River development authority?

[RecycleMichael]

The Tulsa World has an interesting story with more details about Tulsa County Commissioner Randi Miller's thoughts on the need for a board to oversee the public dollars on the river.

Miller offers river oversight plan By KEVIN CANFIELD World Staff Writer

The county commissioner's proposal for an authority calls for an 11-member panel to oversee development. The most vocal and persistent proponent of a river development authority has come up with a plan of her own.

County Commission Chairwoman Randi Miller is proposing the creation of an 11-member authority to oversee the review process and to implement whatever river development plan is ultimately decided upon for the 42-mile stretch from the Wagoner/Tulsa county line to the Keystone Dam.

Miller said Friday that she would like to see the authority created as soon as possible, and that she is hopeful a funding package could be presented to voters by the end of the year. "The longer we wait for the process, the longer we're going to have to lose the momentum for river development," she said.

But she also stressed that her proposal is only a draft and that she is looking forward to discussing the issue with her fellow commissioners, John Smaligo and Fred Perry, at their Thursday management conference.

The state's open meeting law prevents the commissioners from discussing county issues outside a public format. Miller has not ruled out a bigger role for the River Parks Authority, either. She said expanding that authority could be a second option to consider.

For the past several months, Miller has insisted that a formal process is needed to review river development proposals to see if and how they might fit into a comprehensive plan for the corridor.

Her draft proposal was released less than two weeks after she convened a meeting of area leaders and other individuals interested in river development to discuss whether some formal oversight mechanism was needed. Most of the people who spoke at the meeting indicated they thought one was needed, but no decision was made on what form it should take.

Miller's proposal is intended to address that question. The plan calls for all river development proposals to go through an almost identical review process to the one that was used to create Vision 2025 and the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan.

In those instances, Miller said, proposals were first subject to public hearings, then reviewed by steering and advisory committees before being sent on to a leadership team. It was then up to the leadership team to determine which proposals would be placed on the ballot and how much public funding would be required.

From there, the final plans were voted on by the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, the Tulsa City Council and the Board of County Commissioners.

Miller's plan calls for the authority to take on the work performed by the leadership teams. It would also handle important oversight duties -- such as the acquisition of land and management of funds -- after any voter-approved plan.

Smaligo said Friday that he was pleased Miller had presented a detailed plan, but that he had not had a chance to examine it closely. "I'm looking forward to discussing this with Commissioner Miller and listening to her explain how this might all work," he said.

In an e-mail to the World, Perry said that he "did not have a problem with the direction she (Miller) was headed," but that there were some issues regarding the proposal that he planned to address with Miller on Thursday.

Discussions about the creation of some type of river development oversight body have heated up in the past year as more and more river development projects have been pitched.

Miller said she is well aware that her proposed authority would have no jurisdiction over private river deals that do not require public funding. But her hope, she said, is that all developers with an eye on the Arkansas River will choose to participate in the process she is proposing. "We want to be a help, not a hindrance," Miller said.

[carltonplace]

You can't fault her for her tenacity.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

You can't fault her for her tenacity.

There will be an authority of some sort. The World is in favor of it and no organized group is against it. The V2025 model and the INCOG analysis process makes sense if not manipulated. Judging by the article and Ken Neal's commentary over the weekend, it will be similar in make-up to other existing authorities. I am not pleased with that news. It appears to be geographically/politically populated which is simply formalizing the existing power structure. Perhaps that is necessary.

I was pushing for a  board that would consist of members that represent functional areas. My board would have designees from the political spectrum too because they need to watch for their concerns, but unless it is staffed with functionals (police,fire,rescue, hydrology, environmental, geological, engineering, zoning, economic) then it will just become another tool for powerful, corporate oriented entities to control the process. Those entities speak the language of government and prosper under lobbying conditions. A functional staff would be more likely to view plans, and their analyses, from a less political perspective.

[carltonplace]

I meant no disrespect at all WB. Ms Miller is really driving discussion about river development and that is admirable.

Oh, and I was speaking to Bill Lissau and he changed my mind about the need for an oversight committee.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

I meant no disrespect at all WB. Ms Miller is really driving discussion about river development and that is admirable.

Oh, and I was speaking to Bill Lissau and he changed my mind about the need for an oversight committee.

Not at all[]Course not much matters about development if they can't put any water in the dang thing. Swan lake has more water than the river.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

You can't fault her for her tenacity.

There will be an authority of some sort. The World is in favor of it and no organized group is against it. The V2025 model and the INCOG analysis process makes sense if not manipulated. Judging by the article and Ken Neal's commentary over the weekend, it will be similar in make-up to other existing authorities. I am not pleased with that news. It appears to be geographically/politically populated which is simply formalizing the existing power structure. Perhaps that is necessary.

I was pushing for a  board that would consist of members that represent functional areas. My board would have designees from the political spectrum too because they need to watch for their concerns, but unless it is staffed with functionals (police,fire,rescue, hydrology, environmental, geological, engineering, zoning, economic) then it will just become another tool for powerful, corporate oriented entities to control the process. Those entities speak the language of government and prosper under lobbying conditions. A functional staff would be more likely to view plans, and their analyses, from a less political perspective.

We should demand each other put on the board. Unlike most others likely nominated, you know where the river is and that water comes from sources other than 20oz bottles.

I'll be the misanthrope who just yells "No!, My Precious!" at opportune moments.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

quote:Originally posted by carltonplace

You can't fault her for her tenacity.

There will be an authority of some sort. The World is in favor of it and no organized group is against it. The V2025 model and the INCOG analysis process makes sense if not manipulated. Judging by the article and Ken Neal's commentary over the weekend, it will be similar in make-up to other existing authorities. I am not pleased with that news. It appears to be geographically/politically populated which is simply formalizing the existing power structure. Perhaps that is necessary.

I was pushing for a  board that would consist of members that represent functional areas. My board would have designees from the political spectrum too because they need to watch for their concerns, but unless it is staffed with functionals (police,fire,rescue, hydrology, environmental, geological, engineering, zoning, economic) then it will just become another tool for powerful, corporate oriented entities to control the process. Those entities speak the language of government and prosper under lobbying conditions. A functional staff would be more likely to view plans, and their analyses, from a less political perspective.

We should demand each other put on the board. Unlike most others likely nominated, you know where the river is and that water comes from sources other than 20oz bottles.

I'll be the misanthrope who just yells "No!, My Precious!" at opportune moments.

[]

[RecycleMichael]

Don't think park authority, think port authority.

It is closer to what "they" want to handle development, whoever "they" probably are.

http://www.tulsaport.com/

[PonderInc]

But would it include the right players?  Here's what is proposed:

Authority members — The three county commissioners; three appointees made by the commissioners; Mayor Kathy Taylor; an appointee of the Mayor's Office; INCOG Chairman John Selph; an appointee to represent the River Parks Authority; and an appointee to represent area communities along the Arkansas River.

The authority staff would include a director and an attorney.
---
I worry that this is heavily weighted towards county representation...that might not be responsive to the specific needs of Tulsans.  

The plan suggests "An appointee to represent the communities along the Arkansas River..." One person would represent Sand Springs, Tulsa, Bixby, etc?  

I would like to see one person who would specifically represent the Tulsa neighborhoods that abut the River...because any development would affect these residential areas.  This is not as important where the river abuts commercial or industrial areas along other stretches of the Arkansas.  Introducing river development into residential areas requires more finesse and sensitivity to greenspace, park space, homes, aesthetics, pedestrians, kids, etc.

And it may be my bias, but I think the Tulsa stretch of the Arkansas is the most unique and the most fragile...and I don't want to see it--or neighboring areas--ruined by hideous development choices.

[RecycleMichael]

All valid concers, Ponder.

What is the first thing this authority will be tasked to do? Probably put together a package and present it to the voters. Such a vote would probably have a better chance to pass as a county vote rather than a city vote.

What is the right "board composition" to accomplish that?

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

All valid concers, Ponder.

What is the first thing this authority will be tasked to do? Probably put together a package and present it to the voters. Such a vote would probably have a better chance to pass as a county vote rather than a city vote.

What is the right "board composition" to accomplish that?

The Port board looks pretty experienced (with a few exceptions). And it is doing a pretty good job. But what is wrong with the composition I espoused?

BTW Ponder, most everyone thinks their stretch of the river is unique and fragile. The area least likely to see much development imo is the Tulsa stretch. Lots of challenges on the east side. Not much attractive usable land on the West except for around the pond and that won't happen without extreme attention to detail.