Vision 2025 the slippery slope

[Tony]

Vision 2025 includes monies for low water dams, shoreline beautification, and a sediment catch basin to reduce silt and sedimentation problems in Zink Lake. However, until the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan is complete, no funds will be expended. (Straight off Vision 2025 web.)

HMMM PHASE III is not complete -- did we or did we not just spend a CHUNK of Vision 2025 monies on Zink dredging and gate maintenance or is this coming out of the county general fund ? - recent articles would have me believe otherwise -- how much of that appropriated money is left Questions, questions , questions

[sgrizzle]

A temporary dam was put in (paid for by PSO) and the zink dam was inspected. That was it.

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by Tony

Vision 2025 includes monies for low water dams, shoreline beautification, and a sediment catch basin to reduce silt and sedimentation problems in Zink Lake. However, until the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan is complete, no funds will be expended. (Straight off Vision 2025 web.)

HMMM PHASE III is not complete -- did we or did we not just spend a CHUNK of Vision 2025 monies on Zink dredging and gate maintenance or is this coming out of the county general fund ? - recent articles would have me believe otherwise -- how much of that appropriated money is left Questions, questions , questions

No Vision 2025 funds for the River were expended before completion of the Master Plan, the web information is correct.  

Since completion of the master plan, the ONLY Vision 2025 funds that have been expended on river projects is $275,000.00 for the environmental study which is presently underway by the Corps of Engineers for development of the baseline data for the entire 42 mile corridor and for low water dam permitting.   This came from the $5,600,000 designated for the low water dams of which the remainder is still available.

The $1,800,000 for Zink Lake shore line beautification is still available.  

The $2,100,000 Zink Lake silt removal is still available.  

All of the above funds for river projects in Vision 2025 are additive to the funds proposed in the River proposal and included in the overall proposed budget.

What dredging and gate maintenance?  RPA paid for the construction of a coffer dam that was washed out by high flows and no gate maintenance was performed.  The expenditures were from the RPA reserve funds with assistance form PSO.  However, at present the gate seals still need to be replaced when flow permits.

FYI - The County only provides a portion of the River Parks Authority funding.  

[Tony]

Ah we are back to double speak I see -- The Master Proposal Complete?  -- however The VISION proposal is not, INGOG PLAN is in PHASE III of Four Phases --- no permitting has been done, no studies are complete, NADA - and Half of 700,000 does not add up to $275,000.00 the study is funded 50/50 where is the remaining 85K?

Its is simply hilarious so called engineers thought that a sand coffer dam would hold back any water -- I got a good laugh watching that boondoggle while drinking my coffee.[}:)]What was that 50K worth of sand pushing[?]

Drain the lake by knocking out the west side of Zink and start all over  -- you will have a better chance to succeed.[xx(]

[Conan71]

V-2025, I guess this is as an appropriate thread to place this since it does have to do with V-2025 funding.

Last night I believe it was Gaylon Pinc who hinted this new tax package was necessary to continue funding studies.

Felching through David Arnett's web site I found this quoted on June 25:

"Tulsa County, through its Vision 2025 funding for river projects, is the current sponsor with the Corps of a technical planning process.  Using a combination of federal funds through the Corps and local funds, we will now begin collecting real field data needed to prepare the 404 Dredge and Fill Permit – a permit required to build anything in any waterway in the country. "

It sounds to me like there was already a funding process in place without the new tax since it had not been announced at this time.  Is there any indication at all that further studies on the present river proposal cannot be completed if it's shot down on Oct. 9, or did I misunderstand what was said last night?

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

V-2025, I guess this is as an appropriate thread to place this since it does have to do with V-2025 funding.

Last night I believe it was Gaylon Pinc who hinted this new tax package was necessary to continue funding studies.

Felching through David Arnett's web site I found this quoted on June 25:

"Tulsa County, through its Vision 2025 funding for river projects, is the current sponsor with the Corps of a technical planning process.  Using a combination of federal funds through the Corps and local funds, we will now begin collecting real field data needed to prepare the 404 Dredge and Fill Permit – a permit required to build anything in any waterway in the country. "

It sounds to me like there was already a funding process in place without the new tax since it had not been announced at this time.  Is there any indication at all that further studies on the present river proposal cannot be completed if it's shot down on Oct. 9, or did I misunderstand what was said last night?

What Gaylon was discussing was the design engineering studies.  These are detailed engineering activities (called studies in engineer lingo) that include many activities that are required to ultimately develop what is drawn on the plans.   So, it is not a study like you have seen in the river corridor master plan, to date, it is detailed engineering backup for the design.  Things investigated in this section include velocities at the gates, more detailed hydraulic analysis of the design as it takes shape plus many many other tasks.

The problem we have with proceeding into detailed design without a firm funding source to complete the construction places those funds in jeopardy of being wasted if funding does not come.  

In addition, in the even we receive federal funds we have to have matching funds and we don't have them.  Then to compound the issue, by federal regulation, we are not allowed to count the funds already expended prior to the "authorization" which is what Senator Inhofe is working on in the WRDA Bill.   After you get an authorization, if you are real lucky, you might get an "Appropriation" which is the actual funds you can expend but that generally takes years, and I believe the current Corps backlog of authorizations with out appropriations is something in the many billions of dollars.

[Conan71]

So what would happen to the studies if they would have just waited until say at least the Feb. '08 primary election or an April or May election date to put a vote on it?

There is enough interest in river development that I think popular demand will bring it back for a vote if it doesn't pass on Oct. 9.

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by Tony

Ah we are back to double speak I see -- The Master Proposal Complete?  -- however The VISION proposal is not, INGOG PLAN is in PHASE III of Four Phases --- no permitting has been done, no studies are complete, NADA - and Half of 700,000 does not add up to $275,000.00 the study is funded 50/50 where is the remaining 85K?

Its is simply hilarious so called engineers thought that a sand coffer dam would hold back any water -- I got a good laugh watching that boondoggle while drinking my coffee.[}:)]What was that 50K worth of sand pushing[?]

Drain the lake by knocking out the west side of Zink and start all over  -- you will have a better chance to succeed.[xx(]

Ok math lession time, taked word for word form the agreement with the corps.

"Total Study Cost $700,000
50% Local Match    350,000  (including 75K in-kind)
50% federal (PAS)  350,000"


Like I stated, and you are welcome to go to the library to review the County's expenditure reports, $275,000 has been expended from the low water dam project account. Sorry but that myth is "busted."

Sand coffer dams work just fine in low flow conditions when a limited durration work area is the goal, I have used them many times with success.

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

So what would happen to the studies if they would have just waited until say at least the Feb. '08 primary election or an April or May election date to put a vote on it?

There is enough interest in river development that I think popular demand will bring it back for a vote if it doesn't pass on Oct. 9.

These things aren't put on general election ballots because a majority of voters will not pass a tax increase.   I can't find the numbers after doing some google searching but I was curious:

Can someone find the vote results for the Vision 2025 vote ?  (I googled away and couldn't find the 2025 results anywhere)

The 2004 Presidential race saw over 250,000 votes in Tulsa county.  You can assume anyone who didn't vote in the Presidential election pretty much doesn't vote.  So you have approximately 250,000 voters in Tulsa County.

Using the Presidential election vote as the base of "All Tulsa County Voters", take how many voted YES for vision 2025, and see what percentage it was of ALL Tulsa County voters.  50%?  40%?  10%?

I can't find the numbers, but I'm talking like this:

There are approximately 250,000 people in Tulsa county who will go to the polls in a general election.

If 25,000 people voted YES for V2025, that means about 10% of voters passed the tax.

They don't put these things on general election ballots, because they know they can convince 25,000 people but not 125,000 people.

This way the oligarchy only has to persuade 10% of the population without worrying about the unwashed masses in order to get their interests served.

I'd like to see the actual numbers though, I don't want to be making a false claim (as I just randomly guessed 10%)

[Tiny]

they're drawing the lake down rapidly for some reason right now. not sure what the deal is but it's going down really fast and it's already below summer level of 726 above sea level and going down at almost a half foot or more per day. sup wiff dat?

[Tony]

Well we can argue semantics -- what I see is the PROPOSAL is not complete, yet monies are already being spent out of the pot. The Feds kicked in their 350K  -- we can do shell games all day with the difference between that figure and 700,000.

This is where your bunch screwed the pooch, you have monies already voted for + asking for more in the "Kaiser" sales tax, too much going on for the "average" taxpayer to understand.

Yea  sand coffer dams work real well in Saudi Arabia when it is not raining -- You are gonna have to drain the lake , drive piles and put up steel to do the repair or hope for another drought !! NOW HOW MUCH DID YOU ESTIMATE THE REPAIRS WERE?

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

So what would happen to the studies if they would have just waited until say at least the Feb. '08 primary election or an April or May election date to put a vote on it?

There is enough interest in river development that I think popular demand will bring it back for a vote if it doesn't pass on Oct. 9.

These things aren't put on general election ballots because a majority of voters will not pass a tax increase.   I can't find the numbers after doing some google searching but I was curious:

Can someone find the vote results for the Vision 2025 vote ?  (I googled away and couldn't find the 2025 results anywhere)

The 2004 Presidential race saw over 250,000 votes in Tulsa county.  You can assume anyone who didn't vote in the Presidential election pretty much doesn't vote.  So you have approximately 250,000 voters in Tulsa County.

Using the Presidential election vote as the base of "All Tulsa County Voters", take how many voted YES for vision 2025, and see what percentage it was of ALL Tulsa County voters.  50%?  40%?  10%?

I can't find the numbers, but I'm talking like this:

There are approximately 250,000 people in Tulsa county who will go to the polls in a general election.

If 25,000 people voted YES for V2025, that means about 10% of voters passed the tax.

They don't put these things on general election ballots, because they know they can convince 25,000 people but not 125,000 people.

This way the oligarchy only has to persuade 10% of the population without worrying about the unwashed masses in order to get their interests served.

I'd like to see the actual numbers though, I don't want to be making a false claim (as I just randomly guessed 10%)

I have heard that they actually would have preferred to have the vote during the general election because a larger turn out would have given this a better chance of this passing. The no vote demographic are the ones who most likely vote. During a general election that is watered down and more yes votes would come out. The remainder of the population that does not vote during a general election may also have greater numbers of people who would be against the plan but they dont vote, so even though over all people may be against the plan. The best shot is that middle group and number of voters. If only a few vote, it gets shot down. If everyone voted it would get shot down. The middle route of a general election would give it the best shot.

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by Tony

Well we can argue semantics -- what I see is the PROPOSAL is not complete, yet monies are already being spent out of the pot. The Feds kicked in their 350K  -- we can do shell games all day with the difference between that figure and 700,000.

This is where your bunch screwed the pooch, you have monies already voted for + asking for more in the "Kaiser" sales tax, too much going on for the "average" taxpayer to understand.

Yea  sand coffer dams work real well in Saudi Arabia when it is not raining -- You are gonna have to drain the lake , drive piles and put up steel to do the repair or hope for another drought !! NOW HOW MUCH DID YOU ESTIMATE THE REPAIRS WERE?

Tony,

For the original Zink Dam construction earthen coffer dams were utilized and worked quite well but like I said sand coffer dams work well in low flow conditions, the river was in that conditions when they started but not in when that coffer failed, thank you SWAPA.  Had RPA been able to move sooner in the dry season I believe they would have worked and by the way I had no part of that effort but I do suspect that I know why they went with in-situ material (sand) vs. more impervious imported fill and that was likely a permitting issue since you need a site specific 404 permit to import material which would have taken 6-12 months to obtain, but for moving existing material around  they could work under work under the existing 404 permit for maintenance.  When the gate seal issue became critical it was not being rushed for aesthetics it was pushed to restore flow to the cooling water for PSO's plant which is one of the reasons they were participating in the effort.  

Actually, what happened was a great lesson, which confirmed a need.  What is needed is a portable bulkhead that can be moved from gate to gate for maintenance (like seal replacements) but RPA does not have one.  Now with the new dams and retrofit of Zink utilizing a common gate design and size one bulkhead that can be shared considered  which when spread across three structures would be a minimal expense.

Oh and the cost estimates for the projects were not done by me nor my firm but I have reviews them.  They were the responsibility of the Corps, portions were reviewed by the TVA and all have been confirmed by separate sources at the expense of the GKFF.  In addition when asked by the promoters of the proposal (prior to it being presented to any group) what should be done different from Vision 2025 my immediate reply was to provide designated contingency monies, and this proposal includes $25 million!