River vote...county sets rules

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

"What blank check, the County amended the resolution calling for the vote to better identify the projects and the proposal map is well detailed. (See it at www.incog.org)"

^
Suppose you could post a copy of the "amended resolution"........?

Originally posted by Conan71.
"A total of $9.6 million was allocated in proposition IV to the Arkansas river to wit:

Two low water dams- $5.6mm
Zink Lake shoreline beautification- $1.8mm
Upstream catch basin & silt removal- $2.1mm

If you know, how were the estimates on the LWD's so far off?"


^
The answer to this would go quite a ways to define the approximate "time limit" for the proposed tax.

The Kaiser River Tax is another BLANK CHECK to the County.

Despite the bandying about of various numbers such as $282 million etc., the ballot simply reads:

It's a County Tax

It's $0.004.

It's for 7 years.

There is no cap.

The Vision 2025 sales tax likewise has no cap.  That is why with ZERO escalation built into Dirty Bob Dick's "conservative" sales tax projections, the sales tax will OVERCOLLECT at the present growth rate at least $200 million.

That's nearly enough to fully fund most of the projects associated with the Our River Yes proposals.

However, they apparently want to use that money for something else......

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by swake

If the river tax fails, the city of Tulsa should annex the Sinclair refinery and write a TIFF on the increase in property tax value from the billion dollar expansion to fund the river plan.

The refinery certainly creates blight and therefore taking the added taxes from it to reduce the blight it creates should fit the rules on a TIFF, if there really are any rules anymore.

Pretty mean-spirited, but I can't say I disagree 100%.  I can't believe all Sinclair is donating to the project is $250K.  

On the penalty they paid out to the EPA for the WWT discharge violation, I believe the EPA got %$5mm, and RPA got $500K.  I think it should have been the other way around.

I agree with your fine reversal by all means.  The good news is that RPA is putting the funds to very good use.  Thursday's agenda has an action item for contract award for debris removal from the river between 11th and the Creek Turnpike!

I can see as part of this expansion Sinclair taking to becomming a much better corporate citizen to the community.

[YoungTulsan]

So many River vote threads, don't know which one to post in, and don't want to create yet another one...

Looks like now, at least the media and QT's spokesman, want us to believe that the QT park improvements are solely reliant on the passage of the river tax.  We'd heard from other posters who allegedly heard that QT plans to go through with this even if the vote fails.

The story tonight:

http://kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=136341

Ok, so if the vote fails, and QT still goes through with this gift, can we hold accountable everyone involved with spreading this false story?

[Conan71]

^^I think the media has underplayed the fact  that the Branson Landing people will develop with or without the tax plan and that there are other developers interested as well, with or without.

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

^^I think the media has underplayed the fact  that the Branson Landing people will develop with or without the tax plan and that there are other developers interested as well, with or without.

What fact, has this come directly from the developers?  

I ask, because what I have heard came from a representative who repeatedly stated that they need the City, or someone else, to assemble and clear and land necessary for this development.  

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

^^I think the media has underplayed the fact  that the Branson Landing people will develop with or without the tax plan and that there are other developers interested as well, with or without.

I remember them stating that they needed public funding to proceed, likely for the land acquisition, and that if this vote fails, the city will have to come up with other ways to pay for it (TIF, bond, etc)

[Conan71]

Tulsa World, as picked up from tmcnet:

"Huffman (Rick Huffman, CEO of HCW) said his decision to build in Tulsa is not completely predicated on voter approval of the sales-tax initiative, but insisted that some funding mechanism to prepare the land for development is essential.

"I don't see how it will be possible (without it) because the city's going to need to fund the land acquisition," he said.

"Our company believes it is highly important the tax pass."

IOW- if some sort of funding mechanism is provided (i.e. a tif)

I probably should have said "can" instead of "will" develop.  They are always welcome to change their mind.  

What I'm reading of Huffman's tepid to luke warm comments on the tax package is that they need some help to make it happen, but it is not an absolute for this tax package for them to move forward.  "Highly important" not "absolutely important".  That's what people need to see as fact, it would help, but as there are other ways to fund it, not necessary.  IMO, HCW won't go away unless the city tells them to naff off if the River Tax fails.  

Now, answer me this:  I'm under the assumption that HCW would like the concrete plant property and likely the old Rogers Litho.  Are they saying they are needing the city to acquire it for necessary infrastructure like water and sewer?  Otherwise I don't understand what would prevent them from buying the land from the concrete co. in a direct transaction.  I keep asking that question and either no one knows or I'm not asking the question correctly.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Tulsa World, as picked up from tmcnet:

"Huffman (Rick Huffman, CEO of HCW) said his decision to build in Tulsa is not completely predicated on voter approval of the sales-tax initiative, but insisted that some funding mechanism to prepare the land for development is essential.

"I don't see how it will be possible (without it) because the city's going to need to fund the land acquisition," he said.

Here's another fly in the ointment:  the Tulsa Landing people tell us that "the city's going to need to fund the land acquisition."  But the current proposed river project does not provide for that, at least that's not how they are selling it to us.  The land acquisition money in the river tax is to be used to acquire land that will be re-sold to developers, with the money then going back into the hand of the river authority.  If they need help with either land acquisition or infrastructure, they won't be getting it out of this tax plan... Look for a TIF at the very least in our future if we expect to ever see Tulsa Landing.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

^^I think the media has underplayed the fact  that the Branson Landing people will develop with or without the tax plan and that there are other developers interested as well, with or without.

I remember them stating that they needed public funding to proceed, likely for the land acquisition, and that if this vote fails, the city will have to come up with other ways to pay for it (TIF, bond, etc)

It seems you can't buy land for development with a TIFF, you need cash

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Tulsa World, as picked up from tmcnet:

"Huffman (Rick Huffman, CEO of HCW) said his decision to build in Tulsa is not completely predicated on voter approval of the sales-tax initiative, but insisted that some funding mechanism to prepare the land for development is essential.

"I don't see how it will be possible (without it) because the city's going to need to fund the land acquisition," he said.

"Our company believes it is highly important the tax pass."

IOW- if some sort of funding mechanism is provided (i.e. a tif)

I probably should have said "can" instead of "will" develop.  They are always welcome to change their mind.  

What I'm reading of Huffman's tepid to luke warm comments on the tax package is that they need some help to make it happen, but it is not an absolute for this tax package for them to move forward.  "Highly important" not "absolutely important".  That's what people need to see as fact, it would help, but as there are other ways to fund it, not necessary.  IMO, HCW won't go away unless the city tells them to naff off if the River Tax fails.  

Now, answer me this:  I'm under the assumption that HCW would like the concrete plant property and likely the old Rogers Litho.  Are they saying they are needing the city to acquire it for necessary infrastructure like water and sewer?  Otherwise I don't understand what would prevent them from buying the land from the concrete co. in a direct transaction.  I keep asking that question and either no one knows or I'm not asking the question correctly.

The Branson Landing people are going to want to be GIVEN the land, not buy, given. And then a TIFF on top of that for infrastructure. That's why there's no deal signed, the city is hoping a better deal comes along, but if one does not, it is doable, IF the river tax passes.

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Tulsa World, as picked up from tmcnet:

"Huffman (Rick Huffman, CEO of HCW) said his decision to build in Tulsa is not completely predicated on voter approval of the sales-tax initiative, but insisted that some funding mechanism to prepare the land for development is essential.

"I don't see how it will be possible (without it) because the city's going to need to fund the land acquisition," he said.

"Our company believes it is highly important the tax pass."

IOW- if some sort of funding mechanism is provided (i.e. a tif)

I probably should have said "can" instead of "will" develop.  They are always welcome to change their mind.  

What I'm reading of Huffman's tepid to luke warm comments on the tax package is that they need some help to make it happen, but it is not an absolute for this tax package for them to move forward.  "Highly important" not "absolutely important".  That's what people need to see as fact, it would help, but as there are other ways to fund it, not necessary.  IMO, HCW won't go away unless the city tells them to naff off if the River Tax fails.  

Now, answer me this:  I'm under the assumption that HCW would like the concrete plant property and likely the old Rogers Litho.  Are they saying they are needing the city to acquire it for necessary infrastructure like water and sewer?  Otherwise I don't understand what would prevent them from buying the land from the concrete co. in a direct transaction.  I keep asking that question and either no one knows or I'm not asking the question correctly.

The Branson Landing people are going to want to be GIVEN the land, not buy, given. And then a TIFF on top of that for infrastructure. That's why there's no deal signed, the city is hoping a better deal comes along, but if one does not, it is doable, IF the river tax passes.

If that is the case, then if the land acquisition portion of the river tax is implemented as it is being advertised, the river tax will do absolutely nothing for the Tulsa Landing and it will only be doable if we add a TIF AND another source of funding for acquiring the land and GIVING it to them.

[TheArtist]

Is the land being aquired in order to sell it or not?

[sgrizzle]

AA should like this one:

quote:
Labor groups endorse river development tax proposal


By Staff Reports
9/26/2007

The Northeastern Oklahoma Central Labor Council and the Oklahoma State Building and Trades Council announced their support for an Arkansas River development proposal in a joint statement issued Tuesday.

The proposal hinges on a 0.4 percent sales tax that Tulsa County voters will consider Oct. 9.

"After long discussions with our members on this issue, we understand that not building on the momentum of Vision 2025 would be unwise," the statement said.

"We, the working men and women of Oklahoma, can see that in supporting river development, we will be not only supporting jobs today but will be supporting the long term growth of Tulsa and all the surrounding communities."

John Gaines, president of the Northeastern Oklahoma Central Labor Council, said the decision came after a long and sometimes difficult meeting.

"It wasn't an easy decision," he said.

"We had both written and verbal communications on the subject. This was one of the longest meetings we've ever had."

In the end, Gaines said, "the vote was not unanimous, but it was close to it."

[Oil Capital]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Is the land being aquired in order to sell it or not?

They tell us it's being acquired in order to  sell it to developers, not to give it to developers.

[Conan71]

Sounds like another unknown detail.

So basically, Branson Landing wants $52 to $57mm (the figure seems to move around depending on which story you read) in corporate welfare.

If they are planning on a $400mm- plus development, I'd think a company with that kind of stroke wouldn't have a problem paying $50 or so mil for a prime piece of dirt to build that development.

And those of you who are planning to vote yes still don't understand why this package is not ready to go to the voters?