Upcoming 2015 City Sales Tax Proposals

[Hoss]

Water makes you stupid. Look at surfers.

Proof.

[ZYX]

So, we're being asked to vote to spend $200 million to make the river look very slightly prettier?

How many miles of divided bike trails could we pave for that money? How many downtown streets could be remade to be two way with added street scaping? How far would that go toward establishing better public transit? Remember the Pop Museum? We could build that and have many many millions left over. How many aging, deteriorating parks and community centers could we remodel/rebuild? The list goes on and on.....why is the city so set on "water in the river?"

[ZYX]

I just read that the City of Tulsa is looking at selling old parks. Why would we not include redoing old parks in an upcoming tax package when we are considering selling them due to a lack of funds? I don't understand the reasoning of the mayor.

[LandArchPoke]

So, we're being asked to vote to spend $200 million to make the river look very slightly prettier?

How many miles of divided bike trails could we pave for that money? How many downtown streets could be remade to be two way with added street scaping? How far would that go toward establishing better public transit? Remember the Pop Museum? We could build that and have many many millions left over. How many aging, deteriorating parks and community centers could we remodel/rebuild? The list goes on and on.....why is the city so set on "water in the river?"

Streetcars cost about $25 million/mile so that would pay for about 7-8 miles of streetcar. We could connect Pine St, OSU/Langston Tulsa, Brady, Downtown, Pearl, TU, and Expo Square. How much development would this create in this area? Much more than a damn in Sand Springs and Jenks.



Complete street full reconstruction is about $10-12 million/mile - As there's about 18-20 miles of streets downtown, we could reconstruct every single street in downtown to have street trees, dedicated bikes lane, and on street parking.

I just read that the City of Tulsa is looking at selling old parks. Why would we not include redoing old parks in an upcoming tax package when we are considering selling them due to a lack of funds? I don't understand the reasoning of the mayor.

Unfortunately, the River proposal isn't the Mayors. This is all G.T. Bynum.

The Mayor is proposing using this same amount of money essentially to fund "public safety". Which should probably come from a property tax raise, as property tax is more stable than sales tax.

[Red Arrow]

Streetcars cost about $25 million/mile so that would pay for about 7-8 miles of streetcar.

That looks similar to numbers I see on Light Rail Now.  That number should be including start up costs including the streetcars, trolley barn etc., not just the track and wires.  Future expansions could be less per mile if infrastructure like trolley barns are planned for system expansion.

[LandArchPoke]

That looks similar to numbers I see on Light Rail Now.  That number should be including start up costs including the streetcars, trolley barn etc., not just the track and wires.  Future expansions could be less per mile if infrastructure like trolley barns are planned for system expansion.

I personally think we are in a great need of a implementable mass transit master plan for Tulsa. We've only so far identified potential corridors through Planitulsa, FastForward, etc.

If we have a mass transit system planned out for 100 years from now, and a recurring 5 - 10 year sales tax vote with updated plans to make sure there's no significant market changes to alter or add any routes, we could start building out a world class system. While we are implementing it, we rezone and establish value capture districts that help spur further construction efforts.

That total would also include $0 federal funds or state funds. You never know what would happen if we passed $200 million for a street car line along the route I posted. If we got matching state and federal funds, we could have a spur that goes to Utica Square/St. Johns - a spur down Boulder to Riverside - and an extension to Promenade Mall that could be redeveloped into a walkable town center along with the Expo Square baseball stadium and shopping center across Yale.

But... water in the River create soooo much more development. Young professional will be knocking each other over to move to Tulsa so they can see the amazing Arkansas River "Lakes" 

[Red Arrow]

I personally think we are in a great need of a implementable mass transit master plan for Tulsa. We've only so far identified potential corridors through Planitulsa, FastForward, etc.

I'll be the first to add some creeping elegance to your route by suggesting a dip south to Cherry Street between Peoria and Lewis.

[rdj]

I would think it would be tough to get a fixed rail route on Utica between 15th & 21st.  That's a pretty narrow stretch with a funky bend.

[johrasephoenix]

First of all, let me start with saying that I am a massive, huge proponent of public transit in Tulsa.  I think the permanence of rail investment (like a streetcar) signals that the city is invested in an area in a way no bus route can.  They usually do a great job of drawing development.  Functioning transit is also the only way that Tulsa can ever heal the wounds of sprawl and bring density back to the center city.  It's what enables awesome things like 24/7 downtowns.

THAT SAID, the river is such a no-brainer for the city.  As it is, the state of the river has turned Tulsa's greatest natural asset into an embarrassment.  As far as bang for your buck for quality of life in Tulsa, putting water in the river should be the city's #1 priority.  The waterfront is a draw for investment, development, people, and happiness that pretty much nothing else can rival.  Chicago's lake, San Francisco's ocean, Austin's river are one of the defining characteristics of the city. 

I lived in Austin for three years.  Austin has terrible transit but an incredible river, which is actually a crappy trickle of a creek they dammed to make what it is today.  That river is a center for public life, recreation, development, and post-card pictures in a way that the Arkansas should be in Tulsa.

Lastly, public transit works because traffic congestion makes it a better alternative than driving.  Tulsa simply isn't at that point.  You can park for free downtown at 10am on a workday.  This will hopefully change, but in the meantime putting water in the river has immediate and enormous benefits.  It's a win for everyone - drivers, pedestrians, bikers, diners, and everyone else.  Most cities would kill to a major river flowing through it, and Tulsa is wasting the opportunity. 

[rdj]

Where do you park for free on a workday at 10am?  If you are, you're likely parked illegally or just not-paying.

[DTowner]

THAT SAID, the river is such a no-brainer for the city.  As it is, the state of the river has turned Tulsa's greatest natural asset into an embarrassment.  As far as bang for your buck for quality of life in Tulsa, putting water in the river should be the city's #1 priority.  The waterfront is a draw for investment, development, people, and happiness that pretty much nothing else can rival.  Chicago's lake, San Francisco's ocean, Austin's river are one of the defining characteristics of the city. 

I lived in Austin for three years.  Austin has terrible transit but an incredible river, which is actually a crappy trickle of a creek they dammed to make what it is today.  That river is a center for public life, recreation, development, and post-card pictures in a way that the Arkansas should be in Tulsa.

Lastly, public transit works because traffic congestion makes it a better alternative than driving.  Tulsa simply isn't at that point.  You can park for free downtown at 10am on a workday.  This will hopefully change, but in the meantime putting water in the river has immediate and enormous benefits.  It's a win for everyone - drivers, pedestrians, bikers, diners, and everyone else.  Most cities would kill to a major river flowing through it, and Tulsa is wasting the opportunity. 

I am pretty much undecided on the "put water in the river" concept.  But when I hear advocates say it is a no brainer because it is going to lead to this outpouring of "investment, development, people, and happiness" I am left puzzled.  Where is this development going to occur in Tulsa?  As previously noted by myself and others, there really isn't any undeveloped land along the river within Tulsa south of Hwy 75 to Jenks.  And I'm not very moved by spending a lot of money so Jenks can further develop its portion of the river to compete with Tulsa.

Citing to other cities' successful river development is nice, but as far as I can tell none of those  rivers and their alignment to their respective cities compare very well to the Arkansas River and Tulsa.  We've never been a river town and the river was nothing more than an obstacle in Tulsa's early development.

I'm not trying to pick on this poster, I would just like for someone saying putting water in the river will lead to lots of development and wonderful things to actually describe where they think this development will occur and what these wonderful things will be.

[ZYX]

Your last paragraph is exactly what I'm thinking. The idea of river development is great, but, in my opinion, not at the expense of what we currently have on the east bank. What room is there on the west bank for much development? Our Riverparks are a far greater asset than any development could ever be.

[cannon_fodder]

I was in favor of the river projects, now I am leaning towards being against. I have been doing some research to figure this out for myself, so I may as well post it.

First, let me say I'm around the river a lot. From Keystone lake down to joining up with the navigation channel. I've boated on it. Fished it. Hiked it. Let my dogs run on sandbars. Hunted down river. Damed it with my son. Cycled around it more times than I can count. I stare at the river from my desk and watch the water rise and fall around "the bend." Hell, for my anniversary this year my wife and I canoed it from River Parks West up past the refinery and a harrowing journey back down (the river was choked down due to the bridge construction, did not intend to run rapids...).

So I appreciate the river as an assets... but should we spend $250 - 350 million to "put water" in it?

1) The environmental argument doesn't work on me
I don't care about the "natural river" or "prairie river" argument because that was thrown out the window with Keystone and isn't ever coming back. Zink dam cut the river off from that point even further.  True, we would cut off another ~6 miles of the river even more, but I'm afraid that is irrelevant at this juncture. Sorry, not a "prairie river" by any stretch - it is an entirely man made river that ebbs and flows with the power requirements of Keystone Hydroelectric, the flood management abilities of Keystone, and the cooling and wastewater needs of industry south of the dam (as opposed to some dams which have minimum flow requirements and artificial "floods" for environmental reasons, fish runs, etc.)

2) The cost/benefit argument does, and it is against putting water in the river...
A) The Cost
Why does everyone keep saying $200 million?  That was so 2012. The latest estimates have the number at $300,000,000.00, broken down as follows:
Sand Springs: $106.7mil
Zink Repair: $46.4mil
Jenks: $78.7mil
Bixby: $34.5 mil
+ Levee repair and other flood mitigation factors required by the US Corps of Engineers.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/cost-estimate-for-tulsa-area-low-water-dams-goes-up/article_adb31cfb-f4b7-5092-9fbb-dde5153b010f.html

Now, the environmental impact statements, full design, and other factors have not been finalized, approved, or bid out yet... but given that the previous estimate was so low and massive government projects have a tendency to grow, I'm comfortable using $350,000,000.00 in my head.

B) The Benefit
INCOG had a very pretty power point made in 2005 showing wiz bang river development:
http://www.incog.org/Community_Economic_Development/River_Documents/Phase%20II%20Web%20Powerpoint.pdf

That shows dams at 177th W. Ave
East of Hwy 97 bridge
N. of I44 Bridge
Just S. of Creek TP
131st St. in Jenks
Memorial Drive in bixby
Indian Brings (151st and Aspen-ish) in BA

It had wonderful artists renditions of everything. In Sand Springs there was a marina sail baots docked, ther were river front condos, and so on down the river. Clearly we aren't even proposing that many dams, and clearly you can't actually have sailboats in the river (I had a Hobiecat that drafted 3', but even if dredged it would be very difficult to have that on Zink lake).  Let's stop selling pipe dreams and talk about what we are really proposing.

1. The Sand Springs dam will help keep continuous flow int he river. Sand Springs may use it as a catalyst for major redevelopment along their river BUT... large portions of sand springs are inside a levee and cannot be developed "along the river".  As I said before, this dam will not make it a navigable waterway but for john boats, kayaks, and canoes... so far as I can tell.  I think Sand Springs is underdeveloped for the location to downtown, pretty hills, nice downtown, etc. - but given the levees, I'm not sure that helps it develop.

2. Zink dam - needs to be fixed. Then we need to start saving to fix it again. Infrastructure wears out, particularly dams. This is the most heavily developed part of the river and is heavily utilized. Taking it out would probably be even more expensive and I'm not sure AEP can let that happen for their water needs. But this is really Tulsa's problem, not a truly County wide issue (I get that others in the County use it, and the County should kick in some funds, but primarily...).

3. Jenks/South Tulsa Dam
The real meat and potatoes of "what Tulsa gets." If we were to build a dam at 101st backing water up to 71st (at best), how much "development" do we gain? I looked up plots on the Tulsa County Assessor website:
http://www.assessor.tulsacounty.org/assessor-map-interactive.php

In the short version - Tulsa gains about 21 acres of develop-able land on the east bank, and as much as 87 acres on the west bank with river access. So maybe, MAYBE 108 acres of land with river-front access that would benefit from the low water dam in Tulsa. THAT'S MORE THAN $715,000 PER ACRE (assuming we only gain the Tulsa acres)

Jenks doesn't gain much more - the Aquarium area land, maybe some infill development in the Creek owned River Walk Crossing, and some land just east of Jones Riverside that is currently light industrial.  Overall, maybe 150 acres?

So combined with the land in Tulsa - probably around 250 acres. Or more than $325k per acre so the river front property can have water to look at.

Here is the effected property breakdown:

EAST BANK Starting at 71st St
- Tulsa Parks land, Helmrich park up to the apartment complexes at little Joe Creek (we could probably give up 5 acres of Helmrich Park which is a barren over grown field)
- The Apartment Complexes are each owned privately (two separate owners)
**JOE CREEK** with the noticeable bridge just north of the Creeks
- Creek smoke shop (5.5 acres) owned by the United States of America and held in trust for the Creeks
- Creek Nation Casino owned by the USA...
***little Joe Creek. The Creek land stops at the edge of their parking lot to the south, it appears, Just opposite the trailer park.***
- City of Tulsa land from there until 101st St. but-for areas that are already developed, mostly managed by the River Parks Authority.

Looking at that land, there are odd plots here and there, often extending into the actual river and usually including River Side Drive (never bothered to replatt it). So it is hard to tell how much developable land there is. BUT, by my best estimate there are another 15 acres + the 6 acres of Helmrich park. If we moved the recreation path to be nearer to the river, the front park of the "wooded" area along the river from the creek nation casino to 96th (The "Bear Fountain" park) could be developed.

Realistically, it would probably be less than that since there are workout stops, parking lots, sculptures, and areas where the trail breaks apart. But-for the area just south of the casino, most of that would be very hard to develop without removing the trail and park amenities. While I know there are some developers who want to do that (as well as the rugby field, disc golf courses, etc.), I don't think that would actually happen.

WEST BANK:
- Just south of 71st the City owns some 37 acres with no access that lies along the river. This is currently some sort of transfer station? Clearly could be repurposed.
- South of that lies 20 acres owned by the Tulsa Airport Improvement Trust, likely restricted due to Jones Riverside Airport runways pointing right at it.
- 30 Acres of private light industrial land and what looks like a sand pit
***into jenks***
- 5 acres of light indutrial
- Riverwalk apartment complexes
- Riverwalk Crossing (owned by Creek Nation)
- Then the area around the aquarium

Maybe there is more land around the aquarium than I think would actually be developed?  Maybe I'm selling it short over there, I admit I did not research that section as well. But it is clear that the winners from the Jenks dam would be:

1) The CREEK NATION with 120 acres and no tax bill and their development built or planned already
2) Jenks with as much as 150 acres and a small tax bill, and
3) Tulsa with 108 acres and most of the bill.


4. Bixby Dam
Bixby suffers from the same problem as Sand Springs. They have a levee system blocking the river off from the people. Where in Jenks would you do "river development?"  


- - -

I like water in the river. I understand that really it becomes a lake. I get that it silts in, that it isn't natural. I get all that. But the Zink lake area full of water looks better than the River Walk Crossing area. The vast majority of people want to see water when they look in a river.

If this would create a navigable waterway such that boaters could truly go from the Marina in sand springs down to Bixby or the navigation channel, or if the dam would open up a previous flood plain that couldn't be developed, I mean - I'd get it. But it seems like we are proposing spending a ton of money to really improve a handful of acres for development and make the river "pretty." There might be some landowners who make a ton of money, probably a few developers will cash in.... but overall, are we winning?

$300 million to open access to such a limited supply of land for development? Then we have to find a way to fund dredging/maintenance on 4 dams, when we can't do that with one. It is a hard sell to me.

[RecycleMichael]

EAST BANK Starting at 71st St
- Tulsa Parks land, Helmrich park up to the apartment complexes at little Joe Creek (we could probably give up 5 acres of Helmrich Park which is a barren over grown field)

I heard that a shopping center with a bank, retail and restaurants is going in where the volleyball courts are currently.

[ZYX]

I heard that a shopping center with a bank, retail and restaurants is going in where the volleyball courts are currently.

What could be better than replacing a heavily used place for the community to come together and be active than a strip center? If strip centers are the type of development we're being asked to pay $300,000,000+ for.....