Analysis: The Tulsa City Council offers a Hotel Tax Proposition November 3rd that has hotel operators in the suburbs cheering. Apparently Council Clowns are eager to drive business away. If passed, locals and regular visitors will likely transition to the many suburbs. Tulsa hotels and restaurants may suffer if regular customers flee. Even downtown convention properties may see reductions as most convention planners track hotel taxes before they book a city.
“Don’t tax me, tax that other person behind the tree,” is attributed to former U.S. Senator Russell B. Long, and it applies here. The City Council promotes the hotel tax saying “The ballot measure would apply only to guests staying in Tulsa hotels and short-term rentals.” As if locals never use a hotel/short-term rental.
Long ago, Tulsa Democrat Operative Jim East taught a simple fact, “Only the exact wording of the ballot question and specific ordinance must be followed by government.” There are not three phases as outlined in promotional materials to the ordinance which earns even more careful attention:
Ordinance of the City of Tulsa, amending Tulsa Revised Ordinances, Title 44, titled “City of Tulsa Hotel Tax Code”, Chapter 1, titled “City of Tulsa Hotel Tax Code”, Section 118, titled “Creation of Funds,” to set the allocation of revenue as of January 1, 2027, as of January 1, 2031, and as of the end of the month in which full repayment is made of the two capital improvement bonds anticipated to be issued by the Tulsa Public Facilities Authority for renovations and upgrades to the Arvest Convention Center and the BOK Center or any associated refunding bonds; providing for severability; repealing ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith; establishing an effective date of January 1, 2027, subject to voter approval of Ordinance No. 25830. (Emergency Clause) (Bellis, Gilbert, Bengel, Lakin) [UED 7/15/26; CC 7/15/26; CC 7/22/26]
The promotional page posted on the City Council web site promotes three phases. However, the ballot question and ordinance above do not specify any “phase.” There is no detail on “renovations and upgrades to the Arvest Convention Center and the BOK Center or any associated refunding bonds.”
No detail on improvements? Oh so clever Councilors. Is this a slush fund? Whatever, let’s look closer.
Phase 1 Questions: While the Arvest Convention Center has not achieved significant financial success, the BOK Center is one of the most successful areas in America – thanks to the Tulsa County’s Vision 2025 infrastructure package. So why does the BOK Center not fund their own improvements from generated revenue? Public reports note the BOK Center annually returns profits of $1 million. Why not upgrade from those funds? Again, on the promotional page it claims:
The first phase will include issuing revenue bonds to complete critical facility upgrades. The City plans to issue $80 million in revenue bonds for critical infrastructure improvements at the BOK Center and Arvest Convention Center. This will create the opportunity to complete $128 million in total projects across the two venues, as there is $48 million already available from capital reserve accounts, Oak View Group (venue operator) contributions and Improve Our Tulsa 3.
“Any associated refunding bonds” is more than a little vague. Where are the specifics of the $128 million in projects? Not to be too critical, but the wording “Upgrades to Save Dollars and Maintain Tourism Investment” is idiotic. Maintenance and upgrades are regular expenses and these facilities are not “tourism investments,” they are entertainment, meeting, and/or convention venues.
Phase 2 Questions:
Who conducts “marketing” for the City of Tulsa? That would be the Tulsa Regional Chamber of Commerce, “Your partner in prosperity.” But every area suburb city surrounding Tulsa has their own chamber so how “regional” is a question? Maybe the Chamber is just the business arm of the Northeastern Oklahoma planning organization, the Indian Nations Council of Governments also promoting themselves as “Regional Partners” offering “Regional Solutions.” Could that be the reason we have so many Data Centers in the countryside? The apparently captive Tulsa City Council is elected to represent Tulsa, but maybe they should change their name to “Regional City Council?”
Funny how they have not included the amount of hotel tax funds currently going to the Chamber or the amounts expected to go to this private organization after the proposed increase in “Phase 2.”
Phase 3 Questions:
Whenever the bonds are paid (assuming more bonds are not issued) the next phase says, “Maximize Marketing after Facility Improvements are Complete.” How special. Are facility improvements ever complete? Are there limits to the money the Regional Chamber wants to harvest from Tulsa Taxpayers?
In summary, this is the most unspecific offering of glittering generalities absent substance this writer has seen since the Tulsa School Board closed 17 schools after a $609 million bond package. Slush funds always claim lofty goals. Let us consider then the promoted goals.
Proposal Goals
- Invest in growing and maintaining the City’s key tourism facilities and fund capital improvements necessary for market competitiveness and continued growth
- Increase resources for tourism and marketing investments to drive enhanced destination awareness, increased hotel occupancy, economic impact, and tax generation
- Serve as good stewards of public funds by reducing debt payment, capitalizing on visitor spending, and establishing a competitive hotel guest tax rate