River vote...county sets rules

[Breadburner]

Vote No.....It's, whats for Dinner.....

[MichaelC]

I got ya conan.

I don't know near enough about the River plan, yet.  I'm sure more info is around here somewhere, but I am looking for a more in depth description of the projects.

If I voted on it today, I couldn't tell you in detail what I would be voting on.  

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

I've read and re-read prop IV several times and cannot find anywhere in there that there was a matching fund contingency.  Maybe I need to print it and read it in the executive reading room at lunch with a magnifying glass.  It certainly wasn't on the ballot.

Did you read the part where it said the dams were "fully funded"?  No, because it's not there.  It may be sloppy, I've granted that.  But it's also typical, and I got what I voted for.

quote:Sounds like the county commish was relying on all of us plebes to stay tuned to local TV and radio and read every last sentence in print media to figure this out.

Possibly.  From what I remember about it, it was obvious in all media outlets.  It wasn't fine print.  My memory isn't all that good on everything, so I'm still slightly amazed that you guys are so crystal clear on what was said and what wasn't 4+ years ago.  

And slightly amazed that on page 7, we still can not talk about the river plan.

That's why they create documents, resolutions and contracts. So, if we can't remember, we can go back and read it again.

You seem to suggest they never intended to build dams, and that's just not true. It's really very clear. You may have to rely somewhat on Bates' chronology, complete with links, but it's in there.

So, on the current plan, the basis is that they were never promised. If true, then they're still in the game. If not, it sinks, even in this river.

[Conan71]

Let me distill the river plan for you:

As of now, it is a total cluster-****.  

There has not been near enough thorough planning to this point, though there are those who will disagree.  I'm still seeing a lot of speculation in the plan in lieu of hard facts.

The whole rush to vote happened when Kaiser stepped up and said they could bring $111mm to the table.  Just because matching private funds are there, doesn't mean that is the appropriate time to tie up additional funding, nor that there is a viable plan all citizens agree upon.  Find out what all is needed and what the hard costs are, then come ask me for money.  I don't recall hearing of a time limit for those private funds to disappear.  Put it in trust and let it appreciate until we are ready to vote.

This $111mm has given Randi Miller a severe, well, ahem... (certain male function of excitement).

As of now, it looks like the development is primarily to the benefit of some land-owners on the west bank, some developers, and some hyped up claims of an economic boon by the CoC.

That's why I'm not going to vote for it.

This morning's story in the World adds another element to the development.  We are wanting to construct public use and commercial development in between a refinery and a **** plant.

It's just like constructing a new neighborhood right under the principal flight path of an existing airport then complaining about all the noise and then the rest of the citizens being on the hook to pay for remediation costs.

I would not have one single problem if the county had said:

"Even with best intentions, we have determined that we cannot affect the full potential of river deveolopment with V-2025 funding.  We are going to use the money originally allotted for low water dams, Zink lake upgrades, etc. to do feasibility, environmental, and other associated studies.  After we have all the facts in order, we will then call for a vote of the citizens of Tulsa County to approve a new 'River Tax'."

That would definitely ease the swelling in my bowels.  Study it for a year or two, accept more public input via committees and bring it to a vote in a year or two when there is more reliable information.  Even if nothing about the final project personally appealed to me- as long as there had been plenty of public input from average citizens and the will of the people really seemed to be represented in the plan then I would vote for a tax.  No sweat.

[MichaelC]

I'd be pitching a tent too, at $111 million.  That's a pretty good chunk of private change, in comparison to to the tax.

The actual details, I'm not clear on them yet.  It's probably my fault, I haven't taken the time yet.

I find it hard to buy this:  

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

I would not have one single problem if the county had said:

"Even with best intentions, we have determined that we cannot affect the full potential of river deveolopment with V-2025 funding.  We are going to use the money originally allotted for low water dams, Zink lake upgrades, etc. to do feasibility, environmental, and other associated studies.  After we have all the facts in order, we will then call for a vote of the citizens of Tulsa County to approve a new 'River Tax'."

Because it was never their intention to fully fund the dams with V2025 alone, and feasibility and environmental are a part of construction.  And, the majority of construction funds are still there, and the project is still feasible under the original plan (plus inflation), there's no guarantee on time.  It could take us twenty years to get a match, but dam construction is still possible under the original Vision2025 plan.  As far as I know.

Have you heard that the dams can not be completed under the original plan as put forth in Vision 2025?  If so, do you have a link?  I have not seen that.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

I'd be pitching a tent too, at $111 million.  [}:)][}:)] Yeah Michael, who wouldn't?

Because it was never their intention to fully fund the dams with V2025 alone, and feasibility and environmental are a part of construction.  And, the majority of construction funds are still there, and the project is still feasible under the original plan (plus inflation), there's no guarantee on time.  It could take us twenty years to get a match, but dam construction is still possible under the original Vision2025 plan.  As far as I know.

Have you heard that the dams can not be completed under the original plan as put forth in Vision 2025?  If so, do you have a link?  I have not seen that.

According to the ballot and Prop IV, dams would be built- not studies of dams.

I'm trying to be careful not to get back into the whole quagmire of the last few pages, but the present vote seems to represent something between not being able to complete the dams as promised and that what was proposed on V-2025 is not what benefactors, commissioners, and beaurocrats want now.  

Apparently it was not the intent to complete the LWD and Zink projects soley from V-2025 tax collections- you are correct.  Though one needs to dig through news archives and forum archives to discover what the original intent was.

I find it interesting that proponents are being quick to point to comments by Bob Dick that no one knew what the actual cost of the dams would be and that there was plenty of info about federal matching funds.  However, those people also seem to be neglecting Dick's comments about the gross tax collection estimates being very conservative.

Everyone has heard the dams can't be completed under V-2025.  Cost estimate was too low, Inhofe didn't bring home the bacon, yada yada yada.  That's what the whole river tax is about.  Well, and now we want the red Ferrari, not the brown Chevrolet.

You are correct that they could still be constructed per 2025- without matching federal funds (emphasis is my opinion).  That is a point Michael Bates has been making all along- that there could be as much as a $150mm- plus overage on V-2025 tax collections.  In other words, there's no need for an additional tax because there very well would be more than enough funding to complete the originally-planned dams with overages or by extending the collection period for the tax by vote.  

It is my understanding these dams which are now proposed are a differing design than was was proffered on the 9/9/03 ballot, and there is more being added to the project which is why the cost is even higher.

Short summary to long answer- yes the original V-2025 dams and Zink lake improvements could be completed even without matching funds due to overages on collections.

I'm loathe to admit that local politics is something I've only had a peripheral interest in up until the last couple of years.

[MichaelC]

From what I can tell so far, Bates may be right, there may be enough money to just draw it out of Vision2025.  But if I were the City of Tulsa, I would have to consider fighting that.  These projects were always partially funded, I would have a problem using more of Tulsa's funds to accelerate the growth of Jenks and Sand Springs.  I'm sure they want the dams, they may deserve them, I don't have a problem with those two towns.  But the dams were not fully funded by this package.  I would have a problem altering the package to fully fund those dams, if I were the city of Tulsa.  If I were Jenks, i'd love it.  

We voted on a package, the balance is going to be thrown a little bit if your going to start giving special attention to the dams projects.  They've got this new package, with new projects, and it will have to have some version of balance in order to pass.

[waterboy]

I have been conducting an informal survey of opinions from the 45 stops I make each day in South Tulsa. Not much yet, but the first few remarks were revealing.

1. I thought we took care of this stuff with the last tax vote. I haven't looked too close at it but why would Bixby vote for it? Tulsa gets most of the improvements. Undecided.

2. I live in Claremore. Don't know why anyone would want to vote even more sales tax. If that small a tax will do all that stuff why can't we get streets and stuff done. Can't vote.

3. No. Taxes too high already. Nothing over there for me.

Better start talking features, benefits and issues pretty soon or give up.

[Vision 2025]

All, thanks for your patience.

I'm doing my best to answer questions posted that are of a technical nature related to the topic and will continue to do so as my time allows.  As for background and knowledge base I do have personal have experience with many significant river projects, including all of the original Zink Lake projects, I understand the Corridor Master Plan and the current proposal and yes I support it.  

Some of you know, (and I suspect some know me) as I have posted similarly before.  I don't participate on this forum because I "have to" or "was told to" it was my own (maybe dumb) idea... and yes, I'm tired of getting web-cained by a few and coming back for more (and since "thank you sir may I have another" is just not in my life plan for the sport of others) so if I get a little quick witted with a response I'm truly sorry, my mother did not raise me that way, but some should read what comes off of their own finger tips.  Try pretending you are using your lips rather than your fingers and see if that influences what you have to say.  

Do I have all the answers?  Nope!  But I'll try.   But again and I know it is a stretch over the web but just like "Cap'n Call" in Lonesome dove..."I just can stand rudeness in a man" so if we can we behave, maybe we can respectfully educate each other a bit so that each of us can make up our own mind with some basis in fact rather than just emotion?  

Waterboy, I understand you have direct river knowledge; if you wish to meet, (and I don't think we have officially) I would like to gain form your experieience so I'll make an evening available to discuss the river and review the plan, your call, just PM me throught this site. If this works, perhaps a next step might be a forum meeting to respond to technical questions if someone would coordinate it and the rules of civility were followed.

Tulsanow; If you have questions that fit what I can address (sorry I don't do politics and won't second guess long ago decisions)that I have not gotten to or new ones please post or restate.



Kirby Crowe, Vision 2025 Program Director

Ps.  Which came first; web-forums or road rage?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

From what I can tell so far, Bates may be right, there may be enough money to just draw it out of Vision2025.  But if I were the City of Tulsa, I would have to consider fighting that.  These projects were always partially funded, I would have a problem using more of Tulsa's funds to accelerate the growth of Jenks and Sand Springs.  I'm sure they want the dams, they may deserve them, I don't have a problem with those two towns.  But the dams were not fully funded by this package.  I would have a problem altering the package to fully fund those dams, if I were the city of Tulsa.  If I were Jenks, i'd love it.  

We voted on a package, the balance is going to be thrown a little bit if your going to start giving special attention to the dams projects.  They've got this new package, with new projects, and it will have to have some version of balance in order to pass.

You've got me a little confused as to why Tulsa would be upset about finishing the dams from V2025 overages.  That is a county tax and therefore county funds.  COT isn't out a penny unless they want to do some of their own development along the banks.

[MichaelC]

Well, I see it this way.  Since the County never planned on fully funding those items, if you change V2025, you're changing the balance that got everyone to vote on it in the first place.   It looks like it can be done, I wouldn't advise it.

Jenks got funding for some downtown work, they arguably benefit most for the Aquarium loan payoff package.  Sand Springs got a huge amount for urban renewal.  They got their Vision 2025 funds.  The dams funds are still there, they got those going for them too.

Arguably, Tulsa, BA, and everyone else got what they voted for too.  But still.

These things don't come free.  And if we're going to have to start divvying up extra funds, beyond what was voted for, for the success of Jenks and Sand Springs, you might want to throw Tulsa a bone.  Tulsa is the primary economic engine of this county.  The dams are great, but we also need to consider what benefits Tulsa in this equation.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

From what I can tell so far, Bates may be right, there may be enough money to just draw it out of Vision2025.  But if I were the City of Tulsa, I would have to consider fighting that.  These projects were always partially funded, I would have a problem using more of Tulsa's funds to accelerate the growth of Jenks and Sand Springs.  I'm sure they want the dams, they may deserve them, I don't have a problem with those two towns.  But the dams were not fully funded by this package.  I would have a problem altering the package to fully fund those dams, if I were the city of Tulsa.  If I were Jenks, i'd love it.  

We voted on a package, the balance is going to be thrown a little bit if your going to start giving special attention to the dams projects.  They've got this new package, with new projects, and it will have to have some version of balance in order to pass.

From 106th to 91st (Jenks City Limit) Jenks has a whopping 1.5 miles of shoreline on the 106th St dam. Jenks has done a lot on that portion true, but that's without the dam. Tulsa has the same shoreline on the east bank from 106th to 91st and both sides north of 91st. Jenks gets about ¼ of the total shoreline of the 106th St dam.

That amount new money for that dam is only $25 million, Jenks gets say ¼ of the shoreline. Plus, as reported by Mr Medlock, Creek Nation is giving $5 million to the project as they would like the dam too. So, Jenks gets 25% of the benefit of something with an outstanding balance of $20 million. That's a whopping $5 million out of a project with a total scope of $400 million. Sure, it's all for Jenks and Sand Springs. Tulsa is the winner in the river plan.

If this doesn't pass, I would look for Jenks, The Creek Nation and the county to come up with the $25 million for this dam pretty fast using a TIFF on The River District, 2025 overages and casino money pretty quick. Remember, those overages were promised, that's what's being beaten into people, the county better deliver.

The river plan is about Tulsa, more details need to be provided and assurances need to be made about issues like commercial development near downtown, but, it's about improving the city of Tulsa for the large most part.

[MichaelC]

That's one of those things, from Tulsa's perspective the River Plan appears to prep land that's already in a good location.  With water.  Kind of allows Tulsa to catch up a bit.  Don't know all the details yet, but that's my first impression.

Where, the dams in Jenks and Sand Springs, there may not have been much development without the potential for dams.  Especially, Jenks, they were already prepped for this.  It was nearly a blank slate.

Just plopping the dams down in Jenks and SS, It will benefit Tulsa to a degree, at the Jenks dam it will.  But, not near as much as if we prepare that land in Tulsa for development.  I don't see where going out of the way to stretch Vision 2025 helps, near as much as having the new plan.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by swake

The river plan is about Tulsa, more details need to be provided and assurances need to be made about issues like commercial development near downtown, but, it's about improving the city of Tulsa for the large most part.

Therein lies the problem in getting this passed county-wide.  Collinsville, Owasso, and Broken Arrow don't see a benefit because they don't buy into the "Tulsa is the hub..." argument.

Aside from attempting and accomplishing a bunch of Tulsa County projects, Vision 2025 was a stroke of marketing genious.

Every community got something, and just about every age and ethnic group got some benefit out of it.  

Unfortunately for the backers of this plan, the appeal is not universal.  There aren't any new medical clinics for black Tulsans, no libraries or community centers for the suburban cities/towns, no new education facilities, no projects that benefit senior citizens.

The bulk of the vote in Tulsa County is obviously the city of Tulsa.  There are many Tulsans against this proposal.  

There's a lot more polishing to do on this pig.  Someone pass the lipstick.

[Vision 2025]

Waterboy, I pulled out what I see as questions that I can address.

"You guys are so far removed from average citizens whom you expect to devote as much study and committment as you have and if not, just shut up and vote for it"

Wrong, (unless you are not talking about me) I want people to be educated about what we are doing and or proposing. I was here on this forum before this and will be here after.  I volunteered to attend County Commissioner's meetings in a hope to answer questions.  As for a broad "you guys" the river corridor plan took comments and suggestions from all walks and areas of Tulsa County.

"WE ARE DEVELOPING A RIVER WITH NO PROSPECTS OF BOAT USAGE ON IT"

I don't know where you get this idea; each of the lakes has identified marina locations in the Master Plan.  

I understand from other postings (I think that was you) that going lake via locks is a must for you.  Unfortunately, that simply will not work (I wish and so do many others including Mr. Kaiser who' first request to his consultants was water-water everywhere) a few of those very serious constraints include the stormwater discharges (both sewers and creeks, tough to back water up them without causing big problems in them) wastewater and industrial discharge locations (in some locales we have a bunch of them and the majority of those need to discharge into free flowing waters not a lake), slope in the river, and most critically the habitat lost if you inundate it all which could not be mitigated so as to gain a 404 permit.  What was accomplished in OKC (and the lock through part I like, its fun) worked there because they do not have any federally protected endangered species on the Oklahoma River and (in this case it is unfortunate) but we do.  If you don't believe me call USF&W and see what they say.  Here, the best we can do and I think it is a good approach given the constraints is to be able to go downstream from Zink to the Jenks Lake via the meandering channel either by stream power or other.  Once thing that comes to mind is upstream white water trips via jet boat like in Oregon and such places do (I've done it and its way better than an air boat and not nearly as loud) these are activities that will have to be addressed from the operational side which is well down the road but if they are cool I believe Tulsa will want it.

"1. Citizen oversight"

Ok, you want regular folk and professionals; many argue that only elected officials should be in charge because they are accountable to the voters on a regular basis.  Sorry, but I don't believe there is a real answer to this one, comes under that political heading.

"2. Public input via internet. Like what is set up in Fort Worth's Trinity project. If we're going to write a blank check to the county, the only way we can stop idiocy like the $30million pedestrian bridges or the lack of connectivity on the river, is to make sure they get feedback. Different ideas need to be seen, heard and digested in real time. Remember, the county can spend this money any way they please as long as its to develop the corridor and roughly fits the plan. We should be able to plug in new ideas (like they plug in different dam configurations) when they are offered. It should be a process we're buying, not a package."

Implementation input via the net is an excellent idea and so noted.  These are important projects and I believe the public portions of it will see public review and comment made.

The pedestrian bridges are part of the deal brought forward and are fixed pieces unless they prove unfeasible (permitting) and I don't see that happening, you don't like them others do...again sorry no answer on that available

The dam designs are not done yet, the reason there are alternates (like cascade structures) mentioned in the master plan now is from my strong insistence in the final report phase of the Corridor Master Plan review... you got the choir here, I hate Ogee sections.  

"3. I am real uncomfortable with three county commissioners running this whole show. Not sure that one can be changed but I can hold my nose for long periods if 1,2 and 4 are in place."

The County does not control it.  There is a 9 member authority to be created by the County of which the County Commissioners and the City of Tulsa are equal at 3 and three other appointments including a non-river city Mayor.

4. Some serious attention to issues of policing, rescue, maintenance, infrastructure, river debris cleanup and zoning. Not just condescending pap saying we got that stuff covered. We don't. Show us budgets that recognize the understanding that if the plan is successful in attracting the masses, that we are prepared for the impact.

"Policing"

Already improved by Mr. Kaiser at RPA, so it is a priority.  Right now, I can not say now exactly how this will be improved but I have confidence that is will be greatly improved.  

"Rescue"

Presently covered on the river by the Tulsa Fire Department, I would anticipate that would stay there or perhaps be picked up by Jenks and Sand Springs or be addressed by mutual aid agreements like presently exist at Tulsa Riverside Airport where the Jenks fire Department is the first responder to accidents (recently happened) there as a trade for Tulsa being the first responder to river incidents at Jenks (already happened) and other mutual aid issues which are efficient ways to handle it.  As for equipment, this is the least of the expense.

Interesting point, with the discussions for the proposed whitewater facilities and their potential economic impact was white water rescue training, think about with very predictable flow and engineered facilities to create various conditions in the water, we could easily end up as a training locale those folks who might come here if some enterprising sole put together a program do stay in hotels and eat while they are here... kind of like the specialized law enforcement shooting school concept not a huge market but a market.

"Maintenance"

This is a huge issue one which was brought up before the program was rolled out.  I am confident it will be properly addressed.  I and many others have already pitched several funding methods such as revenue from commercial land sales and leases and I have been told directly by some of the benefactors that their donations include maintenance funds.  

"Debris removal"

The stream improvements between Zink and Jenks include debris removal, that is something that has to be accomplished or the beautification component of that item simply does not work and is fully a part of that project scope.

At the lakes it needs to be included, like the old bridge piers at Jenks upstream of the "white bridge" they need to be removed down to the stream bed (like they once were, talk about sand scour)

"I want river development"

Me too!  Will there be more on these questions addressed before October 9, I believe so.  Can everything be addressed?  In reality no, not unless we spend millions that we don't have and expend years more on study before we get going.  Are we technically far enough along to be ready to go?  Yes, which is why I believe the proposal was brought forward now.