'Complete Our Streets' Committee Recommendations

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

Last time the 3rd penny sales tax came up for a vote, I did an analysis of where all the money for roads was going.  The proposed projects showed 90% of the money for "street and expressway" improvement was earmarked for south of 61st and/or east of Mingo. Therein lies the problem.

Recently, I read in the paper that street widening projects alone would cost $500 million.  Here's a savings idea: let's not widen the roads.  Let's focus our energy on all forms of transportation and strategies of development that would take cars OFF the roads, instead of making the roads bigger and suitable only for cars.

Another idea: The committee has proposed a general obligation bond that would add about 15 mills to the city's property tax rate, which would translate to an extra $12.50 a month for a $100,000 home.

Instead, let's increase property taxes on a sliding scale depending upon how close you are to downtown.  The people who spend the most time driving (the people furthest out) should pay the most for roads.  The nearer you live to downtown, the cheaper your tax rate should be.  Why encourage suburban living at the fringes of our city limits...when those are the areas that will cost the most to "fix" (widen)...and ultimately contribute to our inability to maintain ALL of the streets in Tulsa.

I like that idea. I also think we should encourage the state legislature to bring back auto inspections to help raise money to fund road maintenance.

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

and now we have confirmation of what guessed two months back... the "no river tax" people are indeed "no ANY tax" people...

and now their going to claim they wont pay for it because the "gub'mint" has wasted all our money and the politicians neglect caused the streets to fall apart? pancakes?

this city is falling apart and you tools dont want to pay for ANYTHING...
just change your slogan to "Vote No On Tulsa" and you'll have it alll covered...

if this fails, this town will rapidly become a ****-hole...

Are you trying to say the 'vote no people' pay NO TAXES.  Our taxes are at historically high levels and look at the trouble we're in.  

Once I'm convinced that tax money doesn't get wasted on pet projects (I work for the government, I know) and we are at wits ends to pay for anything, then I'll consider an additional tax.  But let me promise you something, WE AIN'T THERE YET.  FAR FROM IT.

Pet projects like flood control?  We've gone from the highest flood insurance rates in the country to the LOWEST.  That's money in the pockets of Tulsans.  Pet projects like helicopters?  The PD says they need them and I, for one, believe them.  We're a safer, better community because of these things, and I'll bet that they aren't free.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by historically high taxes.  For one thing, Oklahoma has the lowest overall tax burden in the nation.  For another, the city of Tulsa has not raised your sales tax since 1983.



 Meanwhile, salaries, insurance, materials, fuel and just about everything else it takes to run a city have outpaced inflation dramatically.  Public safety, for instance, has grown from 50% to 65% of the general fund since 1990!  When you are dealing with a finite piece of pie, and things like that shift so dramatically, then other things go unattended.  Things like streets.  I'm no expert on gub'mint by any stretch, but I'm a quick study.  Study this Council Report and tell me you are still convinced that we are the same city we were in 1983, and that we don't need to do anything to save our butts.  And don't forget other little sales tax tidbits like, the explosive growth of retail in the suburban communities and internet sales.

I will agree the flood control projects were necessary and not a pet project.  I'll also agree they happened without a tax increase because capable government leaders were able to prioritize spending.  I'll also agree, flood control projects are no longer the burden on the budget as they once were because the projects have been completed.

What I mean by historically high taxes is, we haven't paid this much in sales taxes in the past 26 years I've lived here and look at the mess we are in.

And lets all agree, employees costs may be higher, but that is because we have more employees, not because the number of employees have stayed the same and their salaries have sky rocketed.

As we add more and more sales taxes, we never allow employee expenses to be part of those high taxes, yet we have to hirer more employees to work on the projects to support those higher taxes and programs, yet those employee expenses come out of the same 2 cent sales taxes, thus those employee expenses go higher.  That is not the fault of the employees, but the fault of the people recommending the higher taxes and not allowing support staff salaries to be part of those high taxes (certainly helps the higher tax pass).

When we stop spending money on waste projects like:  resurfacing 61st from Harvard to Yale, resurfacing 69th East Avenue from 101st to 104th, ..... then I'll consider a tax for roads.  But, you think our roads are bad, you go to a state that deals with snow and ice more then we do and we have nothing to complain about.  

Sure is strange to see that our highest priority in this city is roads.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by cks511

Is it me or does anyone else take take exception to the paragraph about the river tax? LOL!  I'll knee jerk if I wanna!

http://www.cityoftulsa.org/CityServices/Streets/documents/ReportofFinanceCommittee_1_000.pdf

We have bigger priorities than streets.  Let's do the river first.

[}:)]

Exactly TWO months ago the Kaiser River Tax WAS the #1 Priority.

Mayor Kathy Taylor has the creditability of recidivist Tax Vampire.

How can she even show her face around after trying to promote a Pie-in-the-Sky dream of moving sand around in a wide, dry, prairie river?

Followed by almost exactly 60 days later asking for another $1 Billion Tax increase for local streets.

Lordy, she must of got used to spending Bill Lobeck's money, and thinks she can spend ours with the same reckless profliglacy.

Spend $31 million on a house in Tulsa?  

To quote mayoral candidate Kathy:  THAT'S CRAZY!

[^]

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by cks511

Is it me or does anyone else take take exception to the paragraph about the river tax? LOL!  I'll knee jerk if I wanna!

http://www.cityoftulsa.org/CityServices/Streets/documents/ReportofFinanceCommittee_1_000.pdf

We have bigger priorities than streets.  Let's do the river first.

[}:)]

Exactly TWO months ago the Kaiser River Tax WAS the #1 Priority.

Mayor Kathy Taylor has the creditability of recidivist Tax Vampire.

How can she even show her face around after trying to promote a Pie-in-the-Sky dream of moving sand around in a wide, dry, prairie river?

Followed by almost exactly 60 days later asking for another $1 Billion Tax increase for local streets.

Lordy, she must of got used to spending Bill Lobeck's money, and thinks she can spend ours with the same reckless profiglacy.

Spend $31 million on a house in Tulsa?  

To quote mayoral candidate Kathy:  THAT'S CRAZY!

[^]

The Mayor hasn't yet endorsed any tax increases.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

I will agree the flood control projects were necessary and not a pet project.  I'll also agree they happened without a tax increase because capable government leaders were able to prioritize spending.

You are right in a myopic way.  They did prioritize flood control...at the expense of streets.  Robbing Peter to pay Paul is what "capable government leaders" do?  Really?    

quote:I'll also agree, flood control projects are no longer the burden on the budget as they once were because the projects have been completed.

I don't think so. Some of the most dangerous areas have been addressed, Mingo Creek, for example.  But I thought we weren't even half way done with flood control.

quote:What I mean by historically high taxes is, we haven't paid this much in sales taxes in the past 26 years I've lived here and look at the mess we are in.

How is it the city's fault that the state and county have jacked the sales tax rate?  The city has been trying to do it on the same 3 cents since 1983.  Why do I have to repeat this?

quote:And lets all agree, employees costs may be higher, but that is because we have more employees, not because the number of employees have stayed the same and their salaries have sky rocketed.

No, let's not agree because that is not the case.  The city apparently has fewer employees than it did a decade ago.  

I think the bloat is in your head, friend.  And I didn't say anything about "skyrocketing", I'm not even complaining.  I'm just saying that if your salary increases are averaging more than about 2.8% a year, then you are outpacing inflation, and you are whittling away at a pie that is not growing.

quote:As we add more and more sales taxes,

Please study this council report, I'm getting pretty sick of posting every other page.  Be a big boy and do your homework.  When adjusted for inflation, Tulsa sales tax is the same as it was in 1996.  The pie ain't growing.

quote: we never allow employee expenses to be part of those high taxes, yet we have to hirer more employees to work on the projects to support those higher taxes and programs, yet those employee expenses come out of the same 2 cent sales taxes, thus those employee expenses go higher.  That is not the fault of the employees, but the fault of the people recommending the higher taxes and not allowing support staff salaries to be part of those high taxes (certainly helps the higher tax pass).

Dude.  Your sales tax rate hasn't changed in 24 years.  Your revenue has been flat for 10 years. You have fewer employees than you did 10 years ago.  And you depend heavily on things that have outpaced inflation:  fuel, asphalt, health insurance, etc.  THAT is why our streets are a wreck.  We've been trying to squeeze blood from a turnip for so long that we can't even mow a freakin' park or fix a pothole.

quote:When we stop spending money on waste projects like:  resurfacing 61st from Harvard to Yale, resurfacing 69th East Avenue from 101st to 104th, ..... then I'll consider a tax for roads.  But, you think our roads are bad, you go to a state that deals with snow and ice more then we do and we have nothing to complain about.

Tulsa's street condition was rated one of the top ten worst in the nation a couple of years ago...I'm looking for the reference, but, trust me, many of us remember the thread.  

quote:Sure is strange to see that our highest priority in this city is roads.

Dude...they are a D grade.  If we don't do something dramatic very soon, we will all have to start driving ATVs to work.  And those d*mn things are dangerous.

Listen.  I know you Republican conservatives do most of your thinking with your gut, not your head.  But truthiness is not going to fix our streets.  Learn something and try to understand that you can't just use a City like toilet paper.  You have to take care of it.

[Conan71]

Mayor Taylor drew short straw on this one.  No I've definitely not agreed with all her new tax and spending initiatives.  But what's the answer on this?  Do nothing and in another 20 years we'll find ourselves driving on roads which have been reduced to rutted wagon trails.

This has been a pass-along problem for at least the last 20 years, if not longer, and now we are at a point of relative cataclysm with our streets.

Borrowing from Wilbur's last post, COT's payroll keeps growing with new jobs, yet we seem to get fewer essential services typically provided by municipal government.  One thing I think would be useful for the administration to do is to do a department-by-department audit, figure out which positions are non-essential and eliminate them.  There appears to be plenty of private sector jobs available right now for the taking to offset any losses from city payrolls.

I'm not saying this as a dodge to keep from paying more taxes, I'm suggesting this as a way to shift funds and accellerate road repairs and improvements.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Oil Capital

I'm not quite ready to give them the pass you are.  

If I read this thread correctly (and if the poster was accurate), the proposal is to add 15 mills to our property tax.  That would make our rate a whopping 73% higher than OKC's, in addition to the higher sales taxes we already pay  (yes, some of that pays for things outside the city, but by far the majority of it is being spent in Tulsa (BOK Center, Convention Center, OU, OSU, American Airlines +++), so at best, we are probably paying at least the same amount in sales taxes when comparing apples to apples.

I'll take a look at the council report and see what else I can learn.

Yes, the SOS report recommends a bond issue that is 15 mills "at the peak".  
http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/2007/pdfs/streetreportBundle.pdf

quote: A General Obligation Bond issue (utilizing 20 year bonds) of at least $650 million
should be placed before the voters on the general election ballot for the City elections in
April, 2008, to allow the funding to be considered in the 2009 budget cycle. These bonds
would be issued over approximately 5 years and, at the peak, would increase the millage
rate in Tulsa approximately 15 mills. This would translate to an increase in property taxes
of approximately $12.50 per month for a house of $100,000 assessed value. This would
decrease fairly rapidly as currently outstanding bonds are paid off.

Emphasis mine.  I'm not exactly "whopped" [], but yes, that would be more than double the city's millage rate from property tax for about five years.   It's significant, but maybe it's worth it.

[AVERAGE JOE]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Borrowing from Wilbur's last post, COT's payroll keeps growing with new jobs, yet we seem to get fewer essential services typically provided by municipal government.  One thing I think would be useful for the administration to do is to do a department-by-department audit, figure out which positions are non-essential and eliminate them.  There appears to be plenty of private sector jobs available right now for the taking to offset any losses from city payrolls.

Wilbur's last post was shot down by facts. The city has 168 fewer authorized employees than in 1996. The city payroll does not keep growing with new jobs.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Borrowing from Wilbur's last post, COT's payroll keeps growing with new jobs, yet we seem to get fewer essential services typically provided by municipal government.  One thing I think would be useful for the administration to do is to do a department-by-department audit, figure out which positions are non-essential and eliminate them.  There appears to be plenty of private sector jobs available right now for the taking to offset any losses from city payrolls.

Wilbur's last post was shot down by facts. The city has 168 fewer authorized employees than in 1996. The city payroll does not keep growing with new jobs.

"Truthiness is what you want the facts to be, as opposed to what the facts are. What feels like the right answer as opposed to what reality will support."
   ~ Stephen Colbert

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

I will agree the flood control projects were necessary and not a pet project.  I'll also agree they happened without a tax increase because capable government leaders were able to prioritize spending.

You are right in a myopic way.  They did prioritize flood control...at the expense of streets.  Robbing Peter to pay Paul is what "capable government leaders" do?  Really?    

quote:I'll also agree, flood control projects are no longer the burden on the budget as they once were because the projects have been completed.

I don't think so. Some of the most dangerous areas have been addressed, Mingo Creek, for example.  But I thought we weren't even half way done with flood control.

quote:What I mean by historically high taxes is, we haven't paid this much in sales taxes in the past 26 years I've lived here and look at the mess we are in.

How is it the city's fault that the state and county have jacked the sales tax rate?  The city has been trying to do it on the same 3 cents since 1983.  Why do I have to repeat this?

quote:And lets all agree, employees costs may be higher, but that is because we have more employees, not because the number of employees have stayed the same and their salaries have sky rocketed.

No, let's not agree because that is not the case.  The city apparently has fewer employees than it did a decade ago.  

I think the bloat is in your head, friend.  And I didn't say anything about "skyrocketing", I'm not even complaining.  I'm just saying that if your salary increases are averaging more than about 2.8% a year, then you are outpacing inflation, and you are whittling away at a pie that is not growing.

quote:As we add more and more sales taxes,

Please study this council report, I'm getting pretty sick of posting every other page.  Be a big boy and do your homework.  When adjusted for inflation, Tulsa sales tax is the same as it was in 1996.  The pie ain't growing.

quote: we never allow employee expenses to be part of those high taxes, yet we have to hirer more employees to work on the projects to support those higher taxes and programs, yet those employee expenses come out of the same 2 cent sales taxes, thus those employee expenses go higher.  That is not the fault of the employees, but the fault of the people recommending the higher taxes and not allowing support staff salaries to be part of those high taxes (certainly helps the higher tax pass).

Dude.  Your sales tax rate hasn't changed in 24 years.  Your revenue has been flat for 10 years. You have fewer employees than you did 10 years ago.  And you depend heavily on things that have outpaced inflation:  fuel, asphalt, health insurance, etc.  THAT is why our streets are a wreck.  We've been trying to squeeze blood from a turnip for so long that we can't even mow a freakin' park or fix a pothole.

quote:When we stop spending money on waste projects like:  resurfacing 61st from Harvard to Yale, resurfacing 69th East Avenue from 101st to 104th, ..... then I'll consider a tax for roads.  But, you think our roads are bad, you go to a state that deals with snow and ice more then we do and we have nothing to complain about.

Tulsa's street condition was rated one of the top ten worst in the nation a couple of years ago...I'm looking for the reference, but, trust me, many of us remember the thread.  

quote:Sure is strange to see that our highest priority in this city is roads.

Dude...they are a D grade.  If we don't do something dramatic very soon, we will all have to start driving ATVs to work.  And those d*mn things are dangerous.

Listen.  I know you Republican conservatives do most of your thinking with your gut, not your head.  But truthiness is not going to fix our streets.  Learn something and try to understand that you can't just use a City like toilet paper.  You have to take care of it.

I don't care if my sales tax rate goes up or down by city tax, county tax or state tax.  Don't try to tell anyone it didn't just go up as a result of Vision 2025.  Don't try to tell anyone it didn't go up for Four to Fix.  Don't try to tell me it didn't go up for.......

And please look at the big picture, not just little bits.  The city's total expenditures is at record high levels.  Don't just look at 2 cents worth of expenditures, look at the entire picture.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by cks511

Is it me or does anyone else take take exception to the paragraph about the river tax? LOL!  I'll knee jerk if I wanna!

http://www.cityoftulsa.org/CityServices/Streets/documents/ReportofFinanceCommittee_1_000.pdf

We have bigger priorities than streets.  Let's do the river first.

[}:)]

Exactly TWO months ago the Kaiser River Tax WAS the #1 Priority.

Mayor Kathy Taylor has the creditability of recidivist Tax Vampire.

How can she even show her face around after trying to promote a Pie-in-the-Sky dream of moving sand around in a wide, dry, prairie river?

Followed by almost exactly 60 days later asking for another $1 Billion Tax increase for local streets.

Lordy, she must of got used to spending Bill Lobeck's money, and thinks she can spend ours with the same reckless profiglacy.

Spend $31 million on a house in Tulsa?  

To quote mayoral candidate Kathy:  THAT'S CRAZY!

[^]

The Mayor hasn't yet endorsed any tax increases.

I don't think you'll have to hold your breath in anticipation very long........

Her comments about the Committee Report were practically an enthusiastic endorsement.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

I don't think you'll have to hold your breath in anticipation very long........

Her comments about the Committee Report were practically an enthusiastic endorsement.

Maybe that was because she heard from a zillion citizens to, "fix the streets, first!"

She's giving them the opportunity to vote that way.    There's nothing wrong with that.

[AVERAGE JOE]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur


I don't care if my sales tax rate goes up or down by city tax, county tax or state tax.  Don't try to tell anyone it didn't just go up as a result of Vision 2025.  Don't try to tell anyone it didn't go up for Four to Fix.  Don't try to tell me it didn't go up for.......

And please look at the big picture, not just little bits.  The city's total expenditures is at record high levels.  Don't just look at 2 cents worth of expenditures, look at the entire picture.

You need to care. Fixing the streets is a city of tulsa issue. The city of tulsa hasn't raised the sales tax in over 30 years. Same 2 cents plus the 3rd penny. The sales tax went up because of the state and the county (4 to Fix, Vision 2025) yet the mayor gets the blame?

The city's expenditures are at record high because of inflation on goods and services. Every year will be a new "record" high. That doesn't mean the growth has kept pace with needs, and particularly with the backlog of infrastructure projects.

Bottom line: Tulsa has deferred street maintenance projects for decades -- partially because we couldn't afford to do more and partially because we bit off more than we could chew by sprawling outward so far. We have far more miles of infrastructure than we have population to support it. Unfortuntately, the bill's come due.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Wilbur

I don't care if my sales tax rate goes up or down by city tax, county tax or state tax.

Well, maybe you should care.  One tax get's you an arena that you may use 4 or 5 times a year.  And another gets you streets that you use every day for work and everything else in your life.

quote:  Don't try to tell anyone it didn't just go up as a result of Vision 2025.  Don't try to tell anyone it didn't go up for Four to Fix.  Don't try to tell me it didn't go up for.......

I'm not trying to tell you that.  In fact, I just said that.  The County's sales tax rose to 1.017% precisely for those reasons.  The fact remains, the city hasn't raised your sales tax since 1983.  Are you going to hold the city accountable for something the county does?  'Cause that sounds like what you are trying to do.  

quote:And please look at the big picture, not just little bits.

Those "little bits" are what some like to call "facts", and they are pesky.  The big picture is, your tax burden is low.  Most Americans pay more than you do.  So, are you willing to let this city go down the tubes because you feel that your taxes are high, even though the facts seem to indicate otherwise?  

quote:The city's total expenditures is at record high levels.  Don't just look at 2 cents worth of expenditures, look at the entire picture.

Don't be mislead.  The two pennies, and the 3rd penny, of sales tax rise with inflation, no quicker, no slower.  A dollar today does not buy what it did yesterday...period.  So, this "record high" cr*p is exactly that, cr*p.  The city hasn't raised your taxes since 1983.  And yet, many of the things that it takes to run a city HAVE risen faster than inflation: concrete, asphalt, health insurance, real estate, etc.  Tulsa can't buy cheap goods from China to make up the difference.  Same piece of pie, but that pie buys a lot less.  What do you think happens after 24 years of this?  You try to stretch your dollar as far as it can go.  And, when you reach the limit, you start making sacrifices.  I am trying to look at the big picture, Wilbur.  And this city seems to do a better job than many in giving me some things to study.  I'm trying to figure this out on my own, I don't know much about this kind of business, but as a citizen, I think I should.  So, I'm learning.  Are you?

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by AVERAGE JOE

Bottom line: Tulsa has deferred street maintenance projects for decades -- partially because we couldn't afford to do more and partially because we bit off more than we could chew by sprawling outward so far. We have far more miles of infrastructure than we have population to support it. Unfortuntately, the bill's come due.

Emphasis mine.  Excellent point.  Unless we want to continue to raise taxes again and again, we have to change the way we build.  Looking it up, Portland has 3,748 lane miles of streets.  From that very informative council report, we learn that Tulsa has 4,312 non-expressway lane miles.  But look at the 2006 population estimates:  Portland - 537,081 vs. Tulsa - 382,872. So, Portland has 143 persons per lane mile and Tulsa has 88 persons per lane mile.  They have an additional 55 persons per lane mile supporting their streets.  All things being equal, they would probably pay 38% less to maintain their streets.  More likely, they can afford to maintain their streets, and we are struggling.  Portland is a compact city, we aren't.  Do we want to stay spread out and inefficient, or do we want to change?  This is precisely why I'm not yet in favor of adding lane miles.  Fix what we have, sure, that's a must.  But before we jump out and add to the problems, we need to re-examine how we develop.  The SOS committees' recommendations seem to have split this out the same way, and I'm happy about that.