Turner: BOK to punish North Tulsans tax stand

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by swake

Also,

There is this, when the arena went over budget, part of the deal was the future surpluses would be spent on projects outside of Tulsa:


Suburban mayors supported the supplement to counter the city's construction cost overruns only after being assured that any future additional funding paid from the county's Vision 2025 sales taxes would be targeted for projects outside Tulsa.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=060719_Ne_A1_Tulsa33517

That's what was said, according to the Whirled, but Miller later denied any deal for new projects was made to fund arena overages. In fact, it would be improper to do so. The resolution clearly states ALL projects must be completed before any additional projects may be considered with any surplus funding.

Document this statement.

And you are not including in your figures any money for debt service. There simply is no big pot of money. I agree that there may well be more money than is projected. But are you willing to gamble on that by taking out a loan against POSSIBLE surpluses? Who is the conservative here?

EVERY PROJECT in Vision2025 was funded on the basis of anticipated future revenues. Their projected revenues, which began at $635 million and revised, by them, to $750 million.

John Piercey's numbers include debt service costs for everything but dams.

Two $27.5 Million dams, three years from now require about 7 years in bond term. $55 Million bonded at 5% for 7 years costs about $66 Million. John Piercey's $78 Million overage will easily cover that, without even considering the additional $125-$140 million in surplus in their own projections. I'm not making up 'possible' surpluses here, it's the County's own numbers.

All numbers I present are based upon the SAME conservative posture the County took in funding those projects, and which can actually be considered excessively conservative.

It's not a gamble.

Sorry, a little flaw in your figures.

Three dams, Zink needs to be rebuilt, and fixing Zink is ALSO in 2025.

And you have not addressed your claim that the county backtracked on it's pledge to the suburbs on arena overruns.

The $2.1 million to fix Zink dam is already funded in Vision2025 and by Piercey's numbers, as is the $5.6 Million for dams, that's $7.7 Million.

Lest we also not forget the Corps estimate for dams was less than $9 Million each. The County hasn't documented how that got to $27.5 Million, so that burden would be on them, not me. 'Enhancement' doesn't quite cover it. But, anyone can work within a budget, even the County.

The County doesn't have to backtract on its pledge (if one were made, Miller denied that was the case, and formally, no additional projects have been authorized by the Vision2025 authority). It only has to honor the County's original pledge to complete all projects before excess funds are used for other projects. Besides, the two new dams are outside of Tulsa, IIRC.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by swake

Also,

There is this, when the arena went over budget, part of the deal was the future surpluses would be spent on projects outside of Tulsa:


Suburban mayors supported the supplement to counter the city's construction cost overruns only after being assured that any future additional funding paid from the county's Vision 2025 sales taxes would be targeted for projects outside Tulsa.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=060719_Ne_A1_Tulsa33517

That's what was said, according to the Whirled, but Miller later denied any deal for new projects was made to fund arena overages. In fact, it would be improper to do so. The resolution clearly states ALL projects must be completed before any additional projects may be considered with any surplus funding.

Document this statement.

And you are not including in your figures any money for debt service. There simply is no big pot of money. I agree that there may well be more money than is projected. But are you willing to gamble on that by taking out a loan against POSSIBLE surpluses? Who is the conservative here?

EVERY PROJECT in Vision2025 was funded on the basis of anticipated future revenues. Their projected revenues, which began at $635 million and revised, by them, to $750 million.

John Piercey's numbers include debt service costs for everything but dams.

Two $27.5 Million dams, three years from now require about 7 years in bond term. $55 Million bonded at 5% for 7 years costs about $66 Million. John Piercey's $78 Million overage will easily cover that, without even considering the additional $125-$140 million in surplus in their own projections. I'm not making up 'possible' surpluses here, it's the County's own numbers.

All numbers I present are based upon the SAME conservative posture the County took in funding those projects, and which can actually be considered excessively conservative.

It's not a gamble.

Sorry, a little flaw in your figures.

Three dams, Zink needs to be rebuilt, and fixing Zink is ALSO in 2025.

And you have not addressed your claim that the county backtracked on it's pledge to the suburbs on arena overruns.

The $2.1 million to fix Zink dam is already funded in Vision2025 and by Piercey's numbers, as is the $5.6 Million for dams, that's $7.7 Million.

Lest we also not forget the Corps estimate for dams was less than $9 Million each. The County hasn't documented how that got to $27.5 Million, so that burden would be on them, not me. 'Enhancement' doesn't quite cover it. But, anyone can work within a budget, even the County.

The County doesn't have to backtract on its pledge (if one were made, Miller denied that was the case, and formally, no additional projects have been authorized by the Vision2025 authority). It only has to honor the County's original pledge to complete all projects before excess funds are used for other projects. Besides, the two new dams are outside of Tulsa, IIRC.

When did Miller deny that was the case, you have NOT shown that.

And, check your map, but that dam to be placed at 106th would be inside Tulsa on the east bank and inside Jenks on the west bank. It will impound water to about 71st and the Jenks northerm city limits on the west bank are at 91st, so about 3/4s of the shoreline created will be in Tulsa.

And the reconstruction of Zink is going to be much higher than 2.1 million, it's the exact same thing as the two new dams, it's part of the river package of 2025 and that is entirely in Tulsa.

Three dams, one in Sand Springs, one mostly in Tulsa with some shoreline being for Jenks and the last being entirely in Tulsa.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by swake

Also,

There is this, when the arena went over budget, part of the deal was the future surpluses would be spent on projects outside of Tulsa:


Suburban mayors supported the supplement to counter the city's construction cost overruns only after being assured that any future additional funding paid from the county's Vision 2025 sales taxes would be targeted for projects outside Tulsa.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=060719_Ne_A1_Tulsa33517

That's what was said, according to the Whirled, but Miller later denied any deal for new projects was made to fund arena overages. In fact, it would be improper to do so. The resolution clearly states ALL projects must be completed before any additional projects may be considered with any surplus funding.

Document this statement.

And you are not including in your figures any money for debt service. There simply is no big pot of money. I agree that there may well be more money than is projected. But are you willing to gamble on that by taking out a loan against POSSIBLE surpluses? Who is the conservative here?

EVERY PROJECT in Vision2025 was funded on the basis of anticipated future revenues. Their projected revenues, which began at $635 million and revised, by them, to $750 million.

John Piercey's numbers include debt service costs for everything but dams.

Two $27.5 Million dams, three years from now require about 7 years in bond term. $55 Million bonded at 5% for 7 years costs about $66 Million. John Piercey's $78 Million overage will easily cover that, without even considering the additional $125-$140 million in surplus in their own projections. I'm not making up 'possible' surpluses here, it's the County's own numbers.

All numbers I present are based upon the SAME conservative posture the County took in funding those projects, and which can actually be considered excessively conservative.

It's not a gamble.

Sorry, a little flaw in your figures.

Three dams, Zink needs to be rebuilt, and fixing Zink is ALSO in 2025.

And you have not addressed your claim that the county backtracked on it's pledge to the suburbs on arena overruns.

The $2.1 million to fix Zink dam is already funded in Vision2025 and by Piercey's numbers, as is the $5.6 Million for dams, that's $7.7 Million.

Lest we also not forget the Corps estimate for dams was less than $9 Million each. The County hasn't documented how that got to $27.5 Million, so that burden would be on them, not me. 'Enhancement' doesn't quite cover it. But, anyone can work within a budget, even the County.

The County doesn't have to backtract on its pledge (if one were made, Miller denied that was the case, and formally, no additional projects have been authorized by the Vision2025 authority). It only has to honor the County's original pledge to complete all projects before excess funds are used for other projects. Besides, the two new dams are outside of Tulsa, IIRC.

When did Miller deny that was the case, you have NOT shown that.

And, check your map, but that dam to be placed at 106th would be inside Tulsa on the east bank and inside Jenks on the west bank. It will impound water to about 71st and the Jenks northerm city limits on the west bank are at 91st, so about 3/4s of the shoreline created will be in Tulsa.

And the reconstruction of Zink is going to be much higher than 2.1 million, it's the exact same thing as the two new dams, it's part of the river package of 2025 and that is entirely in Tulsa.

Three dams, one in Sand Springs, one mostly in Tulsa with some shoreline being for Jenks and the last being entirely in Tulsa.

Whether Randi Miller denied it or not is totally irrelevant to the point. She did, but I'm not going to dig it up to show you. It doesn't affect anything. Same with whether the dams are inside Tulsa or not.

Here's the fundamental issue:

1. Were two new dams and Zink dam modifications included in the Vision2025 Project Listing voted upon and passed?

2. Did the County pledge to complete all projects with collection overages prior to considering any other projects?

3. Are there going to be collection overages?


The answer to all three is YES.

IF some side deal were made with Vision2025 Authority members in exchange for their vote to approve the funding of $45.5M in arena cost overruns, then those overages do not occur until AFTER dams are completed.

[Chicken Little]

To begin with, Wrinkle, I've watched your whole argument fall apart before.  I can go directly to the vision 2025 website and click, Zink Lake information are read this:

quote:Local funding will be used to match anticipated federal dollars to help with the beautification effort and attract private investment along the river.

On the low-water dams link I can find this:

quote: This local funding is a key component in attracting federal money for the dams and other river channel improvements and will also serve as a catalyst for private investment.

These statements do not promise low-water dams.  They indicate that the V2025 funds will be used as federal matching money.  And that's the County's position. Nitpick all you want, they aren't budging; I've seen it with my own eyes.

This has played out already many times.  You can watch it for yourself.  Go to 48:45 on the TulsaNow debate and watch.  Eagleton makes your exact pitch and it is squarely rejected by Letcher and Pinc. They say that was never their intent and not what Vision 2025 says.  It was matching money and they can prove it.  Further, they say that there is no surplus and that there may be a surplus in 2017.

At this point, Eagleton tosses out some apparently off-the-cuff quote from Bob Dick and uses to launch into yet another unsubstantiated raving about how the County intentionally requested more money than was needed.

You are having trouble arguing your position because, basically, it is speculative bullsh*t.  And, in the real world, it takes about three minutes for it to collapse into a heap of conspiracy nonsense.

Who, exactly, is preparing your lawsuit?  Nobody.  In fact, your friends don't even want to talk about this nonsense anymore.  This whole V2025 funding story was a canard created for the campaign in order to trick a few people like you into believing that you can get something for nothing.  It worked.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

To begin with, Wrinkle, I've watched your whole argument fall apart before.  I can go directly to the vision 2025 website and click, Zink Lake information are read this:

quote:Local funding will be used to match anticipated federal dollars to help with the beautification effort and attract private investment along the river.

On the low-water dams link I can find this:

quote: This local funding is a key component in attracting federal money for the dams and other river channel improvements and will also serve as a catalyst for private investment.

These statements do not promise low-water dams.  They indicate that the V2025 funds will be used as federal matching money.  And that's the County's position. Nitpick all you want, they aren't budging; I've seen it with my own eyes.

This has played out already many times.  You can watch it for yourself.  Go to 48:45 on the TulsaNow debate and watch.  Eagleton makes your exact pitch and it is squarely rejected by Letcher and Pinc. They say that was never their intent and not what Vision 2025 says.  It was matching money and they can prove it.  Further, they say that there is no surplus and that there may be a surplus in 2017.

At this point, Eagleton tosses out some apparently off-the-cuff quote from Bob Dick and uses to launch into yet another unsubstantiated raving about how the County intentionally requested more money than was needed.

You are having trouble arguing your position because, basically, it is speculative bullsh*t.  And, in the real world, it takes about three minutes for it to collapse into a heap of conspiracy nonsense.

Who, exactly, is preparing your lawsuit?  Nobody.  In fact, your friends don't even want to talk about this nonsense anymore.  This whole V2025 funding story was a canard created for the campaign in order to trick a few people like you into believing that you can get something for nothing.  It worked.

Nice try. But, you're getting your info from the wrong end of the horse.

I wouldn't attempt to use a September 2007 debate of this issue as evidence.

If you go back to the actual ballot and appended County Resolution, you'll see "Construct two low water dams...". You won't see any conditions, inferences, appendages or waffling.

If you also go to Mr. Dick's "off-the-cuff" remarks, he did state the County intentionally underestimated revenues with the intent of assuring completion of all listed projects.

As for making a case, the County put those items in the project listing, prepared the ballot and put it to the public for a vote.

It's all there in black and white, and I didn't write a word of it. No conspiracy, no nonsense, no canards, no speculative BS. Read it yourself.

I'm sure County officals would love to put this issue to rest. But, there's some hanging chads to deal with.

You and I can disagree, but it really comes down to what was put into the legal documents, what was actually promoted and what officials stated at the time. Not what they say now.

I'm sure that will be explored fully, especially if supposed 'extra' funds are attempted to be spent on other projects.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

If you also go to Mr. Dick's "off-the-cuff" remarks, he did state the County intentionally underestimated revenues with the intent of assuring completion of all listed projects.

Could you provide proof?  I looked and found nothing.

quote:As for making a case, the County put those items in the project listing, prepared the ballot and put it to the public for a vote.

It's all there in black and white, and I didn't write a word of it. No conspiracy, no nonsense, no canards, no speculative BS. Read it yourself.

Terrific.  County sez no, so, why are your watchdog friends not doing a dang thing about this?  

quote:I'm sure County officals would love to put this issue to rest. But, there's some hanging chads to deal with.

Seems like the noisy no taxes people are suddenly more than happy to let this particular claim quietly go away.  It's out of character.  They are changing their story, or simply avoiding the connversation altogether.  You're alone, don't you wonder why?  Could it be because everybody knows it's a crock of sh*t?

quote:You and I can disagree, but it really comes down to what was put into the legal documents, what was actually promoted and what officials stated at the time. Not what they say now.

Who is dealing with this alleged discrepancy? Nobody.  How come nobody, including your friends, wants to make hay out of this alleged breach of public trust?  It's so cut and dried.  The County must be lying, right?  Seems like an enormous opportunity for some of the most blatant opportunists this town has ever seen.  Why would your gang pass up such a ripe target?  We all know why...because it's bullsh*t.

quote:I'm sure that will be explored fully, especially if supposed 'extra' funds are attempted to be spent on other projects.

In 2017?  Speculative BS.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Breadburner


That's not true.....

Yes, it is.  

quote: Ken Levit, executive director of the George Kaiser Family Foundation, confirmed Wednesday that the $117 million in private-sector funding pledged for river enhancements will not be available now that the river tax has failed...

The same goes for the $5 million pledged for maintenance and repair of city parks and pools. "We're basically going to refocus on other priorities," Levit said. "The voters reached their conclusion."

And who, other than a few pretend conservatives, can blame them?

Unnecessary

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear




Unnecessary

If we are going to start stereotyping people, can we start with the Dumb Okies who don't know their math?  []

They donate $117mil, if we are taxed $282mil.

Taking out a calculator, that is $1 to $2.41.

I didn't realize that the entire $117mil was donated by "Jewish philanthropists"...  And how much private $$$ was donated for OKC's MAPS projects?

Does a certain bear need a nap?!?  [)]

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear




Unnecessary

If we are going to start stereotyping people, can we start with the Dumb Okies who don't know their math?  []

They donate $117mil, if we are taxed $282mil.

Taking out a calculator, that is $1 to $2.41.

I didn't realize that the entire $117mil was donated by "Jewish philanthropists"...  And how much private $$$ was donated for OKC's MAPS projects?

Does a certain bear need a nap?!?  [)]

The failed KAISER RIVER TAX had NO CAP.  It was to be $0.004 for Seven Years.  Period.

No Cap.

Again, the County flat-lined their projections, to have some extra OPM to play with, just like they did in Vision 2025.  

OPM being:

Other Peoples Money.

It would easily have collected $400 million.

Anyone curious about the other two shortest books in the world?

[]

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

If you also go to Mr. Dick's "off-the-cuff" remarks, he did state the County intentionally underestimated revenues with the intent of assuring completion of all listed projects.

Could you provide proof?  I looked and found nothing.

Try this: Tulsa World 7/23/2003 (pre-vote)

quote: Dick said the Vision 2025 package also was designed to ensure no project gets left behind due to a lack of funding.  

quote: "I think the worst thing you could do is promise you are going to build something and then not have enough money to build it," Dick said.  

quote: "I guess I am optimistic by nature in that I think we will realize more than that over that period of time," said County Commissioner Bob Dick, referring to the sales tax projections.  

quote: Dick said the Vision 2025 measure was structured with the assumption that sales tax would experience no growth over the next 13 years.  

quote: Vision proponents concede room for error is built into some project cost estimates.

"I don't know specifically what it is really going to cost to build a low-water dam," Dick said.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear




Unnecessary

If we are going to start stereotyping people, can we start with the Dumb Okies who don't know their math?  []

They donate $117mil, if we are taxed $282mil.

Taking out a calculator, that is $1 to $2.41.

I didn't realize that the entire $117mil was donated by "Jewish philanthropists"...  And how much private $$$ was donated for OKC's MAPS projects?

Does a certain bear need a nap?!?  [)]

The failed KAISER RIVER TAX had NO CAP.  It was to be $0.004 for Seven Years.  Period.

No Cap.

Again, the County flat-lined their projections, to have some extra OPM to play with.  OPM being:

Other Peoples Money.

It would easily have collected $400 million.

Anyone curious about the other two shortest books in the world?

[]

I'll bite....


Oh, and your $400 Million projection is about right as to what that tax would've raised.

You'll note the cutoff promise was carefully worded as "once all projects are funded" and "when construction costs are met", not when $282.25 million was achieved.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear




Unnecessary

If we are going to start stereotyping people, can we start with the Dumb Okies who don't know their math?  []

They donate $117mil, if we are taxed $282mil.

Taking out a calculator, that is $1 to $2.41.

I didn't realize that the entire $117mil was donated by "Jewish philanthropists"...  And how much private $$$ was donated for OKC's MAPS projects?

Does a certain bear need a nap?!?  [)]

The failed KAISER RIVER TAX had NO CAP.  It was to be $0.004 for Seven Years.  Period.

No Cap.

Again, the County flat-lined their projections, to have some extra OPM to play with.  OPM being:

Other Peoples Money.

It would easily have collected $400 million.

Anyone curious about the other two shortest books in the world?

[]

I'll bite....


Oh, and your $400 Million projection is about right as to what that tax would've raised.

You'll note the cutoff promise was carefully worded as "once all projects are funded" and "when construction costs are met", not when $282.25 million was achieved.

Wrinkle has figured out a few things hereabouts.

Good job.

Also unnecessary

[Chicken Little]

Thanks for the link from July 2003.  Yep, it's clearly before the Vision 2025 vote:

quote:Ballot proposition No. 4 includes $5.6 million that would be used as matching funds to build two low-water dams on the Arkansas River.  

Emphasis mine.  Looks to me like the previous line provides some additional context.  You may have overlooked this.  Keep stacking that poo, Wrinkle.  Looks like Friendly Bear believes you. [}:)]

[brunoflipper]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear


Also unnecessary

are you kidding me? this is what this forum has come to? slanderous epithets disguised as jokes? pancakes?

[cannon_fodder]

USRuf:

Most "working poor" are as intelligent as I am.  They may not be as educated as I am, but certainly they are as intelligent as I.  And I do not think it requires an advanced degree to realize that on $30,000 a year it is unlikely one can afford to pay $15,000 towards a mortgage.   They know what they are getting into it, and most hop in hoping it will work out in the end or assuring themselves that they will save money to make it work.

To decry the poor as unintelligent masses is a very draconian 17th century mentality.  The poor are stupid.  I know so because they are poor.

What's more, in order to put such practices fairly to use the government would have to evaluate everyones intelligence.  "Smart enough to decide for themselves" or "too stupid, government needs to take care of them."  Clearly, no one wants that.  Who draws the line and where?  

Frankly, its an unworkable system that assumes poor people are stupid.