A Critical Look at the Proposed Arkansas River Infrastructure Development

[swake]

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

River task force finalizes infrastructure improvements plan

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/river-task-force-finalizes-infrastructure-improvements-plan/article_d457281e-8e65-5074-b012-39b9fd89cfd1.html

A task force on Thursday finalized its long-discussed plan for Arkansas River infrastructure with two low-water dams, river access and trail improvements in the corridor.
The full price tag is $242.7 million, proposed largely for funding through the Vision 2025 renewal. However, Councilor G.T. Bynum said the portion targeted to Vision is still to be determined.
 Bynum, who led the task force, said the group's proposal become more about improving the entire river corridor.
"We have to not just plunk in a couple of dams and hope everything takes care of itself, but also really show what those opportunities are for people on the river," Bynum said.
Included in the proposal are $9 million for Turkey Mountain amenities and almost $30 million for river corridor trails on both sides of the river.
For low-water dam and resulting lakes, the plan pitches a $65 million overhaul of Zink Dam to include a recreational flume and a new "iconic pedestrian bridge."
It also includes about $65 million for a south Tulsa/Jenks dam that includes public access and amenities.
Bynum said the next step is to decide what portion of the total cost belongs to several partner entities, including Tulsa County, Jenks and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.

[Townsend]

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

River task force finalizes infrastructure improvements plan

I've lost my ability to believe anything will come of this to justify the $242 million price tag.

[cannon_fodder]

this proposal seems to be headed in the right direction, it is clear Bynum has listened 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."

[Townsend]

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."

That thing...right there....that he said...

[Conan71]

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.

[swake]

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.

There's no dam at 49th in the plan. Riverbed improvements and the white water area south of the Zink dam instead. And $30 million for trails.

[Vision 2025]

The Turkey Mountain funds, as presented, are a combination of the two proposals and include both preservation and mission appropriate use enhancements but no dining establishments.

The trail funds are significant and both fill in gaps, provide needed upgrades and expand the River Trails in the corridor.

At Zink, The "icon" bridge show in the renderings is a place holder,  the bridge design is not yet available.  

The proposal includes a limited advanced funding allowance for items which may need or require strategic acceleration.

[Conan71]

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:

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.

[TheArtist]

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:

So you see from the last line of that article, getting our city councilors to understand different kinds of development patterns and zoning is important.  The people who make the decisions, are the ones who should know about these things.  Reaching out to them to meet and have discussions on the topic is very important imho.   

[Vision 2025]

River Parks looks to be moving forward on Turkey Mountain land acquisition, from this weeks agenda:

"PROPOSAL FOR AND VOTE ON NON-RECOURSE LOAN TO FACILITATE
VISION 2025 LAND ACQUISITIONS:
Background information: Board members will consider a proposal to accept a $5.6 million
non-recourse loan from QuikTrip Corporation and the George Kaiser Family Foundation to
accelerate land purchases in the vicinity of Turkey Mountain. This would allow the purchase
of additional park tracts to be made before receiving the multi-year payout of funds from
potential Vision 2025 funding.

B. PROPOSAL FOR AND VOTE ON AUTHORIZATION ENABLING ACQUISITION
OF LANDS PURSUANT TO THE NON-RECOURSE LOAN FACILITY:
Background information: Board members will consider a proposal to authorize the purchase
of lands in the vicinity of Turkey Mountain pursuant to, and within the limits of, the nonrecourse
loan terms. Acquisitions would further require Executive Committee approval on a
tract-by-tract basis."

[TeeDub]

$5.6 million non-recourse loan

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

[cannon_fodder]

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

I have no actually knowledge, but 95% of the time in a real estate transaction the property is the collateral for a non-recourse loan. And yes, the terms will have to be made public some point. As a public entity I can't see how River Parks, a Tulsa County/City of Tulsa venture, could avoid releasing it if they wanted to. I believe they are subject to FOIA requests too.