Annexing the fairgrounds into the city

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

Let's play "let's make a deal"

The county gives up to the city one of the following:
A. A cut of property tax revenue
B. The fairgrounds
C. Door #3

If the following is "Door #3".....

Let's quit while we are ahead..[}:)]

[David Arnett]

Michael,
Again with personal attacks you waddle onto the scene.  

I am not paid by Tulsa County.  My day-job and the news service I own are two different things and I have clearly noted the relationship many times.  In your defense of the Mayor's daughter's DUI you did not note that your wife and, by all accounts, yourself worked hard and were paid by the Mayor during and after the campaign.  Shall I go on, or is that enough for a two-faced socialist party hack to get through his extremely thick skull.

By the way, I made the editorial decision not to run a story on the Mayor's daughter – even had her mug shot – because Tulsa Today is a place we write about public policy issues and being young and foolish is not a public issue.

[Admin]

Boys, enough. Either rastle or kiss and make up. Either way, y'all both have made your opinions known, now hush and let the people talk.

[RecycleMichael]

OK...David just gets on me...it is a long story and I won't forget his past attacks on me and my wife. I apologize to the forum folk.

Let me just discuss his facts.

He says the county spent $500,000 above what they had to just to upgrade their stormwater system. Stormwater standards are a good example of how the city and county differ on operations. The City has the best stormwater program in the country and the county just keeps building rooftops and parking lots that help cause the problem of runoff. The County recognized their contribution to the problem and spent more than was required of them, but still less than they would be charged if they received a city utility bill.

Any other business in Tulsa would be paying a monthly charge equivalent to their total square footage of impervious area the fairgrounds total would be thousands of dollars per month.

The article also uses an example of how the County "sends a trash truck specifically into Expo Square" to pick up trash and says the reason is that city costs are higher. First, why wouldn't any operation be responsible for the trash they generate? Secondly, the reason that costs are lower is that the County takes their trash to a landfill that doesn't meet the standards required. Their landfill has been under closure orders from the state DEQ for some time now, but the County is still taking trash there because it is cheaper. The city doesn't cut corners like that.

These are both reasons why annexation of county land by the city is a very complex decision. I still haven't made up my mind on what I think is the best choice for both of them and all of us.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by David Arnett

Michael,
Again with personal attacks you waddle onto the scene.  

I am not paid by Tulsa County.  My day-job and the news service I own are two different things and I have clearly noted the relationship many times.  In your defense of the Mayor's daughter's DUI you did not note that your wife and, by all accounts, yourself worked hard and were paid by the Mayor during and after the campaign.  Shall I go on, or is that enough for a two-faced socialist party hack to get through his extremely thick skull.

By the way, I made the editorial decision not to run a story on the Mayor's daughter – even had her mug shot – because Tulsa Today is a place we write about public policy issues and being young and foolish is not a public issue.

Most people I talk to consider Arnett to be a hack and a walking, talking, bad joke. My hypothesis is his development was arrested somewhere on the evolutionary scale. I think Paul Tay gets(and deserves) more respect in Tulsa than this guy. At least Tay doesn't take himself seriously or believe his own hype.

Socialist party? As opposed to the party that you belong to that would turn government over to
churches and business interests, the very definition of fascism. Please retreat to your cave now and finish evolving, knuckle dragger.

[Double A]

Annexation worries downplayed

Many projects wouldn't be adversely affected, officials say.

By KEVIN CANFIELD World Staff Writer
3/18/2007

Those concerned that city annexation of the fairgrounds would create a hornets' nest of zoning, permit and construction problems at the 230-acre site need not worry, officials say.

Things wouldn't change nearly as much as some people might think.

For starters, it's unlikely that ongoing construction projects at Expo Square would be affected by annexation, Jack Page, Tulsa's director of development services, said last week.

"It's a real possibility that we can work with the county to permit their own projects," Page said.

About $80 million in Vision 2025 and 4 to Fix the County sales tax revenues has been designated for the construction of new buildings and the renovation of existing structures at the fairgrounds.

Flintco Inc. is currently working on about 10 major projects, including construction of a new Exchange Center, that must be completed by next fall, when the U.S. Arabian and Half-Arabian Championship Horse Show comes to town.

"We see no problems why they couldn't finish those projects," Page said.

The issue, he said, is not who does the permitting and inspections but that they are done -- and done properly -- by an authorized government agency.

"If they (the county) want to do their own, we don't have a problem with that because they're a qualified agency," he said.

Tulsa County Engineer Ray Jordan agreed.

"It's really not an issue," he said. "The building codes and electrical codes are basically the same."

It is not unusual for the city to work with other government entities on permitting and inspections, Page said.

For example, the city has done inspections for Tulsa Public Schools and for some state facilities, he said.

"We're just concerned that they are safe buildings to occupy," Page said.

In addition to the building projects, the fairgrounds hosts about 400 events a year, some of which require permitting and inspections.

Page said it is unlikely those kind of day-to-day operations would be influenced by annexation, either.

Permitting and inspection costs would not be affected by annexation because the city and the county both waive fees for those services when doing work for other government entities.

Zoning: The fairgrounds is currently zoned for agriculture, and the city's plan for annexation calls for it to stay that way.

But the governing body that oversees zoning issues at the fairgrounds will change.

The City Board of Adjustment -- not the County Board of Adjustment -- would have jurisdiction over zoning matters if annexation occurs.

Existing development at the fairgrounds would be grandfa thered into the city zoning codes, said Duane Cuthbertson of the Indian Nations Council of Governments.

Future plans for construction that are not permissible under agricultural zoning would need to go through the proper city processes, he said.

Noise ordinance: The county does not have a noise ordinance, according to Jordan; the city does.

Dewayne Smith, interim director of the city's Working in Neighborhoods Department, said annexation won't change how the city handles nuisance issues at the fairgrounds.

"The uses would be grandfathered into the (city) zoning code as long as it was a lawful use" currently, Smith said.

He added that he could not recall a time the city has enforced its nuisance ordinance at the fairgrounds. Problems related to noise are addressed first by the police as potential disturbance of the peace violations, he said.

[Vision 2025]

Michael,

Obviously you and David have some long standing issues that only a couple of time zones seperation might cure... but with the net I doubt it.

With respect to your "facts" presented.

Yes, Tulsa has one of the best storm water ordnances and master plans in the country and has done wonders in many arrears however in the basin around EXPO all that exists is a plan.  One much which like many others that shows significant improvements necessary yet there is no implementation.  At the onset of its master plan EXPO hired an expert hydrologist to dust off and review the City's plan (for that basin) and their developing master plan for improvements at EXPO.  With this analysis EXPO and the County made the decision, without any fanfare whatsoever, to essentially double the size of the storm water detention facility they would need to build (based on using the city's formula on net added impervious area - if they were governed by the City's regulation) because there are residences downstream of EXPO that regularly had storm water difficulties (flooded streets and in the house) and the City had no schedule to make the needed improvements.  The end result is that the EXPO not only voluntarily followed the City's criteria and their own criteria for unincorporated areas, the County went well beyond both and partially solved a long standing problem within the City's existing collection system (undersized lines from distant observation it seems should have been addressed when 15th street was reconstructed) that it did not create because that was the right thing to do for the residents.

Michael not that you suggested it in your post:  My problem with any opinion that EXPO should be paying a storm water fee to the City is the same for EXPO as wioth any other unserved donor in that as I recall that fee is for maintenance, and provides little or no funds for capital improvements to the system and the long planned improvements downstream in that particular basin (and many others) don't exist and likely in this case may never ever exist as a result of what the County did yet somehow EXPO needs to contribute to maintaining a City wide system with essentially non-existent improvements in the area where the fee comes from.  Sorry I can't go with you on this one as I believe it is a failing of the overall implementation to have such a magnitude of unfunded improvements this late after implementation of such a tremendous plan.

You state that the County in effect allows for unregulated storm water impact in the unincorporated areas... You are simply incorrect and in my opinion making an unfounded inflammatory statement which by your heading are presenting as fact.  When the fact is, Tulsa County aggressively pursues proper storm water planning, enforcement, and implementation for development.  In addition the County is correcting some long past sins in the unincorporated areas.  For this Tulsa County utilizes a state of the art planning system with full GIS mapping and modeling tools developed by the Corps of Engineers just for that purpose.    

With respect to refuse, EXPO typically collects the refuse generated with its own equipment and takes it to a privately operated and state permitted sanitary landfill all at a ridiculous savings when compared to the tipping fees at the burner.  You may not like the landfill it goes to but it is permitted and regulated by the state and continues to operate and expand therefore in the interest of delivering service at a practical cost EXPO is in my opinion doing the right thing.  Do I support recycling and many "green" efforts YES.  I have personally designed and implemented many projects and programs but the burner is not one of them and from my observations what started as a potentially great solution for the community ended up as an economic and environmental white elephant that hopefully is about to go away.

Kirby

Ps. I am David's day job employer and with a couple of minor exceptions believe he researched and drafted an very opinionated (imagine that) but otherwise good piece on the issue, and before anyone posts up otherwise... he did this all on his own time.

[Double A]

Yeah, ICE and the County Sheriffs never locked down the BOK Center site during Operation Return to Sender looking to serve a warrant on a criminal illegal alien working for a sub-contractor there, either.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

Yeah, ICE and the County Sheriffs never locked down the BOK Center site during Operation Return to Sender looking to serve a warrant on a criminal illegal alien working for a sub-contractor there, either.

And they found no-one.

[Double A]

yep, the guy they were looking for wasn't there that day, but ole kirby denied they ever even paid a visit to the site in another thread. Just be weary of taking this guy at his word.

[Admin]

Please discuss the topic and not each other or this whole thread will be locked. Unless the arena moved to the fairgrounds, it is not topical.

[MichaelC]

From KTUL

quote:The battle over the fairgrounds is getting more complicated. A new group is circulating petitions asking the City not to annex the land. As News Channel 8's Bill Mitchell shows us, petitions are being passed around in the neighborhoods that surround the fairgrounds.



Organizers of the Stop the Annexation Petition says in the short time they've circulated this eight out of ten people they've talked with to sign on. They're saying to the city don't annex the fairgrounds.



People who have signed the petition are saying the city....don't go looking for new taxes at the fairgrounds balance your own budget by cutting costs.



Liz Garrison signed the petition, "As a person I have a budget myself. And the way for my budget balance is to cut some of what I spend. Instead of trying to rob Peter to pay Paul. "



The Stop the Annexation organizer is Dan Hicks. "I'm surprised how many people who live right down the street are saying the county has been a good neighbor. And they're concerned that if the city took over there would be more problems."



Hicks says he's circulating this petition so city councilors know that the people who live here don't want an additional tax at their fairgrounds.



City Councilor John Eagleton says he's undecided about his annexation vote. But the petition could affect that vote. "The people who have a direct interest in the fairgrounds, who live, are neighbors of the fairgrounds, the citizens of Tulsa. I care deeply about their best interests."



County Commissioner Randi Miller fears annexation might keep some events from coming to Tulsa. "I'm absolutely against it. I see no reason at all to annex us. The analysis clearly shows it's not in the best interest of any constituent."



Opponents of the plan to annex the fairgrounds by the city say they've got a very short time to battle the proposal. That's because the meeting to annex is scheduled for April 5th. That meeting will take place in the usual council meeting room at City Hall at 6pm.

Dan Hicks is an "anti-tax" guy who is opposed to the South Yale Toll Bridge, and a long time proponent of "Creationism" displays at the Tulsa Zoo.

[Kiah]

Randi Miller sets a meeting on the fairgrounds to purposefully exclude city councilors.  (As a former city councilor, she knows well that the council meets at 6 on Thursdays.)

Forum to focus on fairgrounds

By Staff Reports
3/25/2007

County Commissioner Randi Miller will hold a public meeting at 6 p.m. Thursday to discuss issues related to the fairgrounds.

The meeting will be in the cafeteria at the east end of the Exposition Center.

Among the topics for discussion will be the city's proposed annexation of the fairgrounds, ongoing con struction at the site and parking.

Miller said members of the Tulsa County Public Facilities Authority, which operates the fairgrounds, will be in attendance, as well as state Rep. Jeannie McDaniel, D-Tulsa, and Expo Square President and CEO Rick Bjorklund.

Miller, who is chairwoman of the fair board, began holding the quarterly meetings late last year to get the public's input on operations at the fairgrounds and to update people about activities there.

The meeting is not limited to residents who live near the fairgrounds, she said, and the public is free to address any issue related to the fairgrounds.

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

yep, the guy they were looking for wasn't there that day, but ole kirby denied they ever even paid a visit to the site in another thread. Just be weary of taking this guy at his word.

When you posted I had no information whatsoever on a "visit" and still don't officially.

Kirby

[MichaelC]

Christainsen to oppose annexation.

From KTUL

quote:Tulsa - A Tulsa City Councilor is voicing his opposition to the City of Tulsa annexing the Tulsa County Fairgrounds.

District 8 Councilor Bill Christiansen says it's his intention to vote against the annexation of the Tulsa County Fairgrounds. The idea was first addressed in November as a plan to save Bell's Amusement Park. But, since then, Bell's has already begun moving out and the plan is now seen as a way to allow the city to share in tax revenues.

"After wrestling for months with the issue of annexation from the perspective of a city councilor, I decided to step back and view the situation with the eyes of a citizen," Christiansen says. "The people want their leaders to work together, but annexation has become a divisive issue that threatens the cooperative working relationship we desire with our friends at the county."

Christiansen says it's his opinion that any benefit the city might get from the annexation of the fairgrounds isn't worth risking that relationship.

"Many of my constituents have expressed concern that they already pay more than enough in taxes and they view annexation as a backhanded tax increase on those who enjoy making purchases at the fairgrounds free of city sales tax."

Christiansen adds those who come to the fairgrounds make other purchases at surrounding restaurants and stores and that annexation would 'remove that enticement' and that businesses would suffer as a result.

As we told you last week, a petition is being circulated by a group called "Stop Annexation". Organizer Dan Hicks says he circulated the petition so city councilors know the people who live here don't want an additional tax at their fairgrounds.

We also spoke with Councilor John Eagleton, who told us that petition could affect the vote.

"The people who have a direct interest in the fairgrounds, who live, are neighbors of the fairgrounds, the citizens of Tulsa, I care deeply about their best interests," Eagleton said.

Councilors are scheduled to meet April fifth to discuss the annexation plan.