Bates Freaks Out at River Presentation

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

[]I've always respected Space Ghost.

Why is this method of financing superior to waiting for v2025 overages that may coincide with federal approval for the river plans? They can't start working on the river till those plans are approved anyway.

OML (on my lunch break).

Let's say we are a year or even more out from being to start construction. But, even so, and I'm no banker, but, we are talking bond money here, and if we use an extension of the 2025 tax and even with using overages we be accruing interest on almost $300 million for 5-6 years with no payments. That cost would be massive, really massive.

It's like buying a car with no payments for a year, it's stupid.

Stupid like the $76 million in bond debt on the New City Hall??

NO PRINCIPAL reduction for the first five years. Or, until Kathy Taylor has moved on to a new job; whichever comes last.  

Now, that will really escalate the total interest costs over the life of the bonded indebtedness.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

[]I've always respected Space Ghost.

Why is this method of financing superior to waiting for v2025 overages that may coincide with federal approval for the river plans? They can't start working on the river till those plans are approved anyway.

OML (on my lunch break).

It's not.

Waterboy, tell me again why we need a $90 million bar ditch in the river?

I thought I heard you stake claim to this idea. What's the benefit?

Why pick a fight with me? Bar ditch? $90 million? How would I know. Begging a negative?[]

I am a proponent of a natural plains river being changed as little as possible. That comes from my first hand experience that few others around here have. No nature enthusiast who I've met feels any different. Forcing water into this type of river to satisfy visual aesthetics is courting trouble and working against nature. Entire species of fish may dissapear. Lots of wildlife and birds depend on the fluctuation of water and dryness this type river affords.

But this is a democracy (or a republic if you want to argue) and my view is minority. So if we're going to force water into it and try to keep the water in it during dry periods then the living river concept being alternated with impounded water is a good compromise.

It works something like this. You work with the river to direct its energy into maintaining a channel. Much of the river's energy is dissipated because of varying river bed levels, sand bars, meandering etc. If you use jetties (also called wing dams) to force the water into straight narrow areas, the water carves out the sand and makes a navigable channel. These dams are similar to a low water only they have no operating parts and only go part way across the river. Think the PSO jettie that creates "the Wave" for the kayakers. The bonus is that land builds up in front of the jettie.  Since you now know where the water will be, you can begin to harden the banks of the new channel using rip/rap or debris. These jetties and banks are popular with fishermen and naturists.

When the water level is high during the spring/fall rains it can rise above the jetty, if necessary, becoming a bank to bank river. Being below the low water dam, there would be plenty of time to warn people just like the Zink dam does.

What you get is:
1. Navigable channel
2. Low cost construction and maintenance
3. Natural scouring meaning no expensive dredgers
4. Year round water in the river (a smaller river)
5. The ecology of the river is sustained
6. Aesthetically the view from either side of the river would be very nice. You still have large expanses of sand punctuated with a river.
7. You can operate boats close to year round.

I may not like all the features of this plan, particularly what is left out, but you can't say its a boondoggle. If done right, the river will attract lots of attention and commercial development. But they're going to have to answer some questions about financing and development pretty quick.

[waterboy]

Actually, at the time I percieved this as canals that ran parallel to the river bank with the jetties creating them. Is that clear?

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Actually, at the time I percieved this as canals that ran parallel to the river bank with the jetties creating them. Is that clear?

That was great. But, I'm having a little trouble with #2 above. After all, $90 million represents 1/3rd of the project total.

I wasn't sure if this actually allowed navigation at all, from 11th street to 106th street, but pretty sure it does NOT from 11th  to SS.

And, it sounds like if you build the dams to achieve this, then the channeling is done for you. If so, why does this cost so much?

Well, like it matters at this point. This plan is so screwed up, I can't begin to support it. Mostly, as I said earlier, due to the new County Authority, but certainly since Ms. Miller is having trouble recalling her prior promises.

It needs cleaning up at the very least.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

[]I've always respected Space Ghost.

Why is this method of financing superior to waiting for v2025 overages that may coincide with federal approval for the river plans? They can't start working on the river till those plans are approved anyway.

OML (on my lunch break).

Let's say we are a year or even more out from being to start construction. But, even so, and I'm no banker, but, we are talking bond money here, and if we use an extension of the 2025 tax and even with using overages we be accruing interest on almost $300 million for 5-6 years with no payments. That cost would be massive, really massive.

It's like buying a car with no payments for a year, it's stupid.

I did some number on Bates' idea of using overages and an extension of Vision 2025.  

Let's say we get a favorable bond rating on the bond for the river at say 4%. Let's also say for arguments sake that construction (and the bond sale) starts in about a year and that 2025 is paid for a very generous two years early. That means that for six years the river bond will accrue interest without payments. That $288 million suddenly becomes $364 million. It would add another $76 million dollars to the total amount to be bonded for the river, another $76 million in interest, nothing tangible, just interest.

Does that sound fiscally responsible and conservative?

No.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by swake


I did some number on Bates' idea of using overages and an extension of Vision 2025.  

Let's say we get a favorable bond rating on the bond for the river at say 4%. Let's also say for arguments sake that construction (and the bond sale) starts in about a year and that 2025 is paid for a very generous two years early. That means that for six years the river bond will accrue interest without payments. That $288 million suddenly becomes $364 million. It would add another $76 million dollars to the total amount to be bonded for the river, another $76 million in interest, nothing tangible, just interest.

Does that sound fiscally responsible and conservative?

No.

But that's precisely the way the arena overrun was financed. And almost none of Vision 2025 was pay-as-you-go. (The retirement of the Jenks Aquarium debt is, I believe, the lone exception.) The intent was to spend the entire 13 years' worth of revenue during the first six years of its collection.

So how much interest and bond fees are we paying on the current Vision 2025 bonds? If I understand correctly, Tulsa County Industrial Authority has borrowed close to half a billion dollars, with bonds being issued in 2003 and 2005, plus the additional bonds for the arena overage. (If the Vision 2025 monthly reports were available online, I could be more precise.)

I wouldn't advocate doing the entire $282 million proposal with Vision 2025 funds or indeed with any sort of county tax.

At least, Vision 2025 should pay for the promised low water dams and modifications to Zink Lake. According to Rich Brierre of INCOG those items would total $75 million.

At most, Vision 2025 and/or other county funding should pay for the "Water in the River" projects. That's listed as $154.85 million, but that includes about $12 million in sops to Bixby and Broken Arrow for "river studies". So let's call it $143 million (rounding up), about half of the amount the county is asking for in this tax package. (But we still need to see the line item breakdown and the justification. The estimated price per low water dam keeps going up in big increments.) That's the most I could justify financing via Vision 2025 or any other county source.

The remainder of the projects -- pedestrian bridges, downtown connectors, land acquisition -- should be funded by and controlled by the municipalities as they see fit, and as balanced against priorities like streets and public safety.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

Actually, at the time I percieved this as canals that ran parallel to the river bank with the jetties creating them. Is that clear?

That was great. But, I'm having a little trouble with #2 above. After all, $90 million represents 1/3rd of the project total.

I wasn't sure if this actually allowed navigation at all, from 11th street to 106th street, but pretty sure it does NOT from 11th  to SS.

And, it sounds like if you build the dams to achieve this, then the channeling is done for you. If so, why does this cost so much?

Mostly, as I said earlier, due to the new County Authority,

It needs cleaning up at the very least.

I am spending more of my grey matter and physical being just trying to make ends meet. The river is gradually slipping into a memory. I share that frustration with a lot of other Tulsans. I couldn't even go to these plan meetings because I work till 7pm. So it is important that you folks who have the knowledge of financing, details of the plan and insights- use them carefully to distill this plan to the rest of us. Make the financing clear, the object of the plan obvious and our faith in your leadership unassailable and it will pass. Let it become political/emotional sniping and we all lose.

#2 is a relative observation. It is generally cheaper to use bulldozers and dump trucks to create natural impediments to the river than concrete, rebar and collapsible gates. However, I would guess any form of river manipulation is expensive to start out. Buying your first house is the hardest, the others build on the equity of the first right?

As far as navigation, this is my stumbling point for the plan. I haven't examined it closely, but I'm told the mindset is still "not navigable". I think we suffer from not having an orientation to water here. We're plains people not Gulf coast. Maybe they're thinking of boats with 4-6ft drafts like on the Mississippi. Those boats, no. But shallow draft pontoons, barges, lightweights should be able to travel along these canals. But since there is NO connection between the lakes it is a serious limitation for commercial boats like dinner cruises, casino junkets, historical rides, day trips on canoes, kayaks etc. Each lake or living river area is not big enough to justify operations. The small river taxis on the Bricktown canal aren't doing that well for the same reason. The retail, casino area of Jenks would be separated from any retail in Tulsa and SS. It's like building a 3500ft home with only one bath in the basement. The official word from INCOG is that its not possible, too expensive or too little demand. "Any color you want as long as its black". My gut reaction is that they don't know how, or they fear the complexity of controlling/regulating a marginally navigable waterway. Easier to blow it off.

The area between SS and 11th street will definitely be impacted. It depends on how the water flow will be allocated among the lakes. It could become even more navigable if it results in constant release. I kayak that area, ran airboats along that area and it does have a defined channel. Again, it depends on what is considered navigable or commercially navigable.

I was a supporter of the creation of an authority to provide some direction to what will be conflicting needs of each of the cities along the river. They could end up fighting for more water or less. Even that is not clear to me anymore. INCOG can do that. The corps. can do that. And I'm leary of a three member county commission making the decisions for such disparate interests even if they "sub contract" it to advisory committees.

Off to work.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by swake


I did some number on Bates' idea of using overages and an extension of Vision 2025.  

Let's say we get a favorable bond rating on the bond for the river at say 4%. Let's also say for arguments sake that construction (and the bond sale) starts in about a year and that 2025 is paid for a very generous two years early. That means that for six years the river bond will accrue interest without payments. That $288 million suddenly becomes $364 million. It would add another $76 million dollars to the total amount to be bonded for the river, another $76 million in interest, nothing tangible, just interest.

Does that sound fiscally responsible and conservative?

No.

But that's precisely the way the arena overrun was financed. And almost none of Vision 2025 was pay-as-you-go. (The retirement of the Jenks Aquarium debt is, I believe, the lone exception.) The intent was to spend the entire 13 years' worth of revenue during the first six years of its collection.

So how much interest and bond fees are we paying on the current Vision 2025 bonds? If I understand correctly, Tulsa County Industrial Authority has borrowed close to half a billion dollars, with bonds being issued in 2003 and 2005, plus the additional bonds for the arena overage. (If the Vision 2025 monthly reports were available online, I could be more precise.)

I wouldn't advocate doing the entire $282 million proposal with Vision 2025 funds or indeed with any sort of county tax.

At least, Vision 2025 should pay for the promised low water dams and modifications to Zink Lake. According to Rich Brierre of INCOG those items would total $75 million.

At most, Vision 2025 and/or other county funding should pay for the "Water in the River" projects. That's listed as $154.85 million, but that includes about $12 million in sops to Bixby and Broken Arrow for "river studies". So let's call it $143 million (rounding up), about half of the amount the county is asking for in this tax package. (But we still need to see the line item breakdown and the justification. The estimated price per low water dam keeps going up in big increments.) That's the most I could justify financing via Vision 2025 or any other county source.

The remainder of the projects -- pedestrian bridges, downtown connectors, land acquisition -- should be funded by and controlled by the municipalities as they see fit, and as balanced against priorities like streets and public safety.

^^^
This is precisely the plan I would propose and support.

Whether it $75m or $143m, or anywhere in between, it should minimally "put water in the river" by the definitions currently being used.

Chances are, dam construction wouldn't be able to begin for two years or more. If V2025's payoff comes two years early (2014 vs 2016) there's a five year differential.

Total payout over 7 years (2009-2016) of $75m at 4% costs only $11m in interest, for a total cost of $86m and a monthly installment of around $1,030,000 (meanwhile, County's collection is about $4.75m/mo on V2025 and $3.35m/mo on the balance of the Four-Fixers, a total of around $8m/mo. We also can presume a conservative growth of 3%/year in revenues).

$144m would be roughtly twice that amount, resulting in interest costs of about $28m and a total cost of around $172m.

So, as V2025 projects complete, I+P payments out of cash flow is very possible and greatly reduces the interest-only accumulation cost over 5 years.

[Wrinkle]

BTW, I too wonder how an $8-$10 million dam has become $30m in the current proposal.

And, the Jenks dam, at $27m, costs the same as the SS dam + Pedestrian walkway, while Tulsa's Pedestrian walkways cost another $10m each.

Seems numbers are being tossed around very loosely.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by swake


I did some number on Bates' idea of using overages and an extension of Vision 2025.  

Let's say we get a favorable bond rating on the bond for the river at say 4%. Let's also say for arguments sake that construction (and the bond sale) starts in about a year and that 2025 is paid for a very generous two years early. That means that for six years the river bond will accrue interest without payments. That $288 million suddenly becomes $364 million. It would add another $76 million dollars to the total amount to be bonded for the river, another $76 million in interest, nothing tangible, just interest.

Does that sound fiscally responsible and conservative?

No.

But that's precisely the way the arena overrun was financed. And almost none of Vision 2025 was pay-as-you-go. (The retirement of the Jenks Aquarium debt is, I believe, the lone exception.) The intent was to spend the entire 13 years' worth of revenue during the first six years of its collection.

So how much interest and bond fees are we paying on the current Vision 2025 bonds? If I understand correctly, Tulsa County Industrial Authority has borrowed close to half a billion dollars, with bonds being issued in 2003 and 2005, plus the additional bonds for the arena overage. (If the Vision 2025 monthly reports were available online, I could be more precise.)

I wouldn't advocate doing the entire $282 million proposal with Vision 2025 funds or indeed with any sort of county tax.

At least, Vision 2025 should pay for the promised low water dams and modifications to Zink Lake. According to Rich Brierre of INCOG those items would total $75 million.

At most, Vision 2025 and/or other county funding should pay for the "Water in the River" projects. That's listed as $154.85 million, but that includes about $12 million in sops to Bixby and Broken Arrow for "river studies". So let's call it $143 million (rounding up), about half of the amount the county is asking for in this tax package. (But we still need to see the line item breakdown and the justification. The estimated price per low water dam keeps going up in big increments.) That's the most I could justify financing via Vision 2025 or any other county source.

The remainder of the projects -- pedestrian bridges, downtown connectors, land acquisition -- should be funded by and controlled by the municipalities as they see fit, and as balanced against priorities like streets and public safety.

^^^
This is precisely the plan I would propose and support.

Whether it $75m or $143m, or anywhere in between, it should minimally "put water in the river" by the definitions currently being used.

Chances are, dam construction wouldn't be able to begin for two years or more. If V2025's payoff comes two years early (2014 vs 2016) there's a five year differential.

Total payout over 7 years (2009-2016) of $75m at 4% costs only $11m in interest, for a total cost of $86m and a monthly installment of around $1,030,000 (meanwhile, County's collection is about $4.75m/mo on V2025 and $3.35m/mo on the balance of the Four-Fixers, a total of around $8m/mo. We also can presume a conservative growth of 3%/year in revenues).

$144m would be roughtly twice that amount, resulting in interest costs of about $28m and a total cost of around $172m.

So, as V2025 projects complete, I+P payments out of cash flow is very possible and greatly reduces the interest-only accumulation cost over 5 years.

I can be for all of that really, and it makes fiscal sense.

I read on KOTV that the city of Tulsa is likely going to have a  $385 million street GO Bond issue vote. Expand that issue by $143 million (property taxes are much less regressive than sales taxes) and hold a vote on a $528 general obligation bond that would pay for the land for "Tulsa Landing" and capture the donation from the Kaiser foundation.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

BTW, I too wonder how an $8-$10 million dam has become $30m in the current proposal.

And, the Jenks dam, at $27m, costs the same as the SS dam + Pedestrian walkway, while Tulsa's Pedestrian walkways cost another $10m each.

Seems numbers are being tossed around very loosely.

Where has anyone stated that the dams would cost 8-10 mill each? And I am talking recently not back when 2025 was being worked out. We now have a better idea of what kind of dams we are going to use and where they are going to be placed.

Btw each dam and bridge is different. The Sand Springs dam is going to be higher and have the ability to have controlled release, so that it can retain some extra water that is released by Keystone at night and then release that water during the day to keep the water flowing more often. The Zink and Jenks dams will have a stepped structure and other designs that will eliminate the dangerous "rolling" effect and allow fish to migrate. Plus the "living river" area will enhance the ability for fish to migrate because there will be a way for them to move when the water is low. Plus having more water in the river during the day from the Sand Springs dam will help them as well, plus the other birds and animals.  They had an interesting presentation at the meetings that showed how its all supposed to work.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by swake


I did some number on Bates' idea of using overages and an extension of Vision 2025.  

Let's say we get a favorable bond rating on the bond for the river at say 4%. Let's also say for arguments sake that construction (and the bond sale) starts in about a year and that 2025 is paid for a very generous two years early. That means that for six years the river bond will accrue interest without payments. That $288 million suddenly becomes $364 million. It would add another $76 million dollars to the total amount to be bonded for the river, another $76 million in interest, nothing tangible, just interest.

Does that sound fiscally responsible and conservative?

No.

But that's precisely the way the arena overrun was financed. And almost none of Vision 2025 was pay-as-you-go. (The retirement of the Jenks Aquarium debt is, I believe, the lone exception.) The intent was to spend the entire 13 years' worth of revenue during the first six years of its collection.

So how much interest and bond fees are we paying on the current Vision 2025 bonds? If I understand correctly, Tulsa County Industrial Authority has borrowed close to half a billion dollars, with bonds being issued in 2003 and 2005, plus the additional bonds for the arena overage. (If the Vision 2025 monthly reports were available online, I could be more precise.)

I wouldn't advocate doing the entire $282 million proposal with Vision 2025 funds or indeed with any sort of county tax.

At least, Vision 2025 should pay for the promised low water dams and modifications to Zink Lake. According to Rich Brierre of INCOG those items would total $75 million.

At most, Vision 2025 and/or other county funding should pay for the "Water in the River" projects. That's listed as $154.85 million, but that includes about $12 million in sops to Bixby and Broken Arrow for "river studies". So let's call it $143 million (rounding up), about half of the amount the county is asking for in this tax package. (But we still need to see the line item breakdown and the justification. The estimated price per low water dam keeps going up in big increments.) That's the most I could justify financing via Vision 2025 or any other county source.

The remainder of the projects -- pedestrian bridges, downtown connectors, land acquisition -- should be funded by and controlled by the municipalities as they see fit, and as balanced against priorities like streets and public safety.

^^^
This is precisely the plan I would propose and support.

Whether it $75m or $143m, or anywhere in between, it should minimally "put water in the river" by the definitions currently being used.

Chances are, dam construction wouldn't be able to begin for two years or more. If V2025's payoff comes two years early (2014 vs 2016) there's a five year differential.

Total payout over 7 years (2009-2016) of $75m at 4% costs only $11m in interest, for a total cost of $86m and a monthly installment of around $1,030,000 (meanwhile, County's collection is about $4.75m/mo on V2025 and $3.35m/mo on the balance of the Four-Fixers, a total of around $8m/mo. We also can presume a conservative growth of 3%/year in revenues).

$144m would be roughtly twice that amount, resulting in interest costs of about $28m and a total cost of around $172m.

So, as V2025 projects complete, I+P payments out of cash flow is very possible and greatly reduces the interest-only accumulation cost over 5 years.

I can be for all of that really, and it makes fiscal sense.

I read on KOTV that the city of Tulsa is likely going to have a  $385 million street GO Bond issue vote. Expand that issue by $143 million (property taxes are much less regressive than sales taxes) and hold a vote on a $528 general obligation bond that would pay for the land for "Tulsa Landing" and capture the donation from the Kaiser foundation.

You're mixing modes here. You've turned a County obligation into a new tax for the City of Tulsa only.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by swake


I did some number on Bates' idea of using overages and an extension of Vision 2025.  

Let's say we get a favorable bond rating on the bond for the river at say 4%. Let's also say for arguments sake that construction (and the bond sale) starts in about a year and that 2025 is paid for a very generous two years early. That means that for six years the river bond will accrue interest without payments. That $288 million suddenly becomes $364 million. It would add another $76 million dollars to the total amount to be bonded for the river, another $76 million in interest, nothing tangible, just interest.

Does that sound fiscally responsible and conservative?

No.

But that's precisely the way the arena overrun was financed. And almost none of Vision 2025 was pay-as-you-go. (The retirement of the Jenks Aquarium debt is, I believe, the lone exception.) The intent was to spend the entire 13 years' worth of revenue during the first six years of its collection.

So how much interest and bond fees are we paying on the current Vision 2025 bonds? If I understand correctly, Tulsa County Industrial Authority has borrowed close to half a billion dollars, with bonds being issued in 2003 and 2005, plus the additional bonds for the arena overage. (If the Vision 2025 monthly reports were available online, I could be more precise.)

I wouldn't advocate doing the entire $282 million proposal with Vision 2025 funds or indeed with any sort of county tax.

At least, Vision 2025 should pay for the promised low water dams and modifications to Zink Lake. According to Rich Brierre of INCOG those items would total $75 million.

At most, Vision 2025 and/or other county funding should pay for the "Water in the River" projects. That's listed as $154.85 million, but that includes about $12 million in sops to Bixby and Broken Arrow for "river studies". So let's call it $143 million (rounding up), about half of the amount the county is asking for in this tax package. (But we still need to see the line item breakdown and the justification. The estimated price per low water dam keeps going up in big increments.) That's the most I could justify financing via Vision 2025 or any other county source.

The remainder of the projects -- pedestrian bridges, downtown connectors, land acquisition -- should be funded by and controlled by the municipalities as they see fit, and as balanced against priorities like streets and public safety.

^^^
This is precisely the plan I would propose and support.

Whether it $75m or $143m, or anywhere in between, it should minimally "put water in the river" by the definitions currently being used.

Chances are, dam construction wouldn't be able to begin for two years or more. If V2025's payoff comes two years early (2014 vs 2016) there's a five year differential.

Total payout over 7 years (2009-2016) of $75m at 4% costs only $11m in interest, for a total cost of $86m and a monthly installment of around $1,030,000 (meanwhile, County's collection is about $4.75m/mo on V2025 and $3.35m/mo on the balance of the Four-Fixers, a total of around $8m/mo. We also can presume a conservative growth of 3%/year in revenues).

$144m would be roughtly twice that amount, resulting in interest costs of about $28m and a total cost of around $172m.

So, as V2025 projects complete, I+P payments out of cash flow is very possible and greatly reduces the interest-only accumulation cost over 5 years.

I can be for all of that really, and it makes fiscal sense.

I read on KOTV that the city of Tulsa is likely going to have a  $385 million street GO Bond issue vote. Expand that issue by $143 million (property taxes are much less regressive than sales taxes) and hold a vote on a $528 general obligation bond that would pay for the land for "Tulsa Landing" and capture the donation from the Kaiser foundation.

You're mixing modes here. You've turned a County obligation into a new tax for the City of Tulsa only.

No I have not, vision 2025 concerned itself with with Zink and two new dams, so have 2025 pay for those. Bates then tossed the non-Tulsa portions of the issue leaving $143 million in Tulsa projects. If the projects are entirely Tulsa, then have the city issue the tax. You are the one so against the county having control of the taxes, so don't give the county control, keep under the city.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

BTW,

Where has anyone stated that the dams would cost 8-10 mill each? And I am talking recently not back when 2025 was being worked out. We now have a better idea of what kind of dams we are going to use and where they are going to be placed.

Btw each dam and bridge is different. The Sand Springs dam is going to be higher and have the ability to have controlled release, so that it can retain some extra water that is released by Keystone at night and then release that water during the day to keep the water flowing more often. The Zink and Jenks dams will have a stepped structure and other designs that will eliminate the dangerous "rolling" effect and allow fish to migrate. Plus the "living river" area will enhance the ability for fish to migrate because there will be a way for them to move when the water is low. Plus having more water in the river during the day from the Sand Springs dam will help them as well, plus the other birds and animals.  They had an interesting presentation at the meetings that showed how its all supposed to work.

First off, thats how all the low water dams work(ed) and have since inception. They hold the water that the dam uses to generate electricity during the day, it takes 8-12 hrs for that water to reach tulsa/jenks so the levels in tulsa start to rise in the early evening. Any interruption holds the water till the next cycle. It works fine till they stop generating electricity or the water levels are too low. Then the lake becomes stagnant and shallow. The SS dam will help level out the cycles but it needn't be so large, that's a commercial consideration. People tend to forget that SS had a low water dam back in the eighties and blew it up out of frustration. It is torturous to see them ignore their past. But like I've said, this stuff has its own momentum.

Secondly, the 10/12 million is a figure used until this spring when different dam configurations began to be presented and trial ballooned to the public. Remember the inflatables? the drop gates? The stepped structure is also a new plan from back in early spring.

It would be naive to believe that what they show and tell is going to be the finished product. That's okay with me, they should be open to new and better.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

quote:Originally posted by swake


I did some number on Bates' idea of using overages and an extension of Vision 2025.  

Let's say we get a favorable bond rating on the bond for the river at say 4%. Let's also say for arguments sake that construction (and the bond sale) starts in about a year and that 2025 is paid for a very generous two years early. That means that for six years the river bond will accrue interest without payments. That $288 million suddenly becomes $364 million. It would add another $76 million dollars to the total amount to be bonded for the river, another $76 million in interest, nothing tangible, just interest.

Does that sound fiscally responsible and conservative?

No.

But that's precisely the way the arena overrun was financed. And almost none of Vision 2025 was pay-as-you-go. (The retirement of the Jenks Aquarium debt is, I believe, the lone exception.) The intent was to spend the entire 13 years' worth of revenue during the first six years of its collection.

So how much interest and bond fees are we paying on the current Vision 2025 bonds? If I understand correctly, Tulsa County Industrial Authority has borrowed close to half a billion dollars, with bonds being issued in 2003 and 2005, plus the additional bonds for the arena overage. (If the Vision 2025 monthly reports were available online, I could be more precise.)

I wouldn't advocate doing the entire $282 million proposal with Vision 2025 funds or indeed with any sort of county tax.

At least, Vision 2025 should pay for the promised low water dams and modifications to Zink Lake. According to Rich Brierre of INCOG those items would total $75 million.

At most, Vision 2025 and/or other county funding should pay for the "Water in the River" projects. That's listed as $154.85 million, but that includes about $12 million in sops to Bixby and Broken Arrow for "river studies". So let's call it $143 million (rounding up), about half of the amount the county is asking for in this tax package. (But we still need to see the line item breakdown and the justification. The estimated price per low water dam keeps going up in big increments.) That's the most I could justify financing via Vision 2025 or any other county source.

The remainder of the projects -- pedestrian bridges, downtown connectors, land acquisition -- should be funded by and controlled by the municipalities as they see fit, and as balanced against priorities like streets and public safety.

^^^
This is precisely the plan I would propose and support.

Whether it $75m or $143m, or anywhere in between, it should minimally "put water in the river" by the definitions currently being used.

Chances are, dam construction wouldn't be able to begin for two years or more. If V2025's payoff comes two years early (2014 vs 2016) there's a five year differential.

Total payout over 7 years (2009-2016) of $75m at 4% costs only $11m in interest, for a total cost of $86m and a monthly installment of around $1,030,000 (meanwhile, County's collection is about $4.75m/mo on V2025 and $3.35m/mo on the balance of the Four-Fixers, a total of around $8m/mo. We also can presume a conservative growth of 3%/year in revenues).

$144m would be roughtly twice that amount, resulting in interest costs of about $28m and a total cost of around $172m.

So, as V2025 projects complete, I+P payments out of cash flow is very possible and greatly reduces the interest-only accumulation cost over 5 years.

I can be for all of that really, and it makes fiscal sense.

I read on KOTV that the city of Tulsa is likely going to have a  $385 million street GO Bond issue vote. Expand that issue by $143 million (property taxes are much less regressive than sales taxes) and hold a vote on a $528 general obligation bond that would pay for the land for "Tulsa Landing" and capture the donation from the Kaiser foundation.

You're mixing modes here. You've turned a County obligation into a new tax for the City of Tulsa only.

No I have not, vision 2025 concerned itself with with Zink and two new dams, so have 2025 pay for those. Bates then tossed the non-Tulsa portions of the issue leaving $143 million in Tulsa projects. If the projects are entirely Tulsa, then have the city issue the tax. You are the one so against the county having control of the taxes, so don't give the county control, keep under the city.

I think if you read Bates' and mine again, you'll soon discover you're the only one proposing a new City of Tulsa tax.