Bates Freaks Out at River Presentation

[Chicken Little]

I'd like somebody to explain why Inhofe would seek $12 million in funding on a project that was "promised" in Vision 2025.

Unless someone can come up with an explanation, it seems that the $5.4 million was indeed matching funds for a larger project.

If the county didn't get the matching federal funds, then I think it's pretty unreasonable to demand that the complete the project with only partial funding.

However, I think it would be reasonable to demand that the county reduce the current request by $5.4 million.

My only real beef, then, is a broader one.  Should the county be using the sales tax at all?  It's the only resource the city can go to in order to fix the streets and they'd be negatively affecting the city's chances of going to the voters for some very basic improvements.  

Why can't the county propose this as a property tax hike?  Is there a Constitutional Problem?

[cannon_fodder]

If it was 5.4mil to be used as part of funding for the dam, where is that money now?  Same place the Oxley money is?

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

If it was 5.4mil to be used as part of funding for the dam, where is that money now?  Same place the Oxley money is?

I think it's reasonable to presume it's still there, so reduce the current request by $5.4 million.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

If it was 5.4mil to be used as part of funding for the dam, where is that money now?  Same place the Oxley money is?

I think it's reasonable to presume it's still there, so reduce the current request by $5.4 million.

No it's not. The current proposal has the dams in at over $50 million just for two new dams (2 x $25 mil), not counting the Zink Lake dam at another $15 mil. The prior estimates were $9.4 Matching + $12 Fed, or a total of $21.4. I've heard up to $26 million for two dams + Zink. Whomever that was sitting next to Randi stated they were assuming a 35% Match/65% Fed ratio. That would make the Fed portion $17 mil and closer to the $26 mil total above. But, it was put in at only $12 mil. Why, I couldn't explain.

Going the other way, $12 mil as 65% would make the 35% match $6.5 mil, and a total of $18.5 million. There was also already seperate money in V2025 for the silt trap/removal on Zink dam.

When these prices inflated by over 100% is suspect.

Besides, it's a COUNTY SALES TAX. And, there's clearly funding in the V2025 to do the original estimated work, even if it delays it somewhat.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

If it was 5.4mil to be used as part of funding for the dam, where is that money now?  Same place the Oxley money is?

I think it's reasonable to presume it's still there, so reduce the current request by $5.4 million.

No it's not. The current proposal has the dams in at over $50 million just for two new dams (2 x $25 mil), not counting the Zink Lake dam at another $15 mil. The prior estimates were $9.4 Matching + $12 Fed, or a total of $21.4. I've heard up to $26 million for two dams + Zink. Whomever that was siting next to Randi stated they were assuming a 35% Match/65% Fed ratio. That would make the Fed portion $17 mil and closer to the $26 mil total above. But, it was put in at only $12 mil. Why, I couldn't explain.

When these prices inflated by over 100% is suspect.

Besides, it's a COUNTY SALES TAX. And, there's clearly funding in the V2025 to do the original estimated work, even if it delays it somewhat.

What about the $60 million for land for a Tulsa Landing?

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

If it was 5.4mil to be used as part of funding for the dam, where is that money now?  Same place the Oxley money is?

I think it's reasonable to presume it's still there, so reduce the current request by $5.4 million.

No it's not. The current proposal has the dams in at over $50 million just for two new dams (2 x $25 mil), not counting the Zink Lake dam at another $15 mil. The prior estimates were $9.4 Matching + $12 Fed, or a total of $21.4. I've heard up to $26 million for two dams + Zink. Whomever that was siting next to Randi stated they were assuming a 35% Match/65% Fed ratio. That would make the Fed portion $17 mil and closer to the $26 mil total above. But, it was put in at only $12 mil. Why, I couldn't explain.

When these prices inflated by over 100% is suspect.

Besides, it's a COUNTY SALES TAX. And, there's clearly funding in the V2025 to do the original estimated work, even if it delays it somewhat.

What about the $60 million for land for a Tulsa Landing?

The County does not need to acquire this land, let the developer do it. It's part of their project.

Besides, Westport should stay as is for now.
There's no good reason for it to be destroyed.

The City owns the parcel south of 21st and the concrete plant on the north can be had, along with potential for some portion of the current West Festival Park.

The County doesn't need to be in the land business anyway, especially as a new Authority governing Tulsa's section of the river, or anyone elses either.

X the Authority/County after they build the dams.

[swake]

That's not an option. We are in the real world here and if the land and money isn't provided, that project will not go forward. That developer got over $100 million in public money for Branson Landing and he's said he's going to want something like that here in Tulsa as well. Just saying it's his problem isn't realistic and Tulsa needs this development. It will bring lots of money into the city from the burbs and from outside the metro, this is real new money into the economy and Tulsa needs it.

[cannon_fodder]

Per the development, there is an outdoor area in Albuquerque called "Albuquerque Uptown" that reminds me a ton of Branson Landing.  Hope we get something like that, very nice.  Utica beware.

http://www.abquptown.com/

[guido911]

I hear quite a bit about Branson Landing being a potential model for river development. I would like to know who has actually been there and based on their visit whether they believe the concept would work in Tulsa.

I have been there several times and it really is a unique "mall" and seems to be a huge success. However, I believe a reason it has been a success is that it is far away from the traffic nightmare on the strip. Not having to navigate that mess to get to the outlet malls is a real benefit that cannot be overstated.

[TheArtist]

I think a lot of this hinges on whether or not there is 2025 language that says that building the dams reqires there be matching funds.

However, even if we got the matching funds originally requested it would not cover the costs that we are now projecting for them and thus we would be right back where we are now relying on 2025 to cover the difference. With the matching funds, 2025 would cover any difference. Without the matching funds, 2025 would cover the difference.

Again, if there is no language that requires the matching funds we could think of the situation this way.

When the other already started 2025 projects get their funding and the dams can start receiving funds, we can get our dams. No new tax for them need be added, no need redirect any extra 2025 money, because it isnt extra its part of the original deal.

This can allow any new tax to fund any further development plans to be less.  Basically, the Kaiser plan minus the cost of the 2 low water dams and possibly some of the Zink lake improvements.  This will help make this next tax more palpable to the voters since it can be 60, or whatever the figure would be, million dollars less.

It may be that the dams end up getting built a few years later than we would like. But they can get built if there is no language somewhere in 2025 that will prevent it.  

Once we get a bit more info on all of this, it could be that this isnt a bad thing for those of us who want the dams and other development. It could make it more of a sure thing.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Besides, it's a COUNTY SALES TAX. And, there's clearly funding in the V2025 to do the original estimated work, even if it delays it somewhat.

I don't know if there is a "besides" if V2025 only provided matching funds.  That's a proposal for partial funding at best.

Either that deal is dead and gone, or, the County is still obliged to provide that original match from V2025.  But how do you get from there to the point where the County is obliged to pay for 100% of it out of V2025?  It's an idea, but it doesn't seem like an obligation.

I still think the better argument is simply saying that the County is impinging on the City's sole source of revenue (an unstable source at that) by asking for more sales tax.  The City is already hundreds of millions behind on infrastructure repairs and the County continues to take big bites out of the only resource that the City can turn to, constitutionally.

Of course, that might imply that you were FOR the City raising taxes to fix streets, and I'm pretty sure I know where you stand on that[].

I'm still wondering if the County could raise property taxes to pay for these improvements instead of sales tax...anybody know?

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by swake

That's not an option. We are in the real world here and if the land and money isn't provided, that project will not go forward. That developer got over $100 million in public money for Branson Landing and he's said he's going to want something like that here in Tulsa as well. Just saying it's his problem isn't realistic and Tulsa needs this development. It will bring lots of money into the city from the burbs and from outside the metro, this is real new money into the economy and Tulsa needs it.

You're too easy, and of the same mindset as our illustrious leaders.

We (the City of Tulsa, not the County)have the ability to offer a TIF to do infrastructure improvements adjacent to the development, provide utility connections, etc. But, what's the underlying reason for providing them land? A gift? Begging?

Why stop there, why not just build the entire thing and contract for a manager, like the golf course?

Developers primarily look at numbers. If the numbers are there, they'll do it. If not they won't. Subsidizing to assure profit means anyone can do it. It's an irresponsible use of public funds, and is far more subject to politics than free market development.

IAC, the County is absolutely the most improper method of achieving this, as is the currently proposed 'plan'. Let the County put water in the river and step aside, allowing each city to determine their own method of dealing with development.

The last thing we need is a 5-member County Authority Board deciding Tulsa can't do this or that because it will hurt something going on in Jenks, for example. Makes those 5 individuals pretty darn powerful.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Besides, it's a COUNTY SALES TAX. And, there's clearly funding in the V2025 to do the original estimated work, even if it delays it somewhat.

I don't know if there is a "besides" if V2025 only provided matching funds.  That's a proposal for partial funding at best.

Either that deal is dead and gone, or, the County is still obliged to provide that original match from V2025.  But how do you get from there to the point where the County is obliged to pay for 100% of it out of V2025?  It's and idea, but it doesn't seem like an obligation.

Read it yourself:

http://www.vision2025.info/category.php?mode=&category=lowwaterdams


"Vision 2025 funds will be utilized to construct two low water dams, which along with Zink Lake, will provide a series of lakes in the Arkansas River corridor."

While it does also say:

"This local funding is a key component in attracting federal money for the dams and other river channel improvements and will also serve as a catalyst for private investment."

...it does not suggest if fed money is not received, the projects die.

What Commissioner Miller, in June 2005, DID say was:

"The $5.6 million allocated in Vision 2025 for river projects only pays for a portion of two low-water dams. It is supposed to be used along with federal funds, but Miller said officials may need the extra money to make sure the dams get built."

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

Originally posted by Wrinkle


I still think the better argument is simply saying that the County is impinging on the City's sole source of revenue (an unstable source at that) by asking for more sales tax. The City is already hundreds of millions behind on infrastructure repairs and the County continues to take big bites out of the only resource that the City can turn to, constitutionally.

Of course, that might imply that you were FOR the City raising taxes to fix streets, and I'm pretty sure I know where you stand on that.

I'm still wondering if the County could raise property taxes to pay for these improvements instead of sales tax...anybody know?

Sure, it implies that. But, it would also need to be responsible.

The City vs County Sales Tax issue IS the primary reason to vote NO on this, especially with the County already obligated to build the dams (to put "water in the river").

The County could do the project with either a Project Revenue Bond (but, since it generates no revenue, this could not work) or a General Obligation Bond, subject to Ad Valorem and which would tie projects to funds. The best option is the GOB, certainly NOT Sales Tax.

But, then, I'm making the case the County is ALREADY obligated to build the dams with planned and excess revenues of the existing Vision2025 plan. So, from here, as I see it, the County's out of it altogether once they get the dams built.

So, with water in the river, it'd be up to each city how to handle additional development. If the City of Tulsa wanted to try and pass this plan, less dams, it could be addressed locally rather than over the entire county. But, I wouldn't try that. There's really nothing preventing development RIGHT NOW except the County causing a bunch of problems.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

Originally posted by Wrinkle


I still think the better argument is simply saying that the County is impinging on the City's sole source of revenue (an unstable source at that) by asking for more sales tax. The City is already hundreds of millions behind on infrastructure repairs and the County continues to take big bites out of the only resource that the City can turn to, constitutionally.

Of course, that might imply that you were FOR the City raising taxes to fix streets, and I'm pretty sure I know where you stand on that.

I'm still wondering if the County could raise property taxes to pay for these improvements instead of sales tax...anybody know?

Sure, it implies that. But, it would also need to be responsible.

The City vs County Sales Tax issue IS the primary reason to vote NO on this, especially with the County already obligated to build the dams (to put "water in the river").

The County could do the project with either a Project Revenue Bond (but, since it generates no revenue, this could not work) or a General Obligation Bond, subject to Ad Valorem and which would tie projects to funds. The best option is the GOB, certainly NOT Sales Tax.

But, then, I'm making the case the County is ALREADY obligated to build the dams with planned and excess revenues of the existing Vision2025 plan. So, from here, as I see it, the County's out of it altogether once they get the dams built.

So, with water in the river, it'd be up to each city how to handle additional development. If the City of Tulsa wanted to try and pass this plan, less dams, it could be addressed locally rather than over the entire county. But, I wouldn't try that. There's really nothing preventing development RIGHT NOW except the County causing a bunch of problems.

The county is not "obligated" at all to put water in the river between 81st and 31st. The dams even if built with 2025 money do nothing for that part of the river.