Vision 2025...Part 2?

[TheArtist]

Not that you're partial

Oh, not at all partial.   

[heironymouspasparagus]

Yes, as an implementer, I'm partial to good proposals.  That said, and presently, other than supervising bringing the low water dam designs, cost models and permitting further forward I am not involved in the project formulation so I would be speculating to answer at this time.  Personally, I truly hope there is a public idea solicitation as Vision 2025's development included.

I'm with TheArtist... I think an Art Deco museum done in a large scale venue would have some serious value to the city!  Sorry that you are stuck with dam designs, but while water would be nice, if someone is really all that into a wet river, move to St. Louis.  They have two major rivers with water present all the time.  Our river isn't that kind of river.  And even the plan update from 2005 gave a nod to the reality of water being an intermittent behind the new dams.  For at least some of the time - probably months a year - they will be in "flush" mode with provision made for refreshing/remediation.  I bet it will be a pretty big ongoing expense just to keep them from silting up.

I keep asking, and it keeps on being no answering - can't we think of something more original than to try to just copy Austin, OKC, etc??  Have we no original idea people in a position to make a difference??  Am somewhat sorry if I am stepping on your toes with this - I am trying to step more gently than I might on other topics, because you are extremely vested in the process of making Tulsa better and I truly appreciate that a great deal !!  I am way too blunt and 'mouthy' (smarta$$ some might say..??) to be involved in what you appear to be doing on the topic.  Goes to an Irish temper and having had to wait WAY too long for improvements to governance in this city.  Downtown has become a wonderful jewel - am hoping it continues.


And yeah, Tulsa IS better than OKC !!  Too many here just don't seem to appreciate where we are and how far we have come...and appear to be going.

[DTowner]

A deco museum would be great, but we already have a great museum idea just waiting to be funded.  I would prefer to see Vision funds go to pay the state’s portion for the Oklahoma Pop Museum, which I believe was $40 million.  While the state should contribute, the reality is it will be an uphill battle to get funds for a Tulsa-based project, the effort will keep getting linked with providing yet more funding for the failed Indian museum in OKC and it is simply not going to happen in the near-term with the state’s current budget shortfall.  And yes, it pisses me off to think that Tulsa would have to pay the entire cost to make this happen even though it is supposed to be about the entire State of Oklahoma, but I would rather have it and be pissed about how it was funded than not have it at all.

[carltonplace]

Well...

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/engineers-release-cost-estimates-for-arkansas-river-infrastructure-plans/article_66e93d2c-0b58-515c-9c19-36f331ee082d.html

Engineers release cost estimates for Arkansas River infrastructure plans
The $316 million tab will likely be pared down, a councilor says.
Posted: Friday, May 1, 2015 12:00 am

By JARREL WADE World Staff Writer



A group of engineers representing Arkansas River communities released an exhaustive report Thursday estimating costs associated with several low-water dams that could be part of a proposal headed to voters later this year.


The report includes estimates for parks, beaches, pedestrian bridges and even a manufactured island as possible projects attached to three new low-water dams along the Arkansas River and an overhaul of Tulsa’s Zink Dam.


All totaled, the estimate comes to more than $316 million, but Tulsa City Councilor G.T. Bynum, who leads the task force looking at recommending an eventual proposal to voters, said he expects the final project to cost much less.


Bynum said the engineering report encompasses all possible projects, including roughly $100 million in amenities at the dams that he expects to be pared down.


“This is not a proposal,” Bynum said about the report. “This is raw information for the task force to come up with a proposal.”


The report, made by Murry Fleming, vice president of CH2M Hill, was the result of several months of work among engineers from Tulsa, Jenks, Sand Springs and Bixby.


The bulk of the estimates call for about $200 million to construct three new low-water dams in Sand Springs, Jenks and Bixby, and a rebuild of Tulsa’s Zink Dam.


Other required costs include bank stabilization, environment preservation and permitting, which add more than $18 million to the basic cost of adding the dams.


The rest, almost $100 million to reach the grand total of $316 million, is estimated for recreation and public access, according to the report.


Annual operation of the dams is estimated to cost communities a total of $520,000 per year, which is built into the total cost estimates.


Operation and maintenance of the parks is estimated to cost about $1 million per year, according to the report.


Also built into the cost are an annual sinking fund of about $800,000 per year to cover eventual dam repair and maintenance, Fleming said.


The designs for the low-water dams call for a system of steel gates on hinges — called an Obermeyer Gate — that rise vertically when a large rubber bladder at its base is inflated, as previously reported.


The hinges connect the steel gate to the foundation of the dam, forming a wall when the downstream bladder fills and lowering the gate’s profile when the bladder deflates.


County Commissioner Karen Keith said the cost estimates for the parks and amenities excited her.


“I know that’s going to bring up the price tag considerably,” Keith said. “But it gives us an opportunity to think big.”


Mike Neal, CEO and president of the Tulsa Regional Chamber, said Thursday’s report provided the group a strong foundation for public engagement this summer and the anticipated final proposal some time in the fall.


“It gives us a strong business plan and blueprint for development, with the information we need to confidently move forward.”

Jarrel Wade 918-581-8367

jarrel.wade@tulsaworld.com

[TeeDub]

That article just brings up more questions....

Doesn't a traditional low water dam have zero maintenance costs?     Also, does the million in operation and maintenance of the parks include what they do now, or is that extraneous to the current operation and maintenance?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Hmmm....

Seems like this would be kind of a "fluff" project for a County Commissioner to be putting effort into right now....

Or maybe the issues around Stanley Glanz constitute the "fluff" issue, while this is the really important one!

 

[sgrizzle]

That article just brings up more questions....

Doesn't a traditional low water dam have zero maintenance costs?     Also, does the million in operation and maintenance of the parks include what they do now, or is that extraneous to the current operation and maintenance?

No, we are paying millions to maintain the one we have now because it breaks and gets filled with silt which has to be removed about every year.

[Conan71]

For roughly 1/100th of that amount, we could purchase the 60 acres on the west side of Turkey Mountain. 

[swake]

Hmmm....

Seems like this would be kind of a "fluff" project for a County Commissioner to be putting effort into right now....

Or maybe the issues around Stanley Glanz constitute the "fluff" issue, while this is the really important one!

 

Not a county project this time.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Not a county project this time.

Doesn't seem real clear on what project it would be.  We have Tulsa for sure.  Karen Keith is commenting.  Then 3 other towns are mentioned.  I guess the proposal that hasn't been done yet will clarify it some?  Seems like county would almost have to be involved just because of the different city jurisdictions...??

[swake]

Doesn't seem real clear on what project it would be.  We have Tulsa for sure.  Karen Keith is commenting.  Then 3 other towns are mentioned.  I guess the proposal that hasn't been done yet will clarify it some?  Seems like county would almost have to be involved just because of the different city jurisdictions...??

The cities involved will create a River Authority that would call for a vote in those cities only for the taxes to support the dams. The last river vote actually passed in Tulsa and Jenks but failed badly in Owasso and Broken Arrow.  The Creek Nation has also indicated they will support with some funding as well.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/newshomepage3/river-task-force-chairman-suggests-spring-vote-on-dams/article_202ae572-a46e-56b0-b33b-dcb1254417b0.html

Not a county vote.

[carltonplace]

The biggest benefit to making additional river lakes will be to the River Spirit Casino and Jenks.  If this river proposal is put to a vote, I am "NO" unless someone can show me how this expenditure creates development in Tulsa.

Let's just fix the low water dam and let Jenks and Sand Springs fund their own if they want them.

[AquaMan]

Cue Country Joe and the Fish-

Cause its one, two, three, what are we fightin' for?
Don't ask me I don't give a damn 'bout any of them low water dams.

Cause it four, five, six, open up the Keystone gates!
Ain't no time to wonder why, whoopee, them pigs are gonna' fly.

Just having fun. Glad Karen Keith is excited. She deserves it.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Wichita is probably a place we should be taking inspiration from rather than Austin, et. al.  They have the same river we have (sort of - minus the salt water) and have done some very nice things there.  It doesn't seem to be full all the time, but there are some dams and river parks areas like we have.  Near Kellog Ave and the river, appears to be a dam that keeps at least some water present.  And above the Keeper of the Plains, another dam appears to hold water much longer.

[swake]

The biggest benefit to making additional river lakes will be to the River Spirit Casino and Jenks.  If this river proposal is put to a vote, I am "NO" unless someone can show me how this expenditure creates development in Tulsa.

Let's just fix the low water dam and let Jenks and Sand Springs fund their own if they want them.

The impound area for the south dam will be from 71st to 106th and not much of that area is in Jenks which has just has over one mile of riverfront impacted by this. Jenks has a small area where the apartments at the Riverwalk are and the section south of the 96th St Bridge to 106th. The Riverwalk and the land north of the Riverwalk past 91st are all Creek Nation land. Creek Nation also has the land from about 78th to 96st on the east bank. Tulsa has 71st to 78th and 96 to 106th on the east bank and 71st to 86th on the west bank.

So my best guess for total short line by entity for the south dam is:
Tulsa - 3.25 miles
Creek Nation – 2.73 miles
Jenks 1.2 miles

Most of the real prime developable land is in Tulsa too. Along Riverside 71st where REI is supposed to be going and south of 96th.

Cost of the dam is $34.7 million. So divided proportionally by each entities part of the shoreline is:
Tulsa – $16.1 million
Creek Nation – $13.2 million
Jenks – $5.8 million

Cost of the other dams:
The Zink Dam $20.2 million
Sand Springs Dam  - $45.9 million
Bixby Dam $32.6 million

My numbers are from the PDF the World posted.