The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Our guest today on ST is Bill Leighty, executive director of the Smart Growth Tulsa Coalition, which was founded in 2014 as an organization "committed to creating healthy communities that work for everyone with strong schools, shops, and local businesses, improved mobility options, and jobs that pay well." A longtime Tulsa-based realtor and businessman who's been consistently active in community and professional development, and who has served on the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission as well as the city's Transportation Advisory Board, Leighty has become an outspoken critic in recent days -- please see his blog posts here -- of the Tulsa City Council's draft proposal for Arkansas River infrastructure development. (G.T. Bynum, the City Councilor who's leading the effort on this draft proposal, appeared on our show recently to discuss the same.) Also, please note that two further public meetings will be held on the issue of proposed river-infrastructure development here in Tulsa next week, on Monday the 29th as well as Wednesday the 1st, and you can get all the details on those meetings by going here and looking for the "Town Hall Meeting Schedule."

Tulsa needs to focus on the Zink dam only and let Sand Springs, Bixby, and the Creeks/Jenks do their own funding if they want LWD’s rather than doing this as a regional proposal.  I’m interested to see where Blake and Anna’s economic development package goes before I’ll consider a regional tax package for dams.

Based on what the consensus seems to be, I don’t think the dam proposal will pass so this may all be a moot point.

Tulsa needs to focus on the Zink dam only and let Sand Springs, Bixby, and the Creeks/Jenks do their own funding if they want LWD’s rather than doing this as a regional proposal.  I’m interested to see where Blake and Anna’s economic development package goes before I’ll consider a regional tax package for dams.

Based on what the consensus seems to be, I don’t think the dam proposal will pass so this may all be a moot point.

The Sand Springs dam feeds the other dams. It's required. Bixby and Jenks are not.

Why is the Sand Springs dam required?    Does Zink lake go empty now even though it is the only one?

It has been due to gate problems.  I’m not a hydrologist, so I really can’t speak intelligently on whether or not the SS dam is really necessary to keep Zink full at either it’s present level or if the gate height were raised on a revamp.

It's also to keep the potential white water features working south of the Zink dam and leave the rest of the undammed river with a decent amount of water all the time instead of empty when Keystone is closed and flowing when Keystone is open and generating electricity.

Couldn't this be accomplished with having a gate that only opens the white water area from say dawn to dusk?   Wouldn't that save you the cost of the Sand Springs dam.

Question:  Is SS required for Zink to work:  

No but it is required for Zink to function as intended and to be significantly better, especially as it relates to the proposed white water features and water quality.
  

So Zink water quality and the current white water features are/were neither acceptable nor functioning as intended.  

So Zink water quality and the current white water features are/were neither acceptable nor functioning as intended.  

The Keystone was not supposed to last this long.

Perhaps more biologists should be consulted.

One simple fact: the Corps is currently restoring the nesting islands approximately twice / year.  The Dam Plan calls for restoration once every two years.  That certainly makes you wonder what other details might be glossed over.

Least tern habitat can be more reasonably projected for the three new dams because of consultations during the 2009 PPMP, the Zink Section 404 permitting process, and recent experience on the Section 404 permit for the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and the resulting requirements. Based on this experience, each of the three new dams will also include the construction of a new island that provides 2 acres of new least tern habitat above the elevation of the SWPA power generation flow of 12,000 cfs. The islands will be constructed based upon the design criteria presented in the least tern island design document in 2003 by the Biosystems & Agricultural Engineering Department, Oklahoma State University. At lower non-generating flows of 1,000 cfs and corresponding lower water levels, the islands will be approximately 5 acres in size.
Construction of these islands are included in the project cost estimates and periodic sand replenishment that will be required to maintain the islands for the life of the project.

The open water resource that will result from the creation of the lake pools will provide stable habitat for fish, waterfowl, wading birds, amphibians, and insects; will provide more stable hydrology for riparian vegetation; and will have a greater ecological function value than the existing intermittently inundated riverine sand bars.

I'm in favor of improving Zink Dam. The permit has already been approved, it would prevent more folks from drowning in the giant vortex, and it would make things better, not worse. It will also be pretty to have water near the Gathering Place (which desperately needs a real name, not a working title).  If it can improve the little white water kayaking area, too, then yea for us.

Not sure I can support the other dams. Save the money and spend it on transit. Transit = jobs and opportunity and economic development. We can prove this with actual evidence. Wet river, not so much.

Okay, so to say I'm suprised and at the same time not suprised, as this seems to be the way a lot of things were built and not just in Oklahoma. Build it to last 50 years by the lowest bidder, and then let someone else worry about what to do fifty years later when it needs to be repaired or replaced. Hmmm, sounds like the OTA in some ways.

Seems to be a common thread in engineered solutions.  I can’t tell you how many times we have looked at a seemingly impossible boiler replacement in a basement 30 feet down with 16” thick walls or in a penthouse 20 stories up.  The question always comes up: “What the hell were those engineers thinking building a building around the boiler room?” 

It was easy placement and by the time the lifespan of the boiler was over that engineer would be long retired.  I’ve seen boilers with a 40 year life expectancy reduced to junk in five years.  I’ve also seen boilers with a 20-30 year expectancy approaching 90 years old.  There are still a few around Tulsa providing nice toasty heat every winter. 

IOW- the dams may have had a 50 year life expectancy, but what all did they not know about materials and construction in the early 1960’s which has proven much more durable beyond anyone’s wildest dreams.

There again, we do seem to learn new things with every decade that goes by. 

Which is why the two things in life I no longer have much faith in are weather reports and engineering estimates. The latter being unduly influenced by economic pressures and politics. Once an engineer says "our estimates show it to be within acceptable industry standards...", hold on to your donkey. The promoters take those remarks, spin them, capitalize them, put their names on the commemorative plaque and move on for others to clean up later.

BTW, does anyone remember the weather forecasters back in March and April warning that it would be a rainy, stormy spring with intense storms? I do. Apparently the Corps doesn't trust weathermen either. They didn't release water from keystone, keeping the river bone dry for weeks (some think it was to affect support for more dams or the gathering place), until record rainfalls all along the system kept them from doing so. Then bragged that they were working hard to minimize flooding. My trust in individual engineers, metereologists, wildlife experts and ecologists is intact. The organizations they work for, not so much.

Please put water in the river...  Please.  The best investment Tulsa could make in itself in a generation.

I'm all for having water in the river...

If this is one big proposal on the ballot then I can't find a compelling reason to spend Tulsa tax money on this. For this same amount we could make a huge impact to public transportation or education or even a Tulsa specific economic generator of some sort.

The Arkansas River Infrastructure Task Force has suspended its regular meetings to give a subcommittee time to evaluate public comments the task force received at its recent town hall meetings.

Meanwhile, in interiews with The Frontier Tuesday, Sand Springs Mayor Mike Burdge, said his city may not be included in a final proposal to build low-water dams in the Arkansas River, and Tulsa City Councilor Anna America said she would like to see the overall proposal scaled back.

City Councilor and Task Force Chairman G.T. Bynum informed area leaders in an email Monday the meetings were being halted.

“Moving ahead, we are suspending meetings of the task force while our drafting team assembles a proposal that responds to concerns raised in town hall meetings,” the email states. “When that revised proposal is ready, we will call another meeting to present it to the full task force and get your feedback.”

DOCUMENT
TEXT
Zoom

Bynum told The Frontier in an interview that “major issues raised and on the table for discussion largely come down to the disparity within the draft plan between what Tulsans pay and what they get in return.”

Asked whether the proposal could be scaled back to exclude some suburban communities, Bynum said: “Anything and everything is up for discussion.”

Councilor Phil Lakin said the same thing in an interview Tuesday.

“Everything is on the table because we don’t have a proposal yet to put out there,” Lakin said. “We just had a plan we discussed that had four dams.”

Bynum stressed at the public meetings that the plan presented to the public was not a finished product and that the public’s input would be used to come up with a final proposal.

He reiterated that point Tuesday, adding that each river community is represented on the drafting team.

“That was the whole point of the town hall meetings,” he said. “They weren’t intended as a pep rally, they were intended as a chance for Tulsans to let us know what they think so we could revise the proposal accordingly.”

America said she’s heard strong support for scaling back the proposal.

“What I am hearing loud and clear from Tulsans in my district — and in much of the rest of the city — is that they don’t necessarily oppose four dams, they just don’t want Tulsans to pay for dams in other communities, and I agree with that.

“My preference would be that Tulsans get to vote on a scaled-back package that focuses on things within our city limits. That means all necessary levy repairs and improvements on the Zink Dam to build on our greatest river asset.”

America said she could potentially see a south Tulsa-Jenks dam included in the proposal if the cost were shared proportionally by those who would benefit from it.

Jenks’ Mayor Kelly Dunkerly said the process is proceedings as it was intended, with each river community involved in coming up with a final proposal.

“I think the main thing is the proposal is still under development,” he said. “Everyone has had their input and no final decisions have been made, but there have been discussions about the merit” of each dam location.

Dunkerly said the public input has had the desired effect of providing task force members and policy makers with the information they need to make the best decisions possible.

“We have all been trying to understand the different options,” he said.

Bynum said a possible Sand Springs dam remains integral from a water-quality standpoint. However, the task force learned during the public meetings process that the Sand Springs dam would not provide as much water between the Tulsa dam lakes as anticipated.

“That weighs on the valuation of that dam from the standpoint of its benefit to Tulsans,” Bynum said.

Burdge said he has heard from colleagues in Sand Springs the city may be left out of the package.

“If Tulsa makes that decision, that is their decision to make,” Burdge said. “We will revamp what we are doing. That is no problem; we’ll just catch another train.”

In Bixby, City Manager Doug Enelvoldsen said his city remains committed to building four dams in the river.

Enelvoldsen sits on the drafting team.

“We believe that the Arkansas River is our region’s greatest natural asset,” he said. “And the creation of these series of lakes will stimulate private-sector development, improve recreational opportunities and enhances quality of life throughout the Tulsa metropolitan region.”

The river task force has spent more than a year and a half formulating a plan to build low-water dams in the Arkansas River. The group is made up of representatives of Tulsa County, the Creek Nation, private industry, the cities of Tulsa, Sand Springs, Jenks, Bixby and others.

The proposal presented to the public at town hall meetings in May and June called for spending $298 million to build dams in Sand Springs, south Tulsa/Jenks and Bixby and to overhaul Zink Dam in Tulsa.

The proposal offered a new twist Bynum and other advocates for the dams said made it different than earlier proposals: Only communities that would benefit directly from the dams would be asked to pay for them.

Those communities would be Sand Springs, Tulsa, Jenks and Bixby. Funding would come from a Vision 2025 sales tax renewal. The sixth-tenths of a penny sales tax expires at the end of 2016.

Under the proposal, the four communities would dedicate half of the renewal, or three-tenths of a penny, to build, operate and maintain the dams.

However, during the town hall meetings, several speakers questioned whether Tulsans would essentially be paying to build other communities’ dams because of the Tulsa’s much larger population.

Others asked whether the task force had done a cost-benefit analysis to determine how much private-sector investment the dams might generate.

The suspension of the meetings could throw a wrench into the overall Vision renewal process.

Independent of the dam discussions, the city of Tulsa is holding public meetings to hear how Tulsans would like to spend the remainder of the Vision tax should they choose to renew it. Sand Springs, Jenks and Bixby are holding or plan to hold similar meetings.

Until recently, Bynun and other officials had indicated that the Vision renewal vote could take place as early as the fall. That now seems unlikely.

Near the end of his email, Bynum writes there is a good reason no dam proposal has been approved in 50 years.

“It’s complicated,” he wrote.

Monday, it seems, the proposal became even more so.

Those communities would be Sand Springs, Tulsa, Jenks and Bixby. Funding would come from a Vision 2025 sales tax renewal. The sixth-tenths of a penny sales tax expires at the end of 2016.

Under the proposal, the four communities would dedicate half of the renewal, or three-tenths of a penny, to build, operate and maintain the dams.

I'm all for having water in the river...this plan puts water in the river, just not significantly in Tulsa. It puts water in the river at Sand Springs and at Jenks and fixes the impound at the pedestrian bridge in Tulsa. The water level from 31st to 61st in Tulsa will mostly stay the same.

We have been lucky.  If you could cut a slice out of Keystone, I suspect there would be a lot of concrete to rebar failures going on.  The concrete cracks, water intrudes and rusts the rebar, the rust swells causing the concrete to crack, letting water intrude, rusting the rebar.....


I am curious about silting behind the dam.  There was some speculation I heard of a month or so ago that the flood and heavy release of water would act to "scrub" some of the silt out from behind the dam.  Wonder if the Corp has looked at that...?

Which would put all that silt right into the Sand Springs mud hole/sand pit, if so....

Lol....Wut.... ???

Hardly.

Keystone Dam Safety Inspection Program. The Tulsa District COE performs annual
inspections and 5-year periodic inspections of its federal dams to comply with the federal
mandate for such inspections. The last periodic inspection and report completed for this
project was in November 1996. A synopsis of this inspection was obtained from the Tulsa
District for this report, and the condition of the dam and associated applicable structures is
summarized herewith.
The dam and all of its appurtenant structures remain in very good condition with no
breakdown or displacement observed. The crest remains in good condition with no
significant movements or subsidence identified. The downstream turf is well established
and is providing adequate protection against erosion. The spillway and powerhouse
structures are in overall good condition with no significant change observed in the hairline
cracking within the structures. Moderate deficiencies on the tainter gates were noted during
the structural integrity inspection. Corrosion, ranging from minor to significant, was
observed on the downstream structural members of the gates. Some secondary members on
isolated gates will require metal replacement, and an entire repainting of all the gates will be
necessary to retard further deterioration of their structural integrity. The stilling basin was
sounded and inspected by divers during fiscal year 1995 (FY95) and no significant change
was noted in the condition of the basin. None of the instrumentation data indicates an
unusual condition regarding the safety of the dam.

Corps of Engineers: Canton Dam is very high safety risk
February 16 – (Oklahoma)
Safety — Six dam projects, including the Canto
Dam and Keystone Dam, in Oklahoma have bee
categorized as a Very High Risk project by
USACE, Tulsa, Oklahoma District. According to
the report released in early February, “Risk is the
measure of the likelihood that a natural event wil
take place, the performance of the infrastructure
during this event, and the consequences of failur
or poor performance — loss of life being of para
mount concern.” USACE says, “Dam or levee
failure is not likely due to completed Interim
Risk Reduction Measures and ongoing surveillance
and monitoring.” None of the dams were
rated Extremely High Risk. Eight of the projects
were designated as having Moderate to High Ris
and 15 were considered Low Risk. A Dam Safet
Modification is underway to address foundation
seepage and potential overtopping at Canton
Dam. That project is scheduled for completion in
2014. USACE is currently completing further
studies on issues at the Keystone Dam and Pine
Creek Dam. USACE officials emphasized there
is no imminent danger of any of the dams collapsing.

Previous studies examined the removal
of a re-regulation dam on the
Arkansas River, immediately below
Keystone Dam. The dam was designed
to provide downstream water
quality storage and to control flow
variations as a result of hydropower
operations, and constructed as part
of the Keystone Lake project. The
Corps removed the re-regulation dam
in the mid-1980s because the structure
did not perform as expected and
created a life-safety hazard; sixteen
drownings occurred at the dam. This
feasibility study will investigate the
potential of federal responsibility for
reconstruction of the dam.

By JARREL WADE World Staff Writer | 5 comments
The proposal to build low-water dams along the Arkansas River may be getting an overhaul — becoming much more Tulsa-focused.

The initial plan called for three new dams — Sand Springs, south Tulsa/Jenks and Bixby — and an overhaul of Tulsa's Zink Dam. After hearing public comments during meetings in recent weeks, a Tulsa official is now proposing to remove plans for dams in Sand Springs and Bixby. He also plans to propose an additional dam in Tulsa.

Councilor G.T. Bynum, who has led the Arkansas River Infrastructure Task Force, emailed other task force members Wednesday to inform them of his intention to call for the projects to be scaled back at next week's meeting.

"In Tulsa, recurring concerns were raised around the disparity between what Tulsans would pay into a sales tax and what they would get out of it,"

Bynum said in the email to the task force. "There were also concerns about lengthy revenue projections and direct return on investment. The space in

Tulsa between our lakes remains a major concern as well. When people think of 'water in the river' they think of continuous water, not two lakes five miles apart."

The task force's engineering group is looking at the cost of adding a third Tulsa dam, at about 49th Street, which would fill a gap between Tulsa's proposed lakes.

The third dam was proposed after concerns were raised about low water levels between the Zink Dam and the proposed Tulsa/Jenks dam.

While the cost for the four dams in the original plan was priced at about $300 million and aimed for half of Vision 2025's expiring tax, Bynum's new proposal would be about $100 million less.

The cost of a dam at 49th Street, which is being detailed by engineers, would be similar in cost to the Bixby dam. Bynum estimated the overall project cost of his new proposal to simply subtract the cost of the Sand Springs dam at about $100 million.

However, Bynum said he plans to increase the amount budgeted for Arkansas River levee rehabilitation, from $4.2 million to $10 million.

To task force members, Bynum said he would propose the entire region be split into two phases. The first phase would address Zink Dam, 49th Street dam and the South Tulsa/Jenks dam, as well as levee improvements.

A second phase would then look to address a dam in Sand Springs, Bixby and other dam enhancements, Bynum said.

"We need to prove to our citizens that we can build these dams on time and on budget," Bynum said. "And we need to prove that in Tulsa before we can expand our horizons."

Bynum said an engineering report completed this week showed that the intent of the Sand Springs dam — to hold a large pool of water for consistent flow to the downstream dams — would have a negligible effect on increasing water flow downstream.

During public meetings, when Bynum was asked about the need for the Sand Springs dam in the funding proposal, he called the Sand Springs dam "the spigot" to keep water levels high downstream.

"The big number there is that the water has historically flowed at about 1,000 cubic feet per second," Bynum said. "If we add the Sand Springs dam, it would increase that flow of 1,000 cubic feet per second from 88 percent of the time to only 92 percent."

Bynum said the difference just doesn't make enough sense for the cost of the dam. 

The Bixby dam also was removed from the proposal. As previously reported, residents questioned the cost of that dam as being mostly on the shoulders of Tulsa taxpayers.

Last month, Bynum called the Sand Springs and Bixby dams "weaknesses" in the proposal that needed to be addressed.

MORE interestingly, and I haven't seen anyone else talk about this...

The Keystone Lake project initially included included a "Sand Springs dam" to provide downstream water quality storage and to control flow variations. That is to say, exactly what the new dam is expected to do. The old one was such a failure and death trap, they removed it.
http://www.swt.usace.army.mil/Portals/41/docs/library/proj-upd/2015_03.pdf

I'm all for having water in the river...this plan puts water in the river, just not significantly in Tulsa. It puts water in the river at Sand Springs and at Jenks and fixes the impound at the pedestrian bridge in Tulsa. The water level from 31st to 61st in Tulsa will mostly stay the same.

Many people have noted that, and the consensus seemed to be that the original dam was a bad design that caused drownings on the downstream side, much like the existing Zink Lake dam. That's one of the reasons why they've included many "step-downs" in the proposed dams.

But this is now a moot point. Bynum just announced the Sand Springs and Bixby dams have been scrapped, and a third dam in Tulsa has been added, around 49th St S.

But will it be another drowning machine?  Or will proper design actually be built....?

...That's one of the reasons why they've included many "step-downs" in the proposed dams.

But will it be another drowning machine?  Or will proper design actually be built....?  

Lots of pretty pictures.  Pardon my skepticism about Tulsa's implementation of this type of scheme - the current Zink dam was also the "latest and greatest" at the time.  Have heard for years how "inadequate" it really is...it replaced another low water dam without addressing the hazard concerns.

I worked on Zink Dam, don't ever remember it being called latest and greatest, but I was young then...

Is there anyway to NOT have moving parts on this dam?    It just sounds like someone is trying to sell Tulsa a monorail...   The engineers and salesmen get rich, and the city gets stuck with the maintenance nightmare.

Is there anyway to NOT have moving parts on this dam?    It just sounds like someone is trying to sell Tulsa a monorail...   The engineers and salesmen get rich, and the city gets stuck with the maintenance nightmare.

Hats off to our city councilors for listening to their communities and altering the plan. I think we are getting closer to something I would support.

The gates consist of a curved steel section hinged at the bottom and actuated by a HEAVY duty air bladder that is covered by the gate when down. That's about as low maintenance, low failure rate as you can get.  No hydraulic cylinders in vaults, or hoists to fail, just blowers, simple valves, piping, bladders, and controls all for a dramatically less maintenance intensive installation than what Zink or the OC River presently have.

Having a non-moving dam is why they are having to go out and clear it about every year.

The one in Tempe was heavy duty too...   You know how that went.

That's just the perception I have from the time...the old dam was a little bit downstream, IIRC, and there was always somebody drowning around that thing (not always...just once in a while, but perception is many more than now).  The Zink dam has not been bad - seems like there aren't very many die there, but maybe I have become "deaf" to the events.  Could we be getting smarter around dangerous objects??   

I don’t recall any dam downstream of the current location of the Zink dam, when was that in place?  I remember the Sand Springs drowning machine er LWD.

I will supported it, but I would like to see The Creek Nation put in some money.

I think they will.

Who needs low-water dams in Arkansas River? It’s turbine time

Remember Tulsa’s Leadership Vision?

I didn’t.

But then I got wind of the group’s Friday morning meeting at the Southern Hills Marriott.

So I showed up and there was Terry Simonson and Bill Masterson and Howard Barnett and Sharon King-Davis and several other movers and shakers.

As Simonson, who founded the organization in 2013, said before the meeting, “these are people who get things done.”

The private, nonprofit group of 32 people meets regularly to discuss topics of import in the city, including the possible consolidation of the city and county park systems.

They’ve also been kicking around another hot topic: how to get a permanent stream of water within the banks of the Arkansas River.

The Arkansas River Infrastructure Task Force is looking to accomplish that through the construction of new low-water dams and the modification of Zink Dam as well as other water-diversion methods.

Depending on the number of dams built, the price tag could be anywhere from $200 million to $300 million.

Not cheap, in other words.

So at Friday’s TLV meeting, engineer Charles Pratt offered his answer to this question posed by Simonson: “Before citizens of Tulsa County are asked to throw nearly one quarter of a billion dollars into the river in order to have more water more often, have we fully explored all methods which will accomplish that?”

Pratt’s response: Add small hydro-electronic generators to Keystone Dam.

“If you want it to look like a river” the turbines could accomplish that, Pratt said.

At least two turbines would be installed in the gates of the dam and run 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Each turbine would produce 300 to 500 cubic feet per second of water downstream.

That would provide the roughly 1,000 cfs of water needed to keep a steady flow of H2O in the river, Pratt said. The cost: $4 million to $6 million for each turbine, including installation.

Who needs new dams that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to build when a couple of turbines costing $12 million installed would do the trick?

Or so the thinking goes.

Unfortunately, not every smart person in the room Friday was thinking like Pratt.

Fritha Ohlson with the U.S. Department of Energy’s Southwest Power Administration sat through Pratt’s presentation.

Southwest Power uses the water stored in the Keystone Dam to generate power for its customers in several states.

She told TLV that there are at least two problems with Pratt’s pitch: running smaller turbines 24/7 would drain the dam’s conservation lake at least once every four years and make it impossible to run the dam’s two large turbines at 6,000 cfs.

“We have already marketed that (rate) by law,” Ohlson said after the meeting. “You would have to get federal legislation” to change that.”

Also seated in the hotel conference room Friday was invited guest G.T. Bynum. Bynum, a Tulsa city councilor, is chairman of the River Infrastructure Task Force.

He described the turbine idea as “interesting” but said it was no substitute for using dams to create lakes in the river.

“The reality of the situation is that if you drain enough water from Keystone to fill the corridor through Tulsa, you will empty Keystone Lake in short order,” Bynum said. “The aim of our task force is simply to better use the water that is already traveling through our community and to do so with a minimum of reliance on outside government entities.”

Simonson, for his part, isn’t sold on the dams. He said that, among other things, he’s concerned that the existing dam proposal does not do enough to ensure that the water in the river would be suitable for recreational purposes or even human contact.

“First, there has to be enough water and second it has to be better water,” Simonson said. “Neither can happen right now.”

If this all sound confusing, that’s because it is. As Bynum likes to say, there is reason Tulsans have been talking about putting water in the river for half a century and have never got it done.

So Friday, it was turbine time. City officials hope to put a dam proposal on the ballot in April. Who knows what other ideas might surface by then and what Tulsa’s Vision Leadership will have to say about the proposal when it is all said and done.

But for now, at least, we know the group is open to listening to other options.

How long does it take from discharge at the dam until the flow reaches someplace like I-44 and Riverside?


Currently they are generating 24/7, but if Eufaula/Kerr are a normal indication, from noon until 7:30pm is normal.   Then again, that would be water in the river, but not enough to play in.

Groundwork Being Laid for Arkansas River Development in Tulsa

Even without water permanently in the river yet, there are plans in the works to guide Arkansas River development in Tulsa.

One priority in Tulsa’s effort to build a series of low-water dams will be connecting the riverfront with downtown. Some of the groundwork is already in place for that.

City Planning Director Dawn Warrick said the Boulder Avenue bridge was built to accommodate transit, including some forms of light rail.

"That is already an asset that's in place that we can build upon and take further," Warrick said. "It connects from downtown — actually, north of downtown — all the way to the river, so it's a great corridor of opportunity for those types of connections."

There’s also an unfunded capital improvement plan for connecting parts of Tulsa with the river. Its price tag is about $20 million, and the plan is vague right now.

A steering committee for the Arkansas River task force is working on a system of zoning overlays for areas around the river. There are four tiers: river parks, river adjacent, east of Riverside Drive and properties needing significant public improvement.

"Depending upon the tier and the specific criteria of the overlay, it may speak to lighting standards or landscaping requirements, connections to the river — whether they're pedestrian or just visual," Warrick said. "It could even look at height requirements if there's a need for the development to kind of step down toward the river."

But the overlays will be difficult to adopt under Tulsa’s current zoning code.

"The overlay districts would be facilitated by the new zoning code, and we're excited to see what happens with that new code," Warrick said.

The idea is to apply the overlays in addition to zoning codes, creating a uniform guide for development near the river.

...Why don't they try to get private investment/match from those who will benefit the most like the Casino/Riverwalk in Jenks? If they will see revenue increase from it, they should pay for it.

You plan includes bulldozing Westport?

Razing current parkland?

Great plan.

Nothing I marked is current parkland other than where REI is going and the soccer fields which I believe are loaned land anyway.

And yes, Westport can go.

Here are a few development areas for Tulsa along the river.

(https://s3.amazonaws.com/f.cl.ly/items/3Q2i431z1c0q3I3R3Y2s/Screen%20Shot%202015-10-07%20at%209.28.07%20AM.png)

At 41st ST you would also need infrastructure, accessibility and flood mitigation (not that these are gating issues, but they do make it less attractive).

I filled in about 600-700 acres. You can't just hand-wave 90% of that away because you think it seems stupid.

1. Tearing down $22million is assessed property is a big gamble.   Granted the apartments are old, but that is a lot of investemtnto remove just for the hopes of more retail shopping.

2. There has been a communal hard on for moving the concrete plant for years.   Still no one has ponied up the money to make it happen.

3. That land is already owned by the City of Tulsa, "TULSA RIVERPARKS AUTHORITY" or "TULSA CO DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO 12".  

4. The soccer complex, per the Tulsa County Assessor's website, is owned by the River Parks Authority.

I filled in about 600-700 acres. You can't just hand-wave 90% of that away because you think it seems stupid.

1. I've heard more than once this place is not long for this world. While there is water there sometimes, the new dams are supposed to bring a longer and more regular water level.

2. See #1

3. The skate park is in for shape and the city land is a lot closer than your portray it to be. The actual Riverparks area is only about 10 yards across in some of that area.

4. The soccer complex, to the best of my knowledge, is owned by AEP. Most of that land is underused and worth almost nothing now, despite being about a mile off the highway and on the river. Had the 41st bridge been built, there would be development here now. Widening 41st would be easy and the industrial area would become commercial quickly. As for the levy, they could build a parking garage with restaurant/retail above and have killer views.

6. I didn't include the biosolids facility.

Good call - if they built the dam as currently proposed you would be right. There would be water for the soccer field site. But all my other fatal issues would remain. Sorry man, I just don't see it. I tried to find the actual history of how the soccer fields came to owned by River Parks (and read a bunch of neat stuff on Garden City), but it would require a trip to the land records and I'm not that motivated.

So I wrote a snarky advertisement instead (sorry):

"NEW CONDOS! Located in Historic Garden City, built as a work camp for Texaco workers in the early 1920s - Garden City has been cutoff and preserved for a generation. Promising to be a diverse neighborhood - to the north you have a coal fired power plant and a major refining complex. To the South you have light industrial and the waste water plant. Just to the west you will enjoy thirty (30!) lots that have been purchased and raised through a joint venture of Holly Refining and Marketing and the City of Tulsa in an effort to eliminate residential development in Garden City! But not all of them! After peaking in the pre-war era Garden City opportunities now abound and it features homes starting at $500. That's right, multiple homes and trailers that are occupied assessed at $500! And dozens to choose from in the coveted $15 - $35k range.

But wait, there's more!

To the east, if you climb the dike immediately in front of your new $300,000 condo, you can see water in the river!"


Truthfully, the refinery has been trying to buy our property owners in the area since 1970s. The City has been buying properties and discouraging development since the 1986 flood (http://www.smartcommunities.ncat.org/pubs/harmsway/garden.shtml), which breached that levy.  PlanitTulsa acknowledges Garden City, but I couldn't find any plans to develop the area. It is theoretically possible to turn the parks into condos, but it won't happen.

Sorry to be so negative.

Canon_fodder, that was a beautiful thorough argument. Besides the additional dam they added in after the initial proposal (and even if they add that), the arguments for new dams are pretty weak.

I remember very shortly after the first river tax failed, construction began to revitalize and repave trails along the east bank of river parks along with other beautification projects (new statues, playground at 41st, etc). The timing was brilliant and seems like might've been planned by the River-tax proponents (e.g. Bartlett) to mislead the public. Had the tax passed, the average person might've thought that had something to do with the river tax and thought "Wow! They make progress quickly!" Thus increasing the perceived value of the River tax and helping improve future political clout. As it was, the tax failed and the renovations were completed and were great.

I'm not seeing the downside here.

The river is one of, if not the single most prominent feature of the Tulsa area. Much of the time the river looks like crap. This project is worth it for no other reason that it will dramatically improve the aesthetics of the city. It will also enhance Riverparks and The Gathering Place and will provide some development opportunities. I'm not seeing the downside here.

Not only is it expensive, as Townsend noted, but it comprises enormous lost opportunity costs for other projects around Tulsa that could have a significantly bigger impact on Tulsa's growth and aesthetic improvement.  Whatever money goes to dams will not be going to transportation or any of the other many projects identified for potential inclusion in the next Vision vote.  I'm not yet fully decided on the dams vote (except I support fixing Zink), in part because the plan is so incomplete and keeps changing.  But I see what the public's investment in downtown has generated and I would prefer to continue to focus on that part of town before throwing a lot of money at the river based on what so far seems more hope than legitimate prospects for quality development that would result from putting water in the river.

I'm not seeing the downside here.

Watch CF freak out about spending $150M to redevelop an area that runs the length of the city while being OK with our recent spending of like 3 times that on the donut hole in the NW corner which had even less developable area by his criteria.

The river is one of, if not the single most prominent feature of the Tulsa area. Much of the time the river looks like crap. This project is worth it for no other reason that it will dramatically improve the aesthetics of the city. It will also enhance Riverparks and The Gathering Place and will provide some development opportunities. I'm not seeing the downside here.

Our bombed out roads are a pretty prominent and noticeable feature of the Tulsa area.

Development economics will make sense whether there is water in the river or not.  I had lunch on the patio at Blue Rose yesterday.  There was very little water in Zink Lake at the time.  More water would not have improved the experience.

I’m not entirely against the idea of dams.  If we didn’t have what I consider to be more important spending priorities, I probably could get behind it.

I’m still somewhat unclear how the Vision 2025 extension ballot will read.  Will it be multi-tiered like the original one?  The proposal is for 1/2 of the expiring .6% tax to go to dams and the other half to economic development.  What concerns me is if the dams are too closely associated as part of the extension, it could end up tanking the economic development part as well.  I’d rather see this scrapped for a later time.

Probably separate ballot issues
1. River
2. Public Safety
3. Everything else.

Tulsa has to get water in the river if it is to compete with surrounding cities on quality of life. . .

Cities across America are pouring money into activating their waterfronts. . .

People here have such an incredible knee-jerk reaction against public investment. . .

Measures of quality of life include health, education opportunities, crime/public safety, recreation activity, cultural activity, income opportunities, and public amenities. Putting water in  the river won't increase health, education, help public safety, provide culture, or increase income. It will provide minimal recreational activities as it will not be a navigable waterway (the Zink dam proposal does include a kayak section). Nor is it considered a public amenity in most measures.

I love waterfronts. From Chicago, to NYC, to San Francisco. Or Dubuque (Iowa - on a river), or Racine (Wisconsin - on a lake), or Ft. Myers (Florida - on a river/ocean). They all used underutilized waterfront areas to add to their city. But all of those are exploiting natural waterfronts. The natural advantages the City was ignoring. OKCs "waterfront" is a moat, it is a contrived district - like it or not, it is not analogous to Tulsa's river.

Adding water to the river will make it prettier for about 5 more miles in Tulsa. The newest "proposal" (it is not a plan yet) has dams at 29th, 49th and 103rd. That would put water in the river where it current is, plus from 29th to 49th, and from ~75th to 103rd. As you drive into Tulsa on I-44, there will not be water in the river under any proposal - the presumed "gateway" you were talking about. And I've discussed the development options ad naseum.

I have an incredible knee jerk reaction in favor of public investment. I agree that quality of life is the avenue that Tulsa needs to compete on a regional and national stage. But I think $250-300 million could fund many more projects that would add much more to Tulsa's quality of life than making the river look pretty. With that same money we could:

1) Make Gilcrease a world class museum, with the same profile as Crystal Bridges (already has a better collection)  [$75mil with additional matching funds from TU)

2) Make Turkey Mountain into a world class mountain bike, BMW, and cycle-cross center (~$3mil)

3) Build a fantastic children's museum ($20mil) [GKFF offers another $10mil matching grant]

4) Implement all three bikeshare/trails proposals for Tulsa ($3mil)

5) Land the BMX national headquarters at Expo ($15mil)

6) Provide Funding for the Arts ($250k)

7) Build half of Michael Patton's famous statutes/or the Goddess of Oil ($2.2 mil)

And that's only $110mil or so. There is no shortage of projects we could fund. All of which likely have a better ROI than water in the river. We could do everything about and the Zink Dam and still have money left over.
https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/vision/submitted-proposals.aspx

We could built a decent starter light rail. We could fund decent mass transit to start it off, and avoid laying rail right away if we wanted. Or build Blake's mass transit vision.

We could start a venture fund for Tulsa companies.

We could upgrade our schools.

We could fund our parks department and stop shutting down pools/community centers.

I'm a huge fan of funding public projects. Pooling our resources we can do amazing things that add value to our economy and differentiate our City. ROI isn't only measured in dollars and cents. But, unfortunately, we do have limited resources. I don't think investing that much money to make the Arkansas look like an eastern river is worth it.

Whatever the final mechanism, Tulsa has to get water in the river if it is to compete with surrounding cities on quality of life.  It is the single most obvious thing as you enter Tulsa.  I've had out of town guests obviously repulsed by the gateway to our city being an empty sandpit.  

I am a huuuuuuuge supporter of all things downtown and near downtown.  That said, there are other things that make Tulsa great.  The river is far and away the most obvious one.  It is our greatest natural asset.

Austin isn't awesome because of the Colorado River, which in its natural state is a glorified creek.  But the Colorado River has energized the whole central city corridor.  OKC built a river through downtown (hell they built an entire district).  Cities across America are pouring money into activating their waterfronts - Chicago's Great Rivers project, Boston's Harborwalk, Seattle's Alaskan Way viaduct, Pittsburgh's RiverLife, Providence's Waterplace Park, the list goes on.  The waterfront, arguably only rivaled by the skyline, is how the city orients itself and a source of civic pride and identity.  

People here have such an incredible knee-jerk reaction against public investment.  It's painful, really.  The positive externalities of the first Vision package are incredibly obvious.  But the commenters on the TW world still rail against any continuation.  So depressing.

Valid points, all.  This forum is a great place to have these conversations.  I love how everyone is civil with well thought out arguments.

That said, I'll have to agree to disagree on the main point.  I definitely agree that commercial or even residential development along River Parks would be a disaster - that should remain green space.  But green space flowing next to a full river is x10 more iconic than green space next to a dry riverbed.

Done right, water in the river is revolutionary.  That's the kind of project a century later that is still paying dividends when we're all dead.  Everything else is great and important too, but the river is the big one.  

Lastly, most of the benefits of planning outside of downtown are localized to the host neighborhood.  But the river is a truly city-wide asset.  The poorest residents of Turley have just as valid a claim to the riverfront as the wealthiest families in Maple Ridge.  A place where everyone can go in the summer, sneak a beer in a koozie, and watch the sun go down with the skyline behind them.    

Valid points, all.  This forum is a great place to have these conversations.  I love how everyone is civil with well thought out arguments.

That said, I'll have to agree to disagree on the main point.  I definitely agree that commercial or even residential development along River Parks would be a disaster - that should remain green space.  But green space flowing next to a full river is x10 more iconic than green space next to a dry riverbed.

Done right, water in the river is revolutionary.  That's the kind of project a century later that is still paying dividends when we're all dead.  Everything else is great and important too, but the river is the big one.  

Lastly, most of the benefits of planning outside of downtown are localized to the host neighborhood.  But the river is a truly city-wide asset.  The poorest residents of Turley have just as valid a claim to the riverfront as the wealthiest families in Maple Ridge.  A place where everyone can go in the summer, sneak a beer in a koozie, and watch the sun go down with the skyline behind them.    

Another from my rowing days is the “Little Arkansas” in the western part of downtown Wichita.  That is more along the scale of what an Elm Creek project would be for Tulsa.  I’m not aware of any major attempts to maintain water on the “big” Arkansas where it goes through Wichita as it has a prairie appearance at times as well.

Just out of curiosity....    Why did it only cost Wichita $12M to build its dam and the Tulsa dams cost 20 times that?

Just out of curiosity....    Why did it only cost Wichita $12M to build its dam and the Tulsa dams cost 20 times that?

Valid points, all.  This forum is a great place to have these conversations.  I love how everyone is civil with well thought out arguments.

That said, I'll have to agree to disagree on the main point.  I definitely agree that commercial or even residential development along River Parks would be a disaster - that should remain green space.  But green space flowing next to a full river is x10 more iconic than green space next to a dry riverbed.

Done right, water in the river is revolutionary.  That's the kind of project a century later that is still paying dividends when we're all dead.  Everything else is great and important too, but the river is the big one.  

Lastly, most of the benefits of planning outside of downtown are localized to the host neighborhood.  But the river is a truly city-wide asset.  The poorest residents of Turley have just as valid a claim to the riverfront as the wealthiest families in Maple Ridge.  A place where everyone can go in the summer, sneak a beer in a koozie, and watch the sun go down with the skyline behind them.    

That's a nice PR spin about it being a community asset, but folks in Turley are more concerned with putting food on the table than sneaking beers onto the riverbank and watching the sun go down.  First, many would struggle with transportation to even get there.

Does the river go across a large portion of town?  Yes.  Is the river an asset the entire community enjoys?  No and won't ever be.

This is a false argument.  Under your definition, nothing would be an asset for the entire community.  Large public green spaces, and related (River Parks, Gathering Place, etc, the River if were further enhanced) are the very definition of assets that benefit the entire community.  

You didn't read my post or his post for full comprehension.  There is a difference in benefit and enjoyment.  

Do I believe water in the river provides a benefit to the community?  Yes.  Do I believe it benefits the entire community?  This ROI for the entire community hasn't been proven yet, in my opinion.  The sales tax revenue, which drives our general operating fund, may see an indirect benefit, but not a direct benefit.  This is illustrated in several posts in this thread.  The one piece of that that could change would be if the development community felt already developed land was valuable enough to buy and re-develop.

To assert that the entire community enjoys water in the river is the false argument.  Of the 400M+ in the city of limits I would guess less then 25% have spent time in Riverparks in the twelve months preceding construction of The Gathering Place.  Do I think this number will increase greatly with the completion of the project, yes, but not to the point of the entire community enjoying the area.

My personal opinion is investing heavily in mass transit is a much greater benefit to the community and will be enjoyed by a much greater spectrum of people than water in the river.

OK, I get that. 

In terms of enjoyment, you are right, there will no doubt be a considerable percentage (perhaps, unfortunately, even a majority) of people in the Tulsa area that do not actively use the river, river parks, or even the Gathering Place once it is finished.  This is also true for just about every amenity in the city.  You specifically call out mass transit, and while I am in favor of developing better public transit solutions for Tulsa, the percentage of use of public transit versus enjoyment of the river and river-centric activities, is debatable.  (If we take your 25% figure for river parks - which may not be right but fine for discussion - do you think that 25% of the populace will use public transportation?  I don't.)

But my bigger issue is with your use of benefit in purely monetary terms.  A public-good type project, like the dams, or the Gathering Place, or mass transit, etc, doesn't have to have (or at least should not have to have) a specific ROI.  There are "greater good" considerations that must be factored in as well.  I actually would hate to see "development" along the river, as has been suggested by some here on the forum.  Instead, I'd like to see end-to-end parks all along the river.  A huge green space, with water in the river, that is so amazing that it does actually pull in people from the surrounding communities, and is a significant amenity factor in recruiting businesses and people to our city.  That's probably not going to happen, but a guy can dream, right?

Having said that, I agree that the overall price tag for the dams is very high and it probably makes more practical sense to repair Zink for now, and see what happens there first.  But I also think that looking at a hard ROI, for this or any other public works project, will only yield pragmatic and small-scale development and is not the way to get transformational change. 

I'm at the point where I feel we need to either fix or remove Zink dam so it stops killing people but other than that I've lost all personal need to see water in the river. The price tag is just too high and I feel that other projects offer an actual ROI and not just a pleasing aesthetic.

I can't deny your point of the benefit being greater than monetary.  However, is the overall benefit greater than other projects, such as transit or lowering the IDL?

I believe a "big city" transit system would lead to a transformation, to use your word, of our community.  A legitimate, large scale transit system, my preference would be a heavy investment in light rail, would allow for greater access to jobs by those who need that access the most, would encourage density and development along the transit nodes and would ultimately lessen the need for road and bridge maintenance.  In my opinion the true economic development that would occur as a result could raise the tax base to a level that projects like water in the river would be easier accomplished.  Better transit would also make is easier for more people to enjoy the river and the surrounding amenities.

I'm at the point where I feel we need to either fix or remove Zink dam so it stops killing people but other than that I've lost all personal need to see water in the river. The price tag is just too high and I feel that other projects offer an actual ROI and not just a pleasing aesthetic.

Public transit is gaining support in Tulsa, I think investing in smart inovative PT (and Education) could push Tulsa far ahead of our neighbors.

Attractions bring people into the area. The Drillers stadium, BOK center, golf, casinos, the zoo, botanical garden, aquarium, etc. They all bring people and revenue into the area and it also increases the need for public transit which would benefit even those who dont go to these attractions. The river being filled up I believe will spark a desire for river development and combined that would be a very nice attraction to the whole city. It will never become that attraction if it is a sand bar. The ROI I believe would be huge especially when you see as many people exercising, walking, playing along what is now a sand bank. If it had water? More visitors... more needs for those visitors. Many cities are visited for its visual appearance and if we could someday have Tulsa in a travel magazine next to San Antonia, like I have seen over and over before, than it will be more than worth the initial investment for years to come. We need more than oil and airplanes if we ever want to be a truly diversified economy. IMO.

Where will this river development be located?  The Arkansas River and the San Antonio Riverwalk or even Bricktown Canal are very different beasts.  If you want San Antonio style Riverwalk you're better off opening the ditch from the Pearl District, thru Veteran's Park and on to the river.  I would likely support public dollars for that project over dams in the river.

Ohio River Trail is planning on to complete the 4.75 mile segment from downtown to Lunken connecting our world class riverfront parks to east side neighborhoods and the 333 mile Ohio to the Lake Erie trail by 2017.This will leverage our region’s most valuable natural resource, the Ohio River, with the construction of a regional trail network.

https://eastendcincinnati.wordpress.com

We don't need water in the entire length of the river from Sand Springs to Bixby to create a water feature shopping center.

The river walks at San Antonio and OKC are on a scale more like Brookside or Cherry Street with water separating the two sides of retail development instead of asphalt.  There simply is no way to do what has been done in San Antonio with the Arkansas unless you do this along a tributary or do a side-stream like they did in OKC.


Bing Thom said during the roll out of “The Channels” proposal that the Arkansas River was not “human scale”.  I believe his intent was, you can’t stand on one bank and wave at your friends on the other bank because you can’t see them from the other side.  By its nature, it lacks the coziness of the canals other cities have constructed.  The canal in San Antonio was originally devised as a stormwater sewer and was to be paved over, just as we paved over Elm Creek through downtown Tulsa.  Elm Creek is our cozy canal opportunity.  Filling the Arkansas River from Sand Springs to Haskell and decorating the banks with commercial development still will not even come close to emulating the river walk in San Antonio.  It’s not the correct scale.

Tulsa can actually be a leader rather than a follower in improving and celebrating our park space along the Arkansas River.  That is being done with The Gathering Place.  When it is completed, it is supposed to be a world-class park others will want to emulate.  Don’t we want other cities to look at Tulsa and say: “Now there’s a place which resisted the temptation to dreck up its banks with commercial development.”?

We’ve already seen the city seems so desperate for commercial development along the Arkansas that they were too afraid to tell the developer of the supposed REI space they had to do something attractive.  Instead, from renderings anyone here has managed to dig up, it looks like park users will see a 30 foot lay up slab wall from the trail.  Oh, we will also get a bank and maybe a restaurant or two, maybe a nail store or phone store.  The development further down Riverside near the Creek Turnpike on Tulsa’s side also missed an opportunity to embrace the river- turning it’s back, instead of its front to the river.

Tonight the city council is expected to give approval of the plan to rezone the space from Helmerich Park down to Margaritaville.

Tonight the city council is expected to give approval of the plan to rezone the space from Helmerich Park down to Margaritaville.

Tulsa would need absorb Kansas City and St. Louis to have a shot at recreating the Saine of Thames. We would need the earthquake activity to seriously increase and drop Texas into the gulf to compete with Venice.

The projects have been finalized, the next step is to determine where the funding comes from:

River task force finalizes infrastructure improvements plan

But I now have so little faith in our government that I'm not sure I can shake my belief that the dams are the first step in destroying Riverparks and developing as much as the green space in any manner possible.

See, e.g., RIE and the infamous "Restaurant on Turkey Mountain."

this proposal seems to be headed in the right direction, it is clear Bynum has listed to people and is trying to respond. Even throwing some bones to Turkey Mountain and trail users. But I now have so little faith in our government that I'm not sure I can shake my belief that the dams are the first step in destroying Riverparks and developing as much as the green space in any manner possible.

See, e.g., RIE and the infamous "Restaurant on Turkey Mountain."

It’s quite unfortunate they have chosen to attach any funding for Turkey Mountain to the dams.  This seems to be a very well-calculated move to capitalize on the public sentiment shown toward Turkey Mountain over the last year to prevent development and increase the land holdings.  I suspect the River Task Force and council know the dam proposal is fairly controversial and are banking on all those who supported keeping Turkey Mountain undeveloped will gladly participate in a little quid pro quo.  

Turkey Mountain is unrelated to the dams and should stay unrelated to them.

My understanding is the $9 million is for land acquisition and improvements.  The official ask for land acquisition from RPA on their vision proposal was $5.6 million for the land previously slated for development by Simon.  I am aware they also had money in their $40+ million total ask for paved trail improvements in the vicinity of Turkey Mountain.

TUWC’s ask was $10 million for land acquisition south of 61st St. plus improvements on existing and future TMUWA holdings.  The $9 million is either a place-holder or some combination of asks from RPA, TUWC, and PLAT.

Here’s the reality of the situation with land identified for expansion of the TMUWA:  by the time funds can be available from the vision extension, it’s very possible that privately-held land could be sold off for development.  The area is very much on the development radar screen.  In order to secure land, it will need to be funded from private sources and done fairly soon.

So if a $5.6 million contribution from vision funding was worth a restaurant in return atop Turkey Mountain, I’m wondering what sort of retail ransom our beloved mayor will propose to justify $242.7 million all along our river banks.  

Keep in mind, there’s all sort of development which can happen in the vicinity of Zink Dam without a single additional dam down stream.  That can happen even without a Zink rebuild.  

I believe we should rebuild Zink Dam, I think the “iconic” new pedestrian bridge could be cool.  The Creeks and Jenks can add their dam at their expense then call it good.  I don’t see much of a point in a second dam at 49th St. unless the Creeks wish to pay for that to ensure more even flow to their lake.

Even with my affinity for Turkey Mountain and the role I’ve played in trying to preserve it and expand it over the last year, I think I’d have to vote against this package and work to help purchase land around the area via private funding instead.  The other part is, I don’t trust that the city wouldn’t become hard up at some point and go on another development spree like this administration has if they purchased land around Turkey Mountain.

ARKANSAS RIVER DEVELOPMENT:

Several city councilors and Mayor Dewey Bartlett are among a group of public officials and private citizens scheduled to tour possible development sites along the Arkansas River on Friday.

The tour is part of a working group’s effort to create development guidelines along the banks of the river. The working group was an idea that came out of the city councilors’ and mayor’s annual retreat.

Members of the working group include Councilors G.T. Bynum, Phil Lakin, Jeannie Cue and Blake Ewing; Clay Bird, executive director of the Mayor’s Office of Economic Development; Matt Meyer, executive director of River Parks; architect Ted Reeds; developer Warren Ross; and others.

The tour is expected to visit several potential development sites, though officials stress that the tour is a brainstorming session only and that no plans are in place to develop any of the sites.

The Arkansas River Infrastructure Task Force has proposed building a low-water dam in south Tulsa/Jenks and overhauling Zink Dam to improve recreational and economic-development opportunities along the river. The proposal is expected to go to voters April 5 as part of a Vision 2025 sales tax renewal package.

The City Council earlier this year approved a development moratorium that covers the same area that would be covered by the development guidelines. The moratorium expires April 15.

The area includes most of the east side of the Arkansas River within the city limits and select areas along the west bank of the river within the city limits.

The proposed development guidelines would have to be approved by the City Council and would be subject to public hearings at both the council and the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission.

So, part of the task force to assess what sort of development would be appropriate along the river includes private citizens such as Ted Reeds and Warren Ross alongside our mayor and his develop-at-all-cost henchman Clay Bird.  Ted Reeds is one of the principals of Blue Rose and I do think that was very complimentary development, if it had to be done along the river.  I do think it would be good to have input from avid trail users and citizens at-large, not just people from the development field when it comes to the possible commercialization of public green space.  

And yes, I do think we should espouse development standards which may end up being more costly to developers than crappy lay-up concrete and stucco.  If you want to develop on premium public space, there should be very stringent design standards and no variances.

From readfrontier.com:

$5.6 million non-recourse loan

What are they requiring River Parks to put up as collateral?  Will the terms be made public?