What next?

[Ed W]

The voters of Tulsa County decided they really didn't need to increase sales taxes to fund a river park system. I've written about it previously, and I did not support the tax increase for reasons given here.

But as that title above asks, what comes next? Many voters are concerned about the sad condition of our local streets. Many of our bridges are in dire need of repair. But I don't live in the city of Tulsa. I'm a suburbanite. Still, I have to travel in Tulsa, so the streets and roads are part of my life too.

If I recall right, the cost estimate on doing the maintenance and construction would be four times that of the late river project, and that totaled $285 million. Where will the money come from?

Honestly, I could see Tulsa voting in a commuter tax on us suburb dwellers. These kinds of taxes are usually popular because they aren't levied on residents. Instead, out-of-towners, who can't vote in the election, are taxed to support city services. If it weren't an onerous tax, I wouldn't mind paying it. But I'd certainly expect to see good roads in return for my money.

Yes, I'm probably a hopeless dreamer.

So, are there other way to fund streets? I know there must be, but I'm not versed in public finance. Any suggestions?

As my crew chief is fond of saying, "There ain't any one of us as smart as the rest of us put together!"

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by Ed W


The voters of Tulsa County decided they really didn't need to increase sales taxes to fund a river park system. I've written about it previously, and I did not support the tax increase for reasons given here.

But as that title above asks, what comes next? Many voters are concerned about the sad condition of our local streets. Many of our bridges are in dire need of repair. But I don't live in the city of Tulsa. I'm a suburbanite. Still, I have to travel in Tulsa, so the streets and roads are part of my life too.

If I recall right, the cost estimate on doing the maintenance and construction would be four times that of the late river project, and that totaled $285 million. Where will the money come from?

Honestly, I could see Tulsa voting in a commuter tax on us suburb dwellers. These kinds of taxes are usually popular because they aren't levied on residents. Instead, out-of-towners, who can't vote in the election, are taxed to support city services. If it weren't an onerous tax, I wouldn't mind paying it. But I'd certainly expect to see good roads in return for my money.

Yes, I'm probably a hopeless dreamer.

So, are there other way to fund streets? I know there must be, but I'm not versed in public finance. Any suggestions?

As my crew chief is fond of saying, "There ain't any one of us as smart as the rest of us put together!"

do what they do in Congress.  attach Tulsa's parts of THE INCOG RIVER PLAN to a transportation bill that also includes seed money for light rail....and make it a Tulsa CITY vote.  I'd vote for that in a heartbeat.

[YoungTulsan]

A commuter tax, interesting.  Isn't that basically like an income tax levied on those who work in, but don't live in, the city?  I've heard people mention the city resorting to income tax, but I really don't think they need to get into that game because collecting it would be such a hassle in and of itself.  It would also possibly encourage people to work outside city limits.

I've posted this in a couple of threads today, but I'm adamant..  The state needs to modify its sources of revenue.  A slight modification to income tax, increased fuel tax for highway needs - and a dramatic reduction of sales taxes.  This is the city's only way to raise money for improvements.  The city of Tulsa doesn't even have enough money for basic services right now.  The state needs to let go of a couple of cents of sales tax and let communities decide what to do with it (lower sales taxes, or more money for local projects instead of sending the money away to OKC)

[TheArtist]

Of course continue to work on the street issue. That will probably be a major focus of the administration. Crime and schools still need to be worked on as well.

Yet, if we are to have another vote, for a roads initiative, I would like to see one more go at doing something with the river. Have a double ballot initiative.

River District Initiative

Would not be a county vote but have each of the 3 cities Sand Springs, Jenks and Tulsa voting and an oversight committee having officials from each city and private citizens. It would be nice if Jenks built their own dam, but I dont think Sand Springs could build the larger one on its own that would help our part have water in it more often. Also hopefully by this time we could have more definitive designs, approval, prices etc. on the dams. Perhaps even that 50 mill from the feds.

It would include

2 dams and Zink improvements....65.5 mill
2 pedestrian bridges............30     ''
Pearl District..................55     ''  
Contingency funds...............20     ''

                       Total...170.5 mill

Perhaps add a tiff for some development on the West bank.

Thats about 110 mill less than the last vote. The tax could be smaller, say .2 or .3% or run for a shorter time. Adding the Pearl district shows a lot more redevelopment and impact potential to the voters than this last plan did, plus its still "water related" with its lakes and canals.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

Originally posted by Ed W

do what they do in Congress.  attach Tulsa's parts of THE INCOG RIVER PLAN to a transportation bill that also includes seed money for light rail....and make it a Tulsa CITY vote.  I'd vote for that in a heartbeat.

..............

They could do that, but they probably won't.  Tulsa will have to pass a much more expensive streets issue.  It's a boring issue, with a boring outcome...they'll probably want to keep it that way.  No need to give the naysayers any ammo.  Let them argue why we need to let our street go from a "D" to an "F".  That'll be interesting to watch.

The River is now a lightening rod...an anchor.  And it will be for several years.  The Mayor's probably right on that one.  She's smart to move on.

As for the commuter tax, I doubt it would be allowed.  The only thing that would be comparable and allowed is a city income tax paid where you work, not where you live.  I used to have to pay 2% when I lived out east, but the city take on sales tax in my town was only 1% and groceries were exempt.  It all evened out in the wash, IMO.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by inteller

Originally posted by Ed W

do what they do in Congress.  attach Tulsa's parts of THE INCOG RIVER PLAN to a transportation bill that also includes seed money for light rail....and make it a Tulsa CITY vote.  I'd vote for that in a heartbeat.

..............

They could do that, but they probably won't.  Tulsa will have to pass a much more expensive streets issue.  It's a boring issue, with a boring outcome...they'll probably want to keep it that way.  No need to give the naysayers any ammo.  Let them argue why we need to let our street go from a "D" to an "F".  That'll be interesting to watch.

The River is now a lightening rod...an anchor.  And it will be for several years.  The Mayor's probably right on that one.  She's smart to move on.

As for the commuter tax, I doubt it would be allowed.  The only thing that would be comparable and allowed is a city income tax paid where you work, not where you live.  I used to have to pay 2% when I lived out east, but the city take on sales tax in my town was only 1% and groceries were exempt.  It all evened out in the wash, IMO.

But easier to swallow. Poorer areas of town would support it as they are unlikely to end up paying and the resulting lower sales tax gives them a boost too.

[sgrizzle]

I like the previously mentioned idea of .1 for roads, .1 for public safety and .2 for river/parks. An extra $10M a year for police/fire and $10M a year for road improvements could help.

Since gas prices are down right now, how about a 2c tax on unleaded and 7c tax on diesel for roads?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Of course continue to work on the street issue. That will probably be a major focus of the administration. Crime and schools still need to be worked on as well.

Yet, if we are to have another vote, for a roads initiative, I would like to see one more go at doing something with the river. Have a double ballot initiative.

River District Initiative

Would not be a county vote but have each of the 3 cities Sand Springs, Jenks and Tulsa voting and an oversight committee having officials from each city and private citizens. It would be nice if Jenks built their own dam, but I dont think Sand Springs could build the larger one on its own that would help our part have water in it more often. Also hopefully by this time we could have more definitive designs, approval, prices etc. on the dams. Perhaps even that 50 mill from the feds.

It would include

2 dams and Zink improvements....65.5 mill
2 pedestrian bridges............30     ''
Pearl District..................55     ''  
Contingency funds...............20     ''

                       Total...170.5 mill

Perhaps add a tiff for some development on the West bank.

Thats about 110 mill less than the last vote. The tax could be smaller, say .2 or .3% or run for a shorter time. Adding the Pearl district shows a lot more redevelopment and impact potential to the voters than this last plan did, plus its still "water related" with its lakes and canals.

All great ideas.  

Looking at lack of support in precincts north of Admiral and lower income parts of east Tulsa, there will need to be quality of life improvements for those areas as well to get them into the fold.  

Granted the COT voters passed this plan 52% to 48%, but I think other areas of town being an afterthought really leaves them feeling disaffected in the whole process and creates dissention.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Of course continue to work on the street issue. That will probably be a major focus of the administration. Crime and schools still need to be worked on as well.

Yet, if we are to have another vote, for a roads initiative, I would like to see one more go at doing something with the river. Have a double ballot initiative.

River District Initiative

Would not be a county vote but have each of the 3 cities Sand Springs, Jenks and Tulsa voting and an oversight committee having officials from each city and private citizens. It would be nice if Jenks built their own dam, but I dont think Sand Springs could build the larger one on its own that would help our part have water in it more often. Also hopefully by this time we could have more definitive designs, approval, prices etc. on the dams. Perhaps even that 50 mill from the feds.

It would include

2 dams and Zink improvements....65.5 mill
2 pedestrian bridges............30     ''
Pearl District..................55     ''  
Contingency funds...............20     ''

                       Total...170.5 mill

Perhaps add a tiff for some development on the West bank.

Thats about 110 mill less than the last vote. The tax could be smaller, say .2 or .3% or run for a shorter time. Adding the Pearl district shows a lot more redevelopment and impact potential to the voters than this last plan did, plus its still "water related" with its lakes and canals.

I'd want the pedestrian bridges with cars on them.  What do they call those?  Oh, my staff tells me those are just "bridges".  

A 41st street bridge would really improve access for west bank development and create the potential for a whole other midtown in the west...the affordable kind.

There's a chance that they might "porkroll" it, toss in some nice projects for North Tulsa and East Tulsa. But I still feel that they won't risk running any of those issues on the same ballot as a boring old street bond.

Oh, and you don't need a vote to do a TIF, just a willing developer and an agreement from the taxing authorities, council, commission, school board, etc.

[Sangria]

A commuter tax - how many companies would go for that?

You want educated people to come to Tulsa... I doubt they see a special tax just for them a very good insentive.

[dsjeffries]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

I'd want the pedestrian bridges with cars on them.  What do they call those?  Oh, my staff tells me those are just "bridges".  

A 41st street bridge would really improve access for west bank development and create the potential for a whole other midtown in the west...the affordable kind.

Thank you!  Words right out of my ... keyboard [^]

Seriously, if a river vote ever comes again, there shouldn't be two pedestrian bridges (especially at 61st St), it should be a pedestrian bridge next to a vehicular bridge.

[tulsa1603]

quote:Originally posted by Sangria

A commuter tax - how many companies would go for that?

You want educated people to come to Tulsa... I doubt they see a special tax just for them a very good insentive.

If they decide to live in Tulsa, they wouldn't have to pay the commuter tax.  Tell me how an Owasso resident, who works in Tulsa, and gets income from working here, and drives on our roads to get here, pays for our roads at all if they buy all their clothes at Kohls and Target in Owasso, buy their groceries at the Owasso Wal-Mart, etc.?  I don't think business give a damn if their employees have to pay an income tax or not, all they care about is if the business has to.

[TheArtist]

A vehicular bridge at 41st would be nice. But how much would one cost there? I bet they have to be quite a bit more than a pedestrian bridge thats for sure. I was trying to keep the number as low as possible during this time of "no more taxes" but with the most economic and "quality of life" impact. Having a vehicular bridge with a walkway that was sufficiently and comfortably seperated from traffic could possibly be more cost effective than doing both seperately.

[YoungTulsan]

If I understood correctly, the pedestrian bridges were a viable option because of the living river with water flowing in it.  Pedestrian bridges for no reason aren't a viable use of taxpayer money.  A vehicular bridge is.  Now, if you could add pedestrian capabilities at only a little bit more cost, it would be sufficient to link the trails on both sides of the river, but people aren't going to be drawn towards a pedestrian bridge over sand bars.

[brunoflipper]

the pearl district plan....

let's do this... somebody call mr. kaiser... 50 mill and we get the whole thing done...