Results for July and August

Data note: I have been relying on the numbers reported by the Norman Transcript (thanks, Joy Hampton!) for these numbers and I continue to do so for August -http://www.normantranscript.com/news/government/sales-tax-continues-to-run-below-last-year-s-receipts/article_40595734-c697-5395-b5e7-227779271f9f.html. Unfortunately, the article that covers the July numbers -http://www.normantranscript.com/news/government/niche-markets-may-be-faring-better-in-economic-downturn/article_c7572580-86a4-522c-95f6-385e8f3650b3.html - does not include the precise NFST numbers. In order to calculate those numbers, I ‘reverse engineered’ them from Oklahoma Tax Commission reports.  Again, if you have different numbers, please let me know and we will work them into the analysis!

July, method 1

The July benchmark was $870,665.

The July NFST collection was $805,400.

The July shortfall was $65,265, 7.50% of the benchmark.

July, method 2

The July benchmark was $836,748.

The July NFST collection was $805,400.

The July shortfall was $31,348, 3.75% of the benchmark

August, method 1

The August benchmark was $870,665.

The August NFST collection was $816,566.

The August shortfall was $54,099, 6.21% of the benchmark.

August, method 2

The August benchmark was $890,201.

The August NFST collection was $816,566.

The August shortfall was $73,635, 8.27% of the benchmark

Year to date, method 1

The YTD benchmark was $6,852,975.

The YTD NFST collection was $6,169,917.

The YTD shortfall was $683,058, 9.97% of the benchmark.

Year to date, method 2

The YTD benchmark was $6,746,412.

The YTD NFST collection was $6,169,917.

The YTD shortfall was $576,495, 8.55% of the benchmark.

Results for June

Data note: I am relying here on the numbers reported by the Norman Transcript (thanks, Joy Hampton!) here -http://www.normantranscript.com/news/government/sales-tax-continues-to-run-below-last-year-s-receipts/article_40595734-c697-5395-b5e7-227779271f9f.html. Again, if you have different numbers, please let me know and we will work them into the analysis!

June, method 1
The June benchmark was $842,579.
The June NFST collection was $753,217.
The June shortfall was $89,362, 10.61% of the benchmark.

June, method 2
The June benchmark was $879,922.
The June NFST collection was $753,217.
The June shortfall was $126,705, 14.40% of the benchmark

Year to date, method 1
The YTD benchmark was $5,111,646.
The YTD NFST collection was $4,547,951.
The YTD shortfall was $563,695, 11.03% of the benchmark.
Year to date, method 2
The YTD benchmark was $5,019,462.
The YTD NFST collection was $4,547,951.
The YTD shortfall was $471,511, 9.39% of the benchmark.

So, half of a year in, we are at something like 90% of expected receipts.

Results for April and May

Data note: I am relying here on the numbers reported by the Norman Transcript (thanks, Joy Hampton!) here - http://www.normantranscript.com/news/government/entering-second-year-of-oil--and-gas-driven-economic/article_55df21d9-3fd7-5914-94d2-bcece121368f.html - and here -http://www.normantranscript.com/news/government/norman-sales-tax-receipts-dip-below-levels-for-july/article_73208645-2d91-58de-a7fa-8ebb5dcc5838.html. Again, if you have different numbers, please let me know and we will work them into the analysis! 

Is it time to panic yet? No, but ... be wary. The City is building the special interest capital projects (see, e.g., "NYSA kicks off with Norman Forward upgrade" http://www.normantranscript.com/news/government/nysa-kicks-off-with-norman-forward-upgrade/article_b837d7a2-ad4f-54e9-a99a-4f1c9e418b6f.html.), but the stuff that is pay-as-you-go is all in danger. 
"The depressed collections set a low base from which Norman Forward revenue will grow, freezing early hopes for extra funding for projects like a city-wide trail system and a stand-alone senior center. [Norman Finance Director Anthony] Francisco said large Norman Forward projects financed by revenue bonds will stay on track, but down the road, the city council may have to delay pay-as-you-go projects such as neighborhood parks and trails. “Any unfunded projects would be less likely to receive funds,” Francisco said. One such project is the stand-alone senior center, which would cost somewhere in the vicinity of $10 million."

April, method 1
The April benchmark was $842,579.
The April NFST collection was $729,174.
The April shortfall was $113,405, 13.46% of the benchmark.

May, method 1
The May benchmark was $870,665.
The May NFST collection was $758,152.
The May shortfall was $112,513, 12.92% of the benchmark.

Year to date, method 1
The YTD benchmark was $4,269,067.
The YTD NFST collection was $3,794,734.
The YTD shortfall was $474,333, 11.11% of the benchmark.

April, method 2
The April benchmark was $863,475.
The April NFST collection was $729,174.
The April shortfall was $134,301, 15.55% of the benchmark.

May, method 2
The May benchmark was $840,860.
The May NFST collection was $758,152.
The May shortfall was $82,708, 9.84% of the benchmark.

Year to date, method 2
The YTD benchmark was $4,139,540.
The YTD NFST collection was $3,794,734.
The YTD shortfall was $344,806, 8.33% of the benchmark.

Results for March

Data note: the number for March come from the Norman Transcript (thanks Joy Hampton!) here - http://www.normantranscript.com/news/norman-forward-sales-tax-gets-shaky-start/article_9c3215ad-9d81-5e4c-a243-8dd590b9e4d3.html. Despite the tenor of the article, however, I am calculating that Norman Forward lost less ground in March that in January on either method and less ground than February on method 2 (March isn't a very good sales tax month historically).

March, method 1
The March benchmark was $870,665.
The March NFST collection was $802,418.
The March shortfall was $68,247, 7.84% of the benchmark.

Year to date, method 1
The YTD benchmark was $2,555,823.
The YTD NFST collection was $2,307,408.
The YTD shortfall was $248,415, 9.72% of the benchmark.

March, method 2
The March benchmark was $821,329.
The March NFST collection was $802,418.
The March shortfall was $18,911, 2.30% of the benchmark.

Year to date, method 2
The YTD benchmark was $2,435,205.
The YTD NFST collection was $2,307,408.
The YTD shortfall was $127,797, 5.25% of the benchmark.

Results for January and February

Data note: I am relying here on the numbers reported by the Norman Transcript (thanks, Joy Hampton!) here - http://www.normantranscript.com/news/government/sales-tax-downturn-continues/article_81c22f05-03a1-5f7f-b988-7660ca80fc8d.html - and here - http://www.normantranscript.com/news/government/sales-tax-leaps-with-extra-calendar-day/article_6e085efb-7998-5a69-bf1b-13fde34f95c5.html. If you have different numbers, please let me know and we will work them into the analysis!

January, method 1
The January benchmark was $870,665.
The January NFST collection was $728,243.
The January shortfall was $142,422, 16.36% of the benchmark.

February, method 1
The February benchmark was $814,493.
The February NFST collection was $776,747.
The February shortfall was $37,746, 4.63% of the benchmark.

Year to date, method 1
The YTD benchmark was $1,685,158.
The YTD NFST collection was $1,504,990.
The YTD shortfall was $180,168, 10.69% of the benchmark.

January, method 2
The January benchmark was $779,183.
The January NFST collection was $728,243.
The January shortfall was $50,940, 6.54% of the benchmark.

February, method 2
The February benchmark was $834,692.
The February NFST collection was $776,747.
The February shortfall was $57,945, 6.94% of the benchmark.

Year to date, method 2
The YTD benchmark was $1,613,876.
The YTD NFST collection was $1,504,990.
The YTD shortfall was $108,886, 6.75% of the benchmark.

Methodology

The City’s projected revenue for each year of Norman Forward is a matter of public record. The latest information that I have found is here - http://www.normanok.gov/sites/default/files/Features/July%2014%20CC%20Conf%20-%20Norman%20Forward.pdf - and these were the projections used in the Norman Forward election campaign. Calendar year 2016 was the first year for NFST collection and the projected revenue was $10,279,463.

I have calculated monthly ‘benchmarks’ so we can see how much progress we are making toward our revenue goals. I used two different ways of calculating the benchmarks.

The first method involves calculating the average daily NFST we would need in order to reach the goal ($10,279,463/366 days = $28,086/day) and assigning to each month a benchmark based on the number of days per month (e.g., 31 day months need to create an income of $870,665 [= $28,086/day * 31 days]). This, of course, is a pretty simplistic, linear model of revenue projection.

The second method is meant to address the simplistic assumptions of the first. Different months are better for sales tax collection than others. In order to get a handle on that, I used historical data on monthly taxable sales in Norman from 1980 to 2012 (from origins.ou.edu) to calculate an average percentage of yearly taxable sales per month. The results were about what you would expect - December accounts for 9.54% of yearly taxable sales; January for only 7.58% - with a few mild surprises - February accounts for more taxable sales (8.12%) than either March (7.99%) or October (7.86%). I used these averages to calculate the benchmarks for each month: January NFST collections should account for 7.58% of the yearly target; February NFST collections should account for 8.12% of the yearly target; etc.

The spreadsheet where all of this is worked out is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WGVk7LiaQbPyImSnmBmb8gcUMqPliP3DT_J1e1ArWDI.

Introduction

It has become increasingly clear that you can’t really trust the City of Norman to provide timely, relevant information (or to even follow its own rules, really). It is possible, however, to figure out some things we, as citizens, need to know without relying on the City. If we want to make good decisions going forward, we will need to do exactly that.

As a partial step in this direction, I am setting up this blog to track Norman Forward Sales Tax (NFST) revenues. I will be following the media reports about sales tax receipts and comparing them with our revenue goals.

I recognize that there are lots of ways to ‘slice this pie’. I am going to start with two - described in a methodology post to follow - but I invite other suggestions. I am also interested in hearing, in particular, about other sources for the latest NFST data. Ultimately, I would like to influence the City into doing something like this on its own - this is the sort of information people need to make decisions, not soothing reassurances or dire warnings.