Questions regarding the River Development

[akupetsky]

I'm in favor of the River Development Plan and will probably vote for the tax because I like the plan and can afford the tax; however, I know that there are many who are dubious and may not vote for the plan because they don't think the County is using tax money wisely. In this regard, while I don't want to tread old ground (see Recycle Michael's Development post and 9 pages of response), I'm not sure that I've seen answers to the following questions, the answers to which may (or may not) address some of the doubt:

(1) If the River Development Plan passes, how will the County allocate funds for land acquisition?  Will they be block grants to the Cities, or something else?  However the money is allocated, what mechanisms will be in place to ensure transparency and accountability for spending the funds?  Will accounts be posted on the Internet?
(2) If the River Tax passes, will any of the Vision 2025 money be used to pay for any of the River Development Plan?  If so, under what circumstances, and how will it affect the collection of the new tax?  Again, what information will be publicly posted so that citizens know this is going on and (more broadly) to give citizens the assurance that money they approve to be collected as taxes is being used wisely and in the best interests of the County (or City, as the case may be)?

Anyone else have outstanding questions?

[pmcalk]

I have a couple of questions:

$52 million is slated for land acquisition, land which will subsequently be sold.  When it is sold, who will get the resulting money?  Will it be funneled back into the newly formed board?  The city?  The RPA?  Will it shorten the length of the tax?

Who will choose among the RFPs?  I don't like to sound negative, but what happens if none of the RFPs are satisfactory to the city?

What specifically will be done with respect to Zink lake, and how is that different from other efforts for which we have already approved taxes (as I recall, both Vision 2025 and 4-to-fix had money for Zink lake)?

[Townsend]

Online accountability would be fantastic.  I'd think that'd at least put alot of our minds at ease.

Is there too much bureaucracy
for this to happen?

[Vision 2025]

#1.  I believe the intent on the land purchase is pretty straight forward.  A public authority will be created to implement the projects.  As for the land purchases, I would anticipate that the local municipality asking for development lands to be assembled would come to the authority with a proposed purchase for consideration by the Authority that would include identification of the land, potential purchase price, and likely duration that the lands would need to be held before a developing.  If approved, the purchase would follow the applicable law for the public purchase of land which is a step by step process.

The site most often discussed is for properties on the West Bank in Tulsa which are primarily for the purchase of the Concrete Plant (and not the Westport Apartments) so that these lands could be assembled with other already public land in the area (public works and the existing west bank festival area) and be advertised for redevelopment by an RFP (request for proposals) by the Authority with a review process where the best for the area would win.  Parts of such an RFP typically include the amount of and purchase date of the property or lease payback to the public and an evaluation of which developer is proposing the most quality bang for the community's buck.

#2.  If the River proposal passes, all of the Vision 2025 monies programmed for the River will be utilized.  These funds are included in the overall estimates for the projects.

Despite what some say, Tulsa County goes farther than any other governmental agency that I know of in providing transparency on sales tax projects.  Vision 2025 has an independent Sales Tax Overview Committee who is provided timely detailed reports identifying all expenditures and the revenue received.  They convene regularly in public meetings to discuss, ask questions, visit projects, and receive special presentations such as for bond funding reports and they in turn deliver timely reports and requests for additional information to the County Commissioners each and every month.  At this recent months Vision STOC meeting, members asked if the County would have a River STOC and encouraged the officials to create one.  The most important thing to note about the STOC is that the individuals who volunteer their time take the assignment very seriously and are quite diligent.

Projects for Vision are reported on the web and the detailed monthly reports are provided to all project sponsors and are on file at the Central Library and each year a newsletter style report is delivered by direct mail and multiple distribution points to the voters of Tulsa County.  In addition, information concerning Vision 2025 and 4 to Fix the County is readily available at a large Tulsa State Fair booth staffed by individuals (largely volunteers) who are knowledgeable of the projects to take questions.

The example is set and I believe will be expanded upon with even more Web reporting of the River proposal projects and perhaps periodic public project briefings, something we have recently identified and are considering for Vision 2025.

Then there is the media who is constant in their looking at Vision 2025 and I can only believe they will be at least equally diligent in looking to the River.

[Vision 2025]

$52 million is slated for land acquisition, land which will subsequently be sold.  When it is sold, who will get the resulting money?  Will it be funneled back into the newly formed board?  The city?  The RPA?  Will it shorten the length of the tax?

Who will choose among the RFPs?  I don't like to sound negative, but what happens if none of the RFPs are satisfactory to the city?

What specifically will be done with respect to Zink lake, and how is that different from other efforts for which we have already approved taxes (as I recall, both Vision 2025 and 4-to-fix had money for Zink lake)?

[/quote]Funds raised from the sale of land acquired by the trust would have to be returned to the trust for use.  I assume the same would be true for funds from land owned by a City that was included in a development RFQ in that the city would benefit.  The reuse of funds is a good tool for many possibilities including additional development, possibly reducing the tax duration and or for future operation and maintenance needs that the trust would address but since these dollars are not know since the land has not been acquired and the RFQ development process has not yet happened I do not believe that they are specifically counted upon in the short term to make the base project budgets viable.

The depth of Zink Lake will be increased approximately 2 feet by the installation of what is called "flash boards" which are a short gate placed all across the dam and when combined with funds from Vision and 4 to fix2 to address the silt problem by installing additional gates and modifying the overflow portions of the structure so that a dangerous undertow is NOT created this will significantly improve the lake making it both safer and more useable for water sports such as the downstream white water venue which conceptually will pass through a portion of the dam.  

[RecycleMichael]

Thanks vision man...it is great to have you as part of this forum.

I do like the new improvements planned for Zink Lake.

Deeper water will be better for the fish and the improved gates will actually add oxygen to the water and improve all the aquatic life in the river.

[waterboy]

I also like the Zink dam improvements, specifically the one that would allow pass through for small craft and the elimination of undertow.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Vision 2025

The example is set and I believe will be expanded upon with even more Web reporting of the River proposal projects and perhaps periodic public project briefings, something we have recently identified and are considering for Vision 2025.

Kirby, this would go a long way in bringing a lot more people into the fold and gaining public trust.  If they don't see a lot of communication, to them it's the government or a trust not being fully transparent.  I hate to use something which has rapidly become cliche' in describing gov't these days, but that is the image it brings.

Personally, I'm surprised that with David Arnett as your pubic info guy that the V-2025 web site isn't updated more frequently and seems to be lacking in details.

Not busting your chops, just making some suggestions which might make Tulsans feel a little better about where tax money is going.

[MichaelBates]

quote:Originally posted by Vision 2025

Despite what some say, Tulsa County goes farther than any other governmental agency that I know of in providing transparency on sales tax projects.  Vision 2025 has an independent Sales Tax Overview Committee who is provided timely detailed reports identifying all expenditures and the revenue received....  

Projects for Vision are reported on the web and the detailed monthly reports are provided to all project sponsors and are on file at the Central Library and each year a newsletter style report is delivered by direct mail and multiple distribution points to the voters of Tulsa County.  

The monthly Vision 2025 reports are quite thorough and fairly straightforward. Do you think they could be posted on the vision2025.info site?

Anyone looking for them at Central Library should be aware that there are now five binders containing the reports, but (as of a couple of weeks ago) only two are on the local government shelf. The most recent three are in the reference workroom, and you have to ask at the 4th Floor reference desk to see them.

One thing the reports don't contain is the financial plan to which John Piercey, financial contractor on Tulsa County bond issues, has referred in recent public statements.

This plan would include sales tax revenue projections and expected expenditures -- debt service, pay-as-you-go projects (e.g. Oklahoma Aquarium), projects that have yet to be funded (e.g. American Indian Cultural Center), and anticipated administrative fees (e.g., payments to PMg and attorneys).

In other words -- how much money you have on hand, what you expect to come in, and what you're already committed to spend it on, as well as when you expect the money to come in and when you expect to spend it.

Piercey's revenue projections from August 16, 2006, were included in a spreadsheet in the end-of-June Vision 2025 report that PMg prepared. Piercey's projections plus actual receipts through June 2006 come to a grand total of $750,274,016.33. What the Vision 2025 monthly report lacked, something Piercey's plan apparently has, are the details of bond repayment schedules and other anticipated expenses.

I asked Kirby Crowe by phone if he had a copy of this plan. I'm not sure if I made my meaning clear, but I came away from the conversation with the impression that he did not have a copy of Piercey's financial plan.

I called Jim Smith, the County's fiscal officer, and asked if he had a copy of the financial plan. I thought he might, since his name is on the monthly memo in the Vision 2025 report listing tax receipts, the monthly wire transfer from the sales tax fund to the trustee, and the interest earnings on the sales tax trust account.

Smith said he didn't have the financial plan, but suggested I call John Piercey. Mr. Smith could tell me what the payment to the trustee would be for the next six months, at which point it would be recalculated, but couldn't tell me anything more about future expenses.

I called Capital West, and they gave me John Piercey's number. I called John, and he was very gracious. He said he'd e-mail it to me that evening or the following morning. He said something about recalculating based on more recent tax receipts. I'd really be happy seeing the most recent version, whatever he's been using as the basis for his statements about Vision 2025 surpluses.

That was a week ago Monday, the 20th. I gave him a reminder call on the 28th -- got his voicemail and left a message. Haven't heard back yet. I'm sure he's quite busy.

Can anyone suggest somewhere else I could find this information?

[Double A]

Just keep digging, you'll find where the skeletons are buried.

[Townsend]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

Just keep digging, you'll find where the skeletons are buried.

Man, that's just not helpful.

[ttown_jeff]

I was watching the excellent investigative report on the Bells debacle again from KOTV.

At the end Terry Hood reported that Tulsa County said that the fact that Bells wasn't already back in business is proof that their business plan wasn't viable.

Ok then. If you use that rationale it follows that the same argument be can be made about the River Development.

Is the fact that there has yet been no development on the river proof that River Development is not viable?  My contention is that if it was truly viable, private people would have snapped it up years ago. Please Prove me wrong.

Are people wanting to develop the river for some romantic reason that has no beneficial use or limited attraction?

What about the politicians? What are their reasons?  Are they motivated by their constituency, or is it all about the kickbacks, and siphoning more money from my wallet for the benefit of people who don't need any more money?

http://boundrationality.blogspot.com/2007/08/this-is-bad-year-for-famous-amusment.html#links

[Rico]

It's all about.....this$

and a little bit of that$

and a whole.... whole.... lotta..these$$$


[}:)]

[Double A]

Watch for the big Citizens for Tulsa vote yes propaganda media blitzkrieg to invade airwaves this weekend. Local radio stations are already running commercials for the Chamber Youth Reich the River concert on the 13th. TYPros uber alles!                                            

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

It's all about.....this$

and a little bit of that$

and a whole.... whole.... lotta..these$$$


[}:)]

You love to make nonspecific allegations like this.

let's get down to it, who locally is going to take in illegal profits from this vote? Be specific with your allegations.