River vote...county sets rules

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

So are you saying that Michael Bates is lying?

I personally don't know that he has outright lied. But, I do know he is at least not sharing the whole truth as he knows it.

He is trying to win political points with a half-truth. You can call it what you want.

[MichaelC]

As bad as my memory is, I can chalk this up to a Bates memory loss or oversight.  However, it is truly hard to believe that someone that is supposedly so up to speed on Tulsa, in ways I've never been and will never likely be, would not know this.

I've always made the assumption that Bates is a damn smart guy, and I've had an appreciation for that.  But, I can not see a need for this, it's nothing but detrimental to fact and to Tulsa.

[Conan71]

Michael C- thanks for taking the time to post this.

I honestly don't recall what all I read about V-2025 prior to the vote on it.  A lot has transpired in my life in four years.

What were the anticipated federal funds, and what happened that they are no longer available?  Was this a wild speculation on the part of V-2025 planners or a bait and switch by the Fed gov't?

[MichaelBates]

I intend to post a full reply, but I have a job and things to get done at the moment. I do want to point out that the Vision 2025 project descriptions that MichaelC links to, which mentions matching funds, does not hint that the federal money will not be available. (Emphasis added.)

quote:

Matching funds to construct two additional dams which will provide a string of lakes in the Arkansas River corridor creating both additional opportunities for water related uses and providing a stimulus for compatible development. This will generate over $10 million in available federal funds and serve as a catalyst for private investment.

Sounds like they meant for the public to understand that the money was sitting there waiting for us if only we would approve the tax.

While we all knew that Federal money was expected, proponents assured voters that the money was going to be there.

I can provide more quotes and backup for what I've said, and I will do so and post it later tonight, but I don't have time to pull it all together right now. The column that ran in the July 26-August 1 UTW has references to quotes from the county commissioners that I found in specific editions of the daily paper.

[MichaelC]

No sweat Conan.  There used to be a chart that explained what amount of money they were expecting from the Fed, if I recall correctly.  

I don't know what's happened since then, on another thread people mentioned Inhoff trying to add on some funds for the dams, don't know what happened.  Coburn was opposed to it, naturally.

From what I've gathered so far, it sounds like it's currently not the best environment in DC to be asking for matching funds.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

I intend to post a full reply, but I have a job and things to get done at the moment. I do want to point out that the Vision 2025 project descriptions that MichaelC links to, which mentions matching funds, does not hint that the federal money will not be available. (Emphasis added.)

quote:

Matching funds to construct two additional dams which will provide a string of lakes in the Arkansas River corridor creating both additional opportunities for water related uses and providing a stimulus for compatible development. This will generate over $10 million in available federal funds and serve as a catalyst for private investment.

Sounds like they meant for the public to understand that the money was sitting there waiting for us if only we would approve the tax.

While we all knew that Federal money was expected, proponents assured voters that the money was going to be there.

I can provide more quotes and backup for what I've said, and I will do so and post it later tonight, but I don't have time to pull it all together right now. The column that ran in the July 26-August 1 UTW has references to quotes from the county commissioners that I found in specific editions of the daily paper.

Mr Bates,

The people I have talked to said that Senator Jim Inhofe is the one that promised he would get the federal money for the river, and has failed to do so thus far. Not due in small part to changed funding priorities since Katrina and his loss of clout in the Senate.

He has $50 million for the river in a congressional bill right now, but it's a bill President Bush has promised to veto. So, it's not looking good, and to blame local officials for a the continued failures of our congressional delegation seems far from fair.  A congressional delegation that you personally worked to so hard to place in office. Not to mention the President, who is our current stumbling block.

[Conan71]

I have to admit, I wasn't following what was going on down at the city and county near as close four years ago.  I had a lot going on at that time.  The only things I was hearing about V-2025 was what was in the paper and what was on the radio or TV, and even then it was more like back-ground noise or a cursory scan of the newsprint.  

It was an issue I felt somewhat detached from, but figured no more than it was going to affect sales tax for such an ambitious slate of projects, I honestly didn't have a major issue, though I did question the common reasoning about ever filling an 18,000 seat arena.  That and the Boeing funding, and some funds for outlying community centers are really all I had an awareness of at the time.

I guess you could say the haste with which this river vote is being put out is what's bothering me.  What about that is going to become the next:  "No one ever said..."?

[TheArtist]

The dams we were promised were very different from the dams we are now considering.

If we want to force 2025 to build the dams as promised, I suppose we should also do them as zink lake type dams as was originally intended?

The new dams are different and cost more.

The matching funds never came through.

The 2025 funds originally intended for the dams are still going to the new more expensive dams designs.

Basically the "dam part" of the new tax is on top of the old one, paying the cost differences in the new dam designs and pedestrian walkways that are being built with them, and covering the matching funds that did not come through.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

While we all knew that Federal money was expected, proponents assured voters that the money was going to be there.

This is why I kind of jump on you occasionally.  First, you're claiming that it wasn't promised as "matching funds".  Now you're claiming that "we all knew" it was.

You're throwing out stuff, like a paid stock basher.  Claiming that everyone's "owned", when you yourself give exactly that appearance.  Crudely, you very much appear to enjoy flingin' poo on a wall and seeing if it sticks.

[Double A]

Yeah, the voters should have really read the fine print, too bad that wasn't on the ballot. They should really read the fine print on this tax, too bad it won't be on the ballot, either. I would really like to see a poll where they ask the question of voters if they thought they were voting to fund construction of two low water dams in V2025.

[Wrinkle]

Bates ain't the only one who believes low water dams were promised in V2025. It explicitly states so. NOT contingent on anything, including Federal Matching Funds (truth is, ours is the 'matching' part).

And, while it was understood ours was the 'match', no one ever said it wouldn't be possible if the Fed funding failed to come about. In fact, what they did say is that the measure had quite a bit of overage which would first be dedicated to achieving ALL of the projects before anything else was considered.

And, we now also know there's more than enough overage to build low water dams, even with the most conservative estimates by anyone. (at least $75 million is the lowest I've heard).

The rapid increase in cost of the LWD's is not due to 'new designs', rather the lumping of periphial stuff into it. But, even if one where to double the cost of Zink dam at todays' costs, it would come in way less than $60m.

So, how do you wish to spend the $15m minimum balance of V2025 funds?

[Rico]

^

Now......Now.. Wrinkle there are no extra monies...

Just like the Potato Chips.... an open bag is an empty bag...![}:)]

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

This is why I kind of jump on you occasionally.  First, you're claiming that it wasn't promised as "matching funds".  Now you're claiming that "we all knew" it was.

MichaelC, go back and read my column from July 25. I dealt with the issue of matching funds very clearly there.

This is long, but it has to be to make a complete response. Two issues have been raised: Whether voters were led to believe that Vision 2025 included low water dams, and whether voters were told that the dams were contingent on federal funding and might go away because federal matching funds was not forthcoming.

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

What funds?  Are you demanding that "funds" means exclusively "Vision 2025 funds" or are you just assuming?

Read the resolution for yourself and note the context. The only funds mentioned in the resolution are the funds to be raised by the 0.1750% tax that the resolution submits to a vote of the people.

I don't recall any county commissioner saying before the Vision 2025 election that they might have to raise taxes again to pay for any of the projects on the list. (Someone show me where I'm wrong.) On the contrary, when we in the opposition mentioned the possibility of large overages, Commissioner Bob Dick said that the overages were there to make sure that every project was completed.

quote:
Dick said the Vision 2025 package also was designed to ensure no project gets left behind due to a lack of funding.

"I think the worst thing you could do is promise you are going to build something and then not have enough money to build it," Dick said.

Vision proponents concede room for error is built into some project cost estimates.

"I don't know specifically what it is really going to cost to build a low-water dam," Dick said.

Ballot proposition No. 4 includes $5.6 million that would be used as matching funds to build two low-water dams on the Arkansas River.

The $5.6 million figure was based upon the best estimates the U.S. Corps of Engineers could give the Vision organizers, Dick said.

To swake's point about matching funds, KOTV ran a story in late July 2003 casting doubt about the availability of matching funds. Emory Bryan spoke to congressional offices, and he was told that all available federal Corps of Engineers money for Oklahoma would be going to the Tar Creek cleanup.

If Inhofe told someone that Corps money would be available, someone else in the Federal delegation (KOTV didn't identify sources) was telling a different story. The opposition called attention to this concern, but the proponents of Vision 2025 dismissed it and assured voters that the river projects would be built.

As recently as June 2005, Commissioners Dick and Miller said that first priority for surplus Vision 2025 funds would be completion of the river projects, compensating for any lack of federal matching funds.

In a Tulsa Real Estate Roundtable discussion back in February, transcribed by the Journal Record, commercial real estate broker Steve Walman, who had a hand in both the Riverwalk Crossing and Kings Landing developments, said he understood that passing Vision 2025 would mean low water dams.

quote:

I think the problem I have right now, and for a lot of Tulsans is, in Vision 2025 I voted for a river and I got an arena. I sat three years ago with a city hydrologist when we were doing Riverwalk and considering King's Landing and I said, 'Listen, with $27 million of private money going on this river, it's imperative to know when this low-water dam's going in that was the No. 1 priority of Vision 2025 and is so critical to the catalyst that's going to come.' And we were never sold the reality of the process. As simplistic as my mind works, I think a lot of people thought that 2025 was going to get a low-water dam....

If in 2025 you'd said this is a 10-year process and you don't have the money, it's going to require a lot of these things and there's federal mandates, I'd put a dollar down 2025 wouldn't have passed.

At the same roundtable, Gaylon Pinc, formerly of INCOG, now with PMg, reinforced the idea that overages were originally prioritized for completing the low-water dams and was disappointed that the overage was redirected.

quote:
And then, when the overage went to the arena, that was very disappointing, because early on the overage (referring to Vision 2025 tax revenue rising beyond projections) was really talked about going to the river. And that would have made up the gap.

Back to MichaelC's accusations:

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

You know dam[sic] well what was included in Vision 2025 and what was not.  Now, for lack of things to b**** about, you're creating a problem just like with the fictional charter problem.  You know people won't read, so you read it for them and they eat it up.  That's how this works right?

I've included a link to the ballot resolution nearly every time I've quoted from it, here, on my blog, and in my column. Have you read the ballot resolution for yourself? The language is very clear. The parts I quoted are on pages five and six, but read the whole thing just to make sure I'm not trying to deceive you.

If you're made of money, perhaps it's not a big deal to be taxed twice for the same projects. It's a big deal to me, especially when there appears to be a way to get what people want -- water in the river -- without raising the sales tax rate.

Money notwithstanding, I have a problem when public officials wave aside promises that they made in black and white.

Here's the official projects map, dated July 22, 2003 (during the Vision 2025 election campaign), widely distributed during the campaign, taken straight from the official Vision 2025 website. Note the first item on the list of Infrastructure/Attractions: "Arkansas River Low Water Dams (2)" Not studies or plans, but dams.

A version of that same map appears on the front page of the Opinion section of the Sunday, September 7, 2003, Tulsa World

Here's the text from a half-page ad on page A-6 of the Sunday, September 7, 2003, Tulsa World (emphasis added):

quote:
If you vote YES...
The county sales tax will be raised 1% which will fund an incentive to bring Boeing aircraft to town, capital improvements for American Airlines, buildings for OU-Tulsa, OSU-Tulsa, TCC, NSU-Broken Arrow, and Langston-Tulsa, instructional materials for all Tulsa County Public Schools, a Regional Convention/Events Center, improvements to Tulsa Area Parks, Broken Arrow Community Center, Collinsville City Hall, Owasso Community Center, Skiatook Community Center and Pool, Sperry Community Center, Mohawk Park, Tulsa Air and Space Museum, Osage Trail, Midland Valley/Downtown Trail Extension, Arkansas Low Water Dams, Zink Lake Beautification, Historic Route 66, Oklahoma Aquarium, Jazz Hall of Fame, Tulsa County Downtowns/Neighborhoods improvements, Haikey Creek flood prevention, 61st Street and 36th Street North widenings, water lines for Owasso Medical Complex, Sand Springs/Keystone Area redevelopment, American Indian Cultural Center, continued improvements to Expo Center, new building for Morton Health Care, and a Senior Rebate available to all Tulsa County seniors age 65 and older.

Again, voters were not being sold studies or plans, but dams.

The Arkansas River Corridor Plan was mentioned in the ballot resolution, not as a project to be funded by Vision 2025, but as a process to determine where the Vision 2025-funded dams would be built:

quote:
Construct two low water dams on the Arkansas River the locations of which will be determined in the Arkansas River Corridor Plan

The river plan was already funded, and the consulting firm for phase one was selected two days after the Vision 2025 election. From the Sunday, September 7, 2003, Tulsa World -- two days before the Vision 2025 election -- at the top left of the front page of the local section:

quote:

The estimated cost for the overall river study is $500,000, of which $400,000 will go to the consulting firm and $100,000 for INCOG and corps staffing costs, [INCOG Deputy Director Rich] Brierre said.

The first phase will cost $75,000 and the second phase will cost $325,000, he said. The corps has agreed to match up to $250,000 of the $500,000. Of the match, Lasker said, $75,000 is public funding that comes from the different entities along the river, including the city of Tulsa and Tulsa County.

Brierre said the first phase of the study was expected to begin in early fall and be completed by next summer, and the second phase to begin immediately after or overlap the end of the first phase.

Construction is projected to begin within a few years, he added.

I posted this earlier, but it bears repeating: Even the Vision 2025 project descriptions that MichaelC links to, which mention matching funds for the dams, does not hint that the federal money may not be available. (Emphasis added.)

quote:

Matching funds to construct two additional dams which will provide a string of lakes in the Arkansas River corridor creating both additional opportunities for water related uses and providing a stimulus for compatible development. This will generate over $10 million in available federal funds and serve as a catalyst for private investment.

For the County Commissioners to say that they expect matching funds (and they did say that) is different from saying there is a danger that matching funds will not be available and if that happens the dams will go away (and they never said that).

The ballot resolution, the advertising, and the public statements made before the election, (reinforced by statements made after the election) convince me that the County Commissioners sincerely intended to build two low water dams, at locations determined by the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan, if the taxpayers approved Vision 2025, and that they had a backup plan -- overages -- in case federal matching funds fell through. It is also apparent that they meant voters to have the same understanding.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle
So, how do you wish to spend the $15m minimum balance of V2025 funds?

I would buy fifteen million powerball tickets.

When we win, we would have 245 million dollars and wouldn't have to raise the sales tax to pay for river improvements.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Bates ain't the only one who believes low water dams were promised in V2025. It explicitly states so. NOT contingent on anything, including Federal Matching Funds (truth is, ours is the 'matching' part).

The more you guys keep saying that, the dumber you look.  Bates already cleared this up, sort of, though now it's really hard to count his "mistake" as a lapse of memory.

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

While we all knew that Federal money was expected

"We all knew", says Bates.

Look, several people may have had that impression, that this thing was an automatic slam-dunk deal.  I'm not faulting them, but a quick read would have put that impression to rest.  I've never had that impression.  It's like the Gilcrease Expressway, we keep throwing local funds into it, but it's always waiting for state and federal matching funds.  The funds are almost guaranteed for the GE, but it takes time.  More than likely we can still get the funds for the dams, under the right condition.  We can wait for the Fed to cough up the cash, or we can get it done quicker and better.

You can dig up the details like Bates, make a big stink out of it, throw in a few lies, and freak out a bit at a few meetings; I don't care.  Of all the V2025 projects, the dams and the Indian Museum were the two I've always felt least likely to succeed as is.  If you had the impression that federal funding on the dams was a "done deal", you're at least slightly delusional or perhaps completely unaware of how the Fed works.

The rest of what Bates has said, I'm sorry, I just don't care that much.  If you're going to come on here and purposefully put forth a lie, get called on it, then back up to a plethora of other garbage to defend your position, your position is worthless.