Tulsa’s fiscal priorities are out of whack

[Hometown]

Ever heard of getting the cart before the horse?

I have been flabbergasted to see that the City of Tulsa does not have enough money budgeted to mow her property.  And then I read in the local newspaper that our streets have deteriorated so badly that we can never realistically expect that they will be well maintained.

A City is like a person.  Think about how you run your household affairs and then think about how Tulsa runs her household affairs.

Tulsa recently decided to borrow $76M for a new city hall that she does not have to have.

Tulsa is about to ask her citizens to approve $200M in new taxes for developing recreational areas on the river.

That would be like me borrowing $19,000 for a storage room addition and $40,000 for a new in ground swimming pool when I couldn't pay my monthly electric bill and when I was also unable to pay the hazard insurance on my home.

I'm a pro-growth social liberal but I'm also a fiscal conservative and it looks to me like Tulsa needs to tighten her belt and put her many self improvement schemes on hold until she has something left over after fully funding basic services.

[restored2x]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

Ever heard of getting the cart before the horse?

I have been flabbergasted to see that the City of Tulsa does not have enough money budgeted to mow her property.  And then I read in the local newspaper that our streets have deteriorated so badly that we can never realistically expect that they will be well maintained.

A City is like a person.  Think about how you run your household affairs and then think about how Tulsa runs her household affairs.

Tulsa recently decided to borrow $76M for a new city hall that she does not have to have.

Tulsa is about to ask her citizens to approve $200M in new taxes for developing recreational areas on the river.

That would be like me borrowing $19,000 for a storage room addition and $40,000 for a new in ground swimming pool when I couldn't pay my monthly electric bill and when I was also unable to pay the hazard insurance on my home.

I'm a pro-growth social liberal but I'm also a fiscal conservative and it looks to me like Tulsa needs to tighten her belt and put her many self improvement schemes on hold until she has something left over after fully funding basic services.

Well said, HT!

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

Ever heard of getting the cart before the horse?

A lot of what you speak of, can be attributed to the shrinking tax base in conjunction with the removal of federal and state funds.  The city's funds are not growing at the rate of the city's obligations.  And the city has already, over the last several years, streamlined itself.  There's not much left to cut, besides employees and services.

The "river tax", V2025, even parts of "4 to fix" are meant to rebuild parts of the tax base through revitalization.  It's an increase in activity that Tulsa hasn't seen in a while.  Creating the objects and circumstances that will hopefully make Tulsa an attraction, rather than a work community supporting the bedroom communities.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

Ever heard of getting the cart before the horse?

I have been flabbergasted to see that the City of Tulsa does not have enough money budgeted to mow her property.  And then I read in the local newspaper that our streets have deteriorated so badly that we can never realistically expect that they will be well maintained.

A City is like a person.  Think about how you run your household affairs and then think about how Tulsa runs her household affairs.

Tulsa recently decided to borrow $76M for a new city hall that she does not have to have.

Tulsa is about to ask her citizens to approve $200M in new taxes for developing recreational areas on the river.

That would be like me borrowing $19,000 for a storage room addition and $40,000 for a new in ground swimming pool when I couldn't pay my monthly electric bill and when I was also unable to pay the hazard insurance on my home.

I'm a pro-growth social liberal but I'm also a fiscal conservative and it looks to me like Tulsa needs to tighten her belt and put her many self improvement schemes on hold until she has something left over after fully funding basic services.

The city of Tulsa lives on two cents of sales tax for operating revenue. Last month the city got $14.56 per cent, per resident to that end (which is actually more than Oklahoma City per resident). Tulsa also has raised a 3rd cent sales tax for infrastructure and has a modest amount of Bond issue money coming in for streets and other capital needs, these two money streams cannot by law be used for city operations. The city can levy a income tax, but that would require a vote of the people and would never pass.

The reason the streets are in the condition they are is that over the last decade the federal government ended it's payment to local government for street maintenance and the city has been unable to find another revenue stream to make up that difference.

Why is this all germane to the river question? Well, Tulsa has not been growing residentially recently so revenue has been at best about flat when indexed for inflation. The river question will do two things to help Tulsa from a budget perspective both operationally and with capital needs.

The quality of life aspect for the city will encourage infill development and encourage more people to live in the city thus driving up sales taxes and property values which in turn increases property taxes. If that's all too fuzzy and hard to prove, then there this: The proposed "Tulsa Landing" which is part of this plan will have a strong and direct impact on the city budget. A development like this could easily see a million dollars a day in revenue, or about a third of a billion dollars in sales a year with much of it from outside the city and even the metro. That's about $7 million dollar more a year for the operations budget of the city and another $3.5 million to the 3rd penny. On top of that the development will have an appraised value in the range of half a billion dollars, that's a lot more money to the city's bond issue fund and lot more money for schools.

These numbers are real and there is a real impact. To be against the plan is penny wise and pound foolish.

[restored2x]

River development is probably a good idea - but only if it brings in outside money. I am always wary of things like this - because the rich get richer. Some low wage jobs may be provided, but very few well-paying jobs will be created, and those that are well-paying will mostly go to the rich who will get richer - or outsiders who will take all but tax dollars elsewhere.

The move of city hall, however, seems to be budgetary irresponsibility. It's a cool idea - if all of the other stuff Hometown is talking about was being done - but it is not being done. A new city hall building is nothing more than "city bling" - a luxury we should not have considered.

I want cool stuff. I love new stuff. It looks better and makes us look progressive. There are too many other areas we should perhaps be investing our money. If the river development brings in money and new residents, it will be a success. I have read the ideas and opinions saying how the new city hall will bring in new corporations and investors - that kool-aid is dangerous and I refuse to drink. If it does indeed bring in more business - I'll be the first to apologize.

[MichaelC]

I think we're only about 3 to 5 years away from seeing a vastly improved downtown, with relatively massive expansion.  And I don't think it's going to stop there.

I know HT was opposed to the city hall move primarily on architectural lines, whether or not the architecture is worth salvaging is something I kind of balked on.  For me it's age and value, versus the potential value of the property as something else.  Like the Skelly building, had the World wanted to replace the Skelly building with a 20 story residential tower, that would have been much better than a surface parking lot.  The end result, or potential result, is a big factor in whether or not I want to fight about it.

I really believe the move makes sense.  Especially given location of the Arena, redevelopment at the Mayo, and a few other projects in the pipeline for that area of town.  Also, given that the Library will probably try to move again.  That section of the city can be developed much better than it is.  And to the benefit of the tax base, for the city of Tulsa.

And, placing the city services in an area of town that is already  growing, where employees and visitor to the city complex can benefit this area, also makes sense.  

Outside of details, it's a win all around IMO.  And as far as I could tell, even the details were favorable.

[AMP]

We used to have some Low Water Dams, Nice Racetrack, Amusement Park . . .  

Seems we used to have low water dams, there was one in Sand Springs by the park, but they were torn down for some stated safety reason.

Seems we had a state of the art Clay Oval 5/8 mile Racetrack at Expo Square (now QuikTrip Center) at one time that drew over 8,000 fans on Saturday nights.

Seems the racetrack was moved to another location and did worse there than it did at the original location at Expo.  

Seems we have a very nice Ballpark at QT Center currently that the owners want to move to another location.

Seems we had an operating Amusement Park at Expo for 50+ years, that now is a pile of rubble and some rides in storage.  

As pointed out above in another post the tax base appears to of decreased and that seems to coincide with lower ticket sales and purchases at most attractions and retail businesses in Tulsa.  

Based on the lower number of participants this past weekend at the Road Races held at Hallett, versus what we have been seeing this season at the tracks in Louisiana and Texas I would have to say it appears to be an economic problem in Oklahoma.

Could be wrong, but I do know there are two racetracks that have closed for this season, Tulsa Speedway and Salina Highbanks which were going concerns not two seasons ago.  No new competitors have moved in, and the other tracks that have struggled to stay open, have not experienced a large influx of business by their closings.  

Could be high cost of energy, low wages, lack of gainfully employed workers, weather, under-employment and the higher cost of housing.  Most of those have an effect on the sales tax base.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:The reason the streets are in the condition they are is that over the last decade the federal government ended it's payment to local government for street maintenance and the city has been unable to find another revenue stream to make up that difference.

That has happened in every city in the nation (but DC) and most do not have the amazingly crappy roads that Tulsa does.  I understand we are wet, get way too hot, and then freeze in the winter - hard on roads to be sure.  But that's why we have departments to plan and allocate for such things.  Which they, apparently, have not done.  I'm a not-so-proud member of the "I got a flat tire in a Tulsa pot hole" club.

Another reason for the decline is the increase in road-miles per person.  More suburban developments have more road per house, fewer apartment buildings, and more sprawling retail.  That equals a lot more road in South Tulsa to maintain without the same return (density has its own problems).  
- - -

HT, I largely agree with your assessment.  My analogy would be me buying a newer and bigger home with fancy things I don't need when I do not have the time to maintain what I have now and can only afford it if someone buys my old house (which I assume they will, of course).  So much for running the city like a business.  I guess running it like a dot-com business perhaps.

[jackbristow]

quote:Originally posted by AMP

We used to have some Low Water Dams, Nice Racetrack, Amusement Park . . .  

Seems we used to have low water dams, there was one in Sand Springs by the park, but they were torn down for some stated safety reason.

Seems we had a state of the art Clay Oval 5/8 mile Racetrack at Expo Square (now QuikTrip Center) at one time that drew over 8,000 fans on Saturday nights.

Seems the racetrack was moved to another location and did worse there than it did at the original location at Expo.  

Seems we have a very nice Ballpark at QT Center currently that the owners want to move to another location.

Seems we had an operating Amusement Park at Expo for 50+ years, that now is a pile of rubble and some rides in storage.  

As pointed out above in another post the tax base appears to of decreased and that seems to coincide with lower ticket sales and purchases at most attractions and retail businesses in Tulsa.  

Based on the lower number of participants this past weekend at the Road Races held at Hallett, versus what we have been seeing this season at the tracks in Louisiana and Texas I would have to say it appears to be an economic problem in Oklahoma.

Could be wrong, but I do know there are two racetracks that have closed for this season, Tulsa Speedway and Salina Highbanks which were going concerns not two seasons ago.  No new competitors have moved in, and the other tracks that have struggled to stay open, have not experienced a large influx of business by their closings.  

Could be high cost of energy, low wages, lack of gainfully employed workers, weather, under-employment and the higher cost of housing.  Most of those have an effect on the sales tax base.

You point out ventures that are doing poorly and moves that you feel were bad decisions.  But what about things that are doing well?  The Riverwalk in Jenks seems to do well.  Our movie theaters seem to get good traffic on the weekends.  The lakes seem to have an abundance of activity and boats in the summer.  Social districts such as Cherry St and Brookside seem strong.  Business on 71st St, as much as most complain of the area, is always booming.

Perhaps those things that have been abandoned or failed simply did so due to a lack of interest from the regional population.  What a concept!!!  The market speaks!  Demanded activities and services will find their way to success.  All it takes is for enterprising individuals (such as Mr. Gordon of the Jenks Riverwalk) to see demand for something and offer it.

[Aa5drvr]

>>I think we're only about 3 to 5 years away from seeing a vastly improved downtown, with relatively massive expansion. And I don't think it's going to stop there..

Fan-F'ing-Tastic.

Now where is the "Vastly Improved" Tulsa were the people acutally go....?

[MichaelC]

If you know anything about this town, then you are aware of the "streamlining" the last several years, the tax situation, and that the next thing to go is services.  And you're probably also aware, that almost any sales tax hike from the City would automatically put our rates higher than the burbs.

And you also know, that if absolutely nothing happens and we just sit here and let it go, Tulsa will be a hollowed out shell of a town in constant spiral feeding the burbs.  The burbs have finally caught up to us, Tulsa will either fight or die.  She's fighting.

Sitting here with a police force the same size as it is now when we hit 450K, isn't appealling to me.  Letting the streets go to oblivion because we simply don't have a usable tax base anymore, is not appealling to me.  

But streets aren't going to attract much of anything, we can have the best streets we can afford, and the best PD we can afford, unless we do something, it'll never be enough and Tulsa will be able to afford less and less.

quote:Originally posted by Aa5drvr

Fan-F'ing-Tastic.

Now where is the "Vastly Improved" Tulsa were the people acutally go....?

Are you drunk?  Try typing out a coherent sentence.

[restored2x]

Hmmm...

If I've got $100 to spend, and I go to Riverwalk in Jenks - how much does that leave for downtown? Do we actually have enough of a market to support these ventures after they've opened? The market at present is spending their money in Jenks by the river. Will the development in Tulsa try to share that dollar amount? Do we think, "build it and they will come"? Do we think that an attraction will grow the market?

There is only so much money in this town. Is overpriced real estate down by the river gonna draw people out of the suburbs? I highly doubt those living in Jenks and Union school districts are gonna move their family down to the river and send their kids to the surrounding schools - just because its a cool place. If the metro-minded people of midtown move into the real estate of the river - what happens to midtown?

Where is the money gonna come from?
Where are the people gonna come from?

Whether the development is locally sustainable, or depends on the "pie-in-the-sky" hopes and promises of short-sighted, short-term politicians is a major issue for me.

Maybe (I'm just thinking out loud) we should be content with a clean, quiet, low-crime, expertly maintained city.

We are not a big city. Of course - that kind of thinking (out loud) won't get you votes.

It is going to be very interesting to see which families will benefit from all these plans and govt contracts.

[MichaelC]

Or Bass Pro in Broken Arrow.  Whether you like it or not, it attracts people from places farther than Tulsa.  It also attracts Tulsans.  Don't know what the numbers are, at best I suspect it's a wash for Tulsa assuming that Bass Pro visitors might actually spend some amount of money in Tulsa.  Odds are, Tulsa loses money there to BAs city gov't.

Or Owasso, which now, like it or not, is a type of shopping destination.  People who would typically travel in from parts north, now stop in Owasso.  

How about Bixby?  Is there any reason for a person in Bixby or south of Bixby to travel to Tulsa?  

Tulsa is losing it's place in the metro area.  It used to be, not long ago, you had to come to Tulsa for attractions or shopping.  It is not that way now.  We're losing our tax base, we're stagnant in population, roads and infrastructure are expanding; we can fall apart, we can get better by design, or we can get better by accident.

[iplaw]

I know that this may be a mundane point, but it simply isn't practical to purchase a house in Tulsa anymore unless you're willing to spend 250K to buy the same quality home you can buy for 175K in Jenks, BA, Owasso...

The main reason I recently bought a house in Jenks was because I could opt for a crap house in Midtown that would take money and time to update, or for less money buy a brand new house 15 minutes away.  Trust me, this hurts me as I have been living in Florence Park for the last couple of years and would love to stay...

My house is in no-man's-land right now, but in 2 years it will be right in the middle of everything I need.

[MichaelC]

It's going to be that way forever.  People will always leave for the burbs, and housing will for the most part always be cheaper in the burbs.  The truth is, people that leave for the burbs are not all going to come back as residents.  There's nothing Tulsa can do, that loss of population is going to happen.

Tulsa's survival depends on core development, and attracting new people.  People that like urban living, or simply establishing new locations for visitors.  Anything that will broaden the tax base.

This has been going on a while, hopefully people have become more aware of the situation since Jenks expanded and the aquarium was built.  They couldn't possibly have survived on my money, but they're always busy and it works.  And a lot of that money is from Tulsa.