Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details

[TulsaGoldenHurriCAN]

More on the county's proposal:
County and city consider an agreement to avoid tax raise

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/county-and-city-consider-an-agreement-to-avoid-tax-raise/article_6df1d5a9-9c94-5589-a0bf-c8aeff950e16.html

A possible agreement to fold $35 million in improvements to Tulsa County's Expo Square into the city's Vision renewal proposal could avoid the threat of a tax increase from the county.
Councilor G.T. Bynum put the offer on the table Thursday after a meeting between several councilors, Mayor Dewey Bartlett and Tulsa County Commissioner Ron Peters on Wednesday, Bynum said.
Peters said if Tulsa can include the $35 million in improvements for Expo Square and allow for eventual surplus to fall to the county rather than the city, the county would stop its pursuit of a 0.1 percent tax for county needs.
Tulsa's Vision package is intended to be a 0.55 percent renewal of Vision 2025's 0.6 percent sales tax, leaving 0.05 percent for the county.
The county's intention, which the agreement may avoid, has been to seek 0.1 percent, effectively raising taxes if approved by voters.
Bynum said the compromise would get the county and city "on the same page," but where the funding would come from is yet to be decided.
The agreement is up for discussion and was not officially accepted Thursday.
"It's a big tourism draw (for the city), and investing in that facility will keep it that way," Bynum said of Expo Square. "I think this is a good compromise. ... Obviously, we have a lot of work to do over the next two weeks to try to fund this."

I would be in favor of the improvements to the fairgrounds. In the past they have paid off so more improvements could be good for the county and the area. The facilities are already nice and bring in lots of events. It would be neat to see how busy it would be with even better facilities. The BMX headquarters is interesting but I wonder how realistic a chance there is of that is of happening.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

And I agree with the problems with the park.  It needs serious work on entry/exit, and bathrooms on the East end.

I never really understood why in the late 70's the closed off the three entry/exit points on the east side, and then through the 80's and 90's as the expanded the zoo the cut off more and more of the east side of the park. When the built the new entrance, and built the guard houses there, I seem to remember they were going to start charging a fee to get into the park on top of paying to get into the zoo.

[Conan71]

More on the county's proposal:
County and city consider an agreement to avoid tax raise

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/county-and-city-consider-an-agreement-to-avoid-tax-raise/article_6df1d5a9-9c94-5589-a0bf-c8aeff950e16.html

I would be in favor of the improvements to the fairgrounds. In the past they have paid off so more improvements could be good for the county and the area. The facilities are already nice and bring in lots of events. It would be neat to see how busy it would be with even better facilities. The BMX headquarters is interesting but I wonder how realistic a chance there is of that is of happening.

According to Blake at last night's meeting, when asked if there was an LOI for them to locate here if the package is approved, he said there was.

[Conan71]

From Kevin Canfield at The Frontier, something to consider is the possibility of starving funding for other essential services:

A plan to capture future Improve Our Tulsa revenue to pay for Vision 2025 projects would not only significantly reduce funding for street rehabilitation but also eliminate funding for sidewalk construction, traffic signals, facility repairs, small area plans and dozens of other projects, according to an analysis done by the city's Finance and Engineering departments.

The report focuses on the city's capital improvement needs from fiscal years 2020 through 2023.

If the Vision proposal is approved as currently configured, additional capital improvement projects that would suffer include repairs for police, fire and parks department facilities and replacement of guardrails and roadway lights.

Approximately $17 million a year for the replacement of equipment in the police, fire, streets, stormwater and other departments also would not be available if Improve Our Tulsa funds are reallocated into the Vision program.

The reallocation of funds would also hamper the city's ability to keep city's buildings and transportation network in compliance Americans with Disabilities Act requirements.

In all, approximately $135 million a year in funding for capital improvements would be lost from fiscal years 2020 to 2023, according to the report.

The draft Vision 2025 renewal package formulated by city councilors and Mayor Dewey Bartlett calls for capturing nearly $300 million in Improve Our Tulsa sales tax and bond revenue that would have otherwise gone to the projects identified in the report.

In addition, the city's capacity to raise additional bond revenue beyond what would be raised by extending Improve Our Tulsa is expected to be limited from 2020 to 2023, leaving few options to fund non-Vision-related capital projects.



The graphic above shows the ongoing capital improvement projects that would likely not be funded from 2020 to 2023  should the city chose to use Improve Our Tulsa sales tax and bond revenue to fund Vision 2025 renewal projects rather than to continue to dedicate the funds to ongoing capital needs./CITY OF TULSA graphic

Under the draft Vision proposal, 1.0 percent of the existing 1.1 percent Improve Our Tulsa sales tax — commonly known as the third-penny sales tax — would be extended for two years beginning no later than July 2021. The extension would cover the cost of $142.5 million in projects, none of which are directly related to street repairs and rehabilitation.

The Improve Our Tulsa general obligation bonds would be extended three years, beginning in fiscal year 2020, to fund $148.8 million in Vision projects.

City councilors and Mayor Dewey Bartlett said Thursday that they are aware of the issue and plan to address it.

"We have definitely asked them (Finance and Engineering) the question and we definitely want answers to know what the impact is," said Councilor Phil Lakin. "They will tell us that and we will just have to weigh that with everything else we have to consider."

Bartlett said his message from the beginning of the process has been that the city has to live within its means.

Lakin and Bartlett stressed that the Vision renewal package has not been finalized and that changes could still be made.

"I will bring up several ideas that I think could lesson the amount of money expended on future projects," Bartlett said.

"We still have the ability to cut it back."

The mayor added that additional funding sources may be available to Oklahoma municipalities by 2020. Bartlett and Oklahoma City Mayor Nick Cornett are leading an effort to get the state Legislature to expand revenue sources available to cities.

Bartlett and the City Council are scheduled to discuss the Vision proposal again Thursday at a council committee meeting.

The $918 million Improve Our Tulsa package was approved by voters in 2013. The program includes more than $625 million for street-related projects, including $482 million for street repair and rehabilitation. The remainder of the Improve Our Tulsa funding, $293 million, is paying for non-street-related capital improvements.

The proposal to extend the Improve Our Tulsa program to fund Vision projects would not result in the elimination of any Improve Our Tulsa projects approved by voters in 2013.

The 0.6 percent, countywide Vision 2025 sales tax package is set to expire at the end of the year.

The city is proposing extending 0.55 percent of that tax to pay for its Vision needs over the next 15 years and beyond.

The 0.55 percent rate would include two permanent taxes — 0.2 percent for public safety and 0.5 percent for transit — and 0.3 percent for Arkansas River infrastructure and economic development projects.

The remaining funding for the proposed $1.1 billion Vision renewal package would come from the Improve Our Tulsa revenue stream.

The city has until Feb. 4 to present its ballot resolutions to the Tulsa County Election Board. Tulsans are scheduled to vote on the proposal April 5.

https://www.readfrontier.com/report-millions-for-streets-sidewalks-facility-repairs-could-be-lost-in-vision-2025-plan/

[Bamboo World]

Overall, I don't understand the current Zink Dam and pedestrian bridge situation.  Is the dam in danger of rupturing?

Given that it's a low water dam, a "rupture" would simply result in old fashioned river flow instead of confining a few feet of water in a decorative bathtub.

One of the main arguments for fixing Zink Dam is that the design is dangerous.  You can see this in times of heavy flow, when it creates a strong vertical hydraulic.  Several people have drowned because of this over the years.  You basically get sucked under and because it's such a wide area with a vertical circulation pattern, it just keeps pushing you underwater. 

Supposedly, the new design is supposed to be better for fish, too.  But don't remember the details.  I think it's supposed to create a more gentle stair step flow?

I'd like to see the proposed design for the dam and for the iconic bridge.  Also, I'd like to know if the current dam and Midland Valley bridge must be removed before a new dam and a new iconic bridge can be built, and if so, the associated demolition costs.  Could any portion of the existing dam be re-used?  Could the existing dam's weir be kept in place, and its existing gates removed?  Would that eliminate the danger?

I don't understand the need to impound river water near 29th St, when The Gathering Place will have its own pond.  I've lived near Zink Lake since 1989.  I've enjoyed it, but I'd like to have a braided stream that flows and ebbs with the releases from Keystone. 

[Markk]

I thought they said last night there was money set aside for the Mohawk complex as they called it a "sure" tourism draw.

That's encouraging.  The improvements outlined in the original proposal will make it one of the better facilities in the region.   I wish there was a way to remove the picturesque view of the landfill across the street.

[Conan71]

That's encouraging.  The improvements outlined in the original proposal will make it one of the better facilities in the region.   I wish there was a way to remove the picturesque view of the landfill across the street.

A friend of mine attended the meeting with councilors yesterday.

It sounds like the council is getting the picture that what they had assembled so far was getting confusing.  Parks will go to GO bonds including $13.3 million for Mohawk improvements.  They are also thinking about adding Gilcrease and the Zoo to a GO bond question.  It sounds as if they are trying to narrow the ballot to four measures.  This graphic is prior to adding Gilcrease and the Zoo.  If I'm understanding correctly that the parks would be separated from the dams, that may sink the dams (JMO) but might assure Gilcrease and the Zoo get their funds or the general affinity for Gilcrease and the Zoo may end up with getting the park and trail improvements approved.

[Vision 2025]

It was a very productive meeting.

[Markk]

It was a very productive meeting.

I just hope they don't try to do Mohawk on the cheap.  It's a proven revenue generator.  Do it right, or don't do it at all.

[SXSW]

With the recent rains the river has been nearly continuously full of water.  It looks so much better and enhances not only RiverParks but the whole city IMO.  While the two dams won't make it look like it does now all the time (that is dependent on seasonal rainfall/mountain snowmelt) it will be a huge improvement over what we have now when it dries out especially near downtown and the Gathering Place.  That is why I would vote yes.

[AquaMan]

A friend of mine attended the meeting with councilors yesterday.

It sounds like the council is getting the picture that what they had assembled so far was getting confusing.  Parks will go to GO bonds including $13.3 million for Mohawk improvements.  They are also thinking about adding Gilcrease and the Zoo to a GO bond question.  It sounds as if they are trying to narrow the ballot to four measures.  This graphic is prior to adding Gilcrease and the Zoo.  If I'm understanding correctly that the parks would be separated from the dams, that may sink the dams (JMO) but might assure Gilcrease and the Zoo get their funds or the general affinity for Gilcrease and the Zoo may end up with getting the park and trail improvements approved.

I am still a bit confused. Is the 7.8 million proposed for Vensel Park and Vensel Boat Docks part of GO bonds or the V2025? Vensel is at 111th and Delaware. No need for a boat dock if the dams aren't approved is there?

[SXSW]

Swake I completely agree that area needs the river to "tie it all together". 

[Vision 2025]

I am still a bit confused. Is the 7.8 million proposed for Vensel Park and Vensel Boat Docks part of GO bonds or the V2025? Vensel is at 111th and Delaware. No need for a boat dock if the dams aren't approved is there?

This is for the improvements proposed to be located in the channel that is North of the shopping area and South of the River Parks Park at the 96th St. Bridge, it's really at about 98th.

[PonderInc]

Sounds like the south Tulsa dam will be funded by Tulsa sales tax, but will benefit Jenks and the Creek Nation.  Fabulous idea.  If you're Jenks or the casino.

Instead, we could fund the Elm Creek flood remediation plan.  It's crazy when you look at the flood maps of areas east and south of downtown, and realize how much land is unavailable for development because it's in the flood plain.  With this one simple fix, you could open up hundreds of parcels of land in desperate need of redevelopment.  Tons of opportunity to turn vacant or horribly underutilized land into productive, tax-generating space. It would benefit local property owners who can't sell their land b/c it's in the flood plain.  It would help developers who want to create good, walkable places conveniently near downtown.  It would help "connect the dots" between various historic neighborhoods.  And it would solve the flooding problem.

Why is this opportunity ignored so completely?  

[Red Arrow]

And it would solve the flooding problem.

Why is this opportunity ignored so completely?  

Maybe "they" are leery that a lot of rain in the right places could redefine it as back in the flood plain.