ten thousand in tax?

I could put off grocery shopping for a week...