Excess Funds in the River Tax Vote?

[doofus]

According to Michael Bates of UTW, there is something like $52 million in discretionary funding in this tax vote. Could someone have design on some of that funding for the IVI bridge?

And, what about Mr. Bates' (and others) contention that we already approved the funding of two low-water dams already, in the Vision plan?  

..just curious

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by doofus

According to Michael Bates of UTW, there is something like $52 million in discretionary funding in this tax vote. Could someone have design on some of that funding for the IVI bridge?

And, what about Mr. Bates' (and others) contention that we already approved the funding of two low-water dams already, in the Vision plan?  

..just curious

Well my friend the IVI people do not need any money to build their "Bridge"... Will the overall "River Tax" project bolster their case for the need for them to build the "Bridge"..? definitely....if passed.

As for your question regarding the LWD and what is now their place in the mix..

"Heard that the Vote Yes folks are saying Inhoffe's Bill to supply matching funds is a done deal...
and we will be able to retire the "River Tax" early..."

My guess it would be 8-10 years that they are calling early.

[sgrizzle]

Inhoffe stated not long ago that Bush is making an example of "fiscal conservatism" by planning to veto any funding for water projects, the $50M for a low-water dams included. Katrina caused some issues but the matching federal funds which were a "done deal" 10 years ago will not happen for many years, if ever. The text of the ballot said that Vision2025 was going to pay for low water dams, it was cloogy wording but what they meant was "pay towards" and the full text of the Vision2025 proposals expanded upon the definition.

MB has been using the brevity of the bill to say we should be able able to build the dams with money that barely pays for the engineering and design.

There is no "$52M in discretionary funding." Likely he is talking about the money that is going to be spent on land acquisition.

It's amazing how detailed they want the plan in advance when at the same time they would complain if public money was spent making the plan.

[Conan71]

There is $25mm in contingency funds in this plan.  At least this time around they are trying to clarify federal funds and what that would mean to the project (early retirement of the tax).

The $52mm for land acquisition becomes a veritable slush fund after land is sold off.  That money doesn't get sent back to the taxpayers and there is no requirement for those funds to then be spent on any other part of river development.  SFAIK, that could be put to any other purpose the county sees fit.

I think a wise plan, showing some sort of thrift on the part of the authority, would have been to present it as a $223mm tax over 5.5 years, and fund the LWD's with the property acquisition funds after that land is sold.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

There is $25mm in contingency funds in this plan.  At least this time around they are trying to clarify federal funds and what that would mean to the project (early retirement of the tax).

The $52mm for land acquisition becomes a veritable slush fund after land is sold off.  That money doesn't get sent back to the taxpayers and there is no requirement for those funds to then be spent on any other part of river development.  SFAIK, that could be put to any other purpose the county sees fit.

I think a wise plan, showing some sort of thrift on the part of the authority, would have been to present it as a $223mm tax over 5.5 years, and fund the LWD's with the property acquisition funds after that land is sold.

You watch, they are going to buy that land for $50 million, and resell it for less than $5 million, with a $100 million TIFF to go with it.

[YoungTulsan]

What worries me about government spending such as this is:  If we have $65 million budgeted for low water dams and Zink modification, and $25 million budgeted for "contingency" - Wouldn't this take any sort of negotiating leverage when it comes to the price, away from the government when it comes to getting a good price from contractors?  Say a company could do all 3 dams for $50 million.  We have $90 million budgeted.  Why would they shoot for anything lower?

I'm going to bet that the 3 dams end up "costing" (ie. we get charged this much for) MORE than $90 million.

I hope not but that is my pessimistic look at tax dollars being spent on construction.

Say you need your hair cut.  Do you go to a hair-stylist, and tell them up front "I have $350 budgeted for bang stabilization and hair-line improvements."  THEN ask how much he wants to charge?

[MichaelBates]

Here's the precise language from the ballot resolution, the signed and notarized legal commitment from the County Commissioners as to how this money will be spent:

quote:
Arkansas River corridor land acquisition, infrastructure, bridge improvements and site development, and Arkansas river studies for Tulsa, Broken Arrow, Jenks, Sand Springs and Bixby.

$57,400,000

It could be used for west bank land acquisition, but it could also be used for site prep for a new Drillers Stadium in Jenks or a bridge at Yale. There's nothing in the ballot resolution that promises any of this money will be spent in Tulsa or specifically for the west bank. The decisions will be made by the nine-member authority.

The figure $52 million never occurs in the ballot resolution.

[doofus]

Whoops, I should have looked it up; that's what I was referring to, the 57+ million rather than 52. Thanks for the clarification.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelBates

Here's the precise language from the ballot resolution, the signed and notarized legal commitment from the County Commissioners as to how this money will be spent:

quote:
Arkansas River corridor land acquisition, infrastructure, bridge improvements and site development, and Arkansas river studies for Tulsa, Broken Arrow, Jenks, Sand Springs and Bixby.

$57,400,000

It could be used for west bank land acquisition, but it could also be used for site prep for a new Drillers Stadium in Jenks or a bridge at Yale. There's nothing in the ballot resolution that promises any of this money will be spent in Tulsa or specifically for the west bank. The decisions will be made by the nine-member authority.

The figure $52 million never occurs in the ballot resolution.

Hey Michael, you wouldn't be suggesting that in four or five years they will be saying "we never said we could buy that land for $52mm!" are you?

C'mon now, it's not like they haven't been obtuse before on other river improvements. []

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

There is $25mm in contingency funds in this plan.  At least this time around they are trying to clarify federal funds and what that would mean to the project (early retirement of the tax).

The $52mm for land acquisition becomes a veritable slush fund after land is sold off.  That money doesn't get sent back to the taxpayers and there is no requirement for those funds to then be spent on any other part of river development.  SFAIK, that could be put to any other purpose the county sees fit.

I think a wise plan, showing some sort of thrift on the part of the authority, would have been to present it as a $223mm tax over 5.5 years, and fund the LWD's with the property acquisition funds after that land is sold.

You watch, they are going to buy that land for $50 million, and resell it for less than $5 million, with a $100 million TIFF to go with it.

Well that would go down as a bone-headed real estate deal.  In other words, a developer would get a sweetheart of a deal worth about $150mm...

And you are voting for this, WHY???

Oh yeah, I forget it's for the kids so they won't move away after they get out of college.

Gasp...ghack...HURL!!!!

There, I feel better now.