No Plan B?

[Conan71]

Well, for river development being dead and there being "no plan 'B'", Randi Miller and Fred Perry are making more noise than a busted chainsaw about their new plan B.

There is a "private" meeting taking place tomorrow on this at an undisclosed location.

Two things I guess they didn't learn:

A) Many are not interested in the county taking the lead on this.

B) Plan A had the feel of too many private meetings.

I hope they open up to public input in very short order, otherwise they will have learned nothing other than the original proposal was shot down 52.5% to 47.5%.

I told you guys a month ago this is nowhere near dead, especially if the county still thinks they can keep their vanity and hands in it.  Are you listening Swake, Waterboy, Artist, DScott, et. al.?

[Townsend]

What've you heard coming from them?

[carltonplace]

Here we go again.

This was in the paper today: Tulsa World

Excerpt:
The day after voters rejected a $282 million Arkansas River development plan, Randi Miller said no Plan B existed.

Now the County Commission chairwoman is checking one last time just to be sure.

"I've had a lot of citizens contact me, very disappointed with the river vote, and they've asked me to try to continue on with river development," Miller said Wednesday.

Miller has invited a group of local leaders to attend a private meeting Friday to discuss what can -- and should -- be done to advance a phased-in approach to river development.

The meeting comes exactly one month after county voters rejected a proposal Oct. 9 to raise the county sales tax four-tenths of one percent over seven years to pay for infrastructure projects and land acquisition along the river.

Proponents of the plan argued that creating a steady stream of water in the river would help stimulate economic development along its banks and leave a legacy of prosperity for residents throughout the region.

But 52.5 percent of voters rejected the measure and the promise of an additional $117 million in private funding.

Miller stressed that she is not trying to bring back to life what voters have killed.

"The citizens have spoken; they do not want this with a sales tax, so this will be a very minimal way to proceed with river development," she said

[RecycleMichael]

I think it is appropriate for the county to continue to talk and work on the topic of river improvements. I hope they learned from their mistakes on the sales tax vote and come up with a better financing plan next time.

I am disappointed to hear them go to the press and say there are going to be more private meetings, however. There is nothing you can do to raise suspicion...I take that back. I guess making people sign confidentiality statements like the Channels folks did was a little worse.

[cks511]

Now, I'm just guessing and you guys can shoot me down as usual BUT, I'm betting Lasalle, if hired, will weave it all together with a river running through it.  Just my uneducated, voted no, guess.

Plans?  They got em.

[Renaissance]

It's important to understand that, as of the U.S. House overriding Bush's veto, we've more than likely got $50 million in use-it-or-lose-it federal funding coming our way for waterway improvements.  We'd better be ready or the money will go back into federal coffers after a set time period (TBD).

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

It's important to understand that, as of the U.S. House overriding Bush's veto, we've more than likely got $50 million in use-it-or-lose-it federal funding coming our way for waterway improvements.  We'd better be ready or the money will go back into federal coffers after a set time period (TBD).

We are far from having the money yet. The spending has been approved, but no money has been appropriated for the project. It could be years or never still.

[cks511]

TONY!  Come in from fishin'....it's started again!

[MichaelC]

Told you so, it ain't over.

Still it'll be an interesting twist if the Federal funds start their movement toward Tulsa, and it becomes obvious that the dams will be built as originally planned for in the Vision 2025 project.

Who told you so?  Oh yeah, that was me.  []

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

It's important to understand that, as of the U.S. House overriding Bush's veto, we've more than likely got $50 million in use-it-or-lose-it federal funding coming our way for waterway improvements.  We'd better be ready or the money will go back into federal coffers after a set time period (TBD).

And thence comes the matching federal funds to go along with the V-2025 allocation for LWD's.  Unless that has already been allocated to other V-2025 projects or the arena over-runs.

Fred Perry started a cat-fight with Michael Bates in this week's UTW I picked up yesterday.  Pretty much territorial petty sniveling on Perry's part is what I gleaned from it.

Sounds like Simonson is leading the way on this from what I've read so far.  I feel somewhat better about him having a more integral role.

I can understand they need to have some organizational meetings.  But I hope the county commission's TN mole will report back to them that there are some actively interested citizens who want to have a word in this and a whole lot more who want to see more transparency.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

Told you so, it ain't over.

Still it'll be an interesting twist if the Federal funds start their movement toward Tulsa, and it becomes obvious that the dams will be built as originally planned for in the Vision 2025 project.

Who told you so?  Oh yeah, that was me.  []

Copycat...

[MichaelC]

lol

From my understanding of the original plan, the money expected from the Fed might not cover the dams.  Mainly because of increased material costs.  But, there was also hope for additional work at the 31st Street dam, I think.  Don't know.

It'll be interesting.  I'd be perfectly fine if Tulsa came up with something only for land acquisition.  And was able to put off the rest for a while.  We already have a dam, it can be spruced up later.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Well, for river development being dead and there being "no plan 'B'", Randi Miller and Fred Perry are making more noise than a busted chainsaw about their new plan B.

There is a "private" meeting taking place tomorrow on this at an undisclosed location.

Two things I guess they didn't learn:

A) Many are not interested in the county taking the lead on this.

B) Plan A had the feel of too many private meetings.

I hope they open up to public input in very short order, otherwise they will have learned nothing other than the original proposal was shot down 52.5% to 47.5%.

I told you guys a month ago this is nowhere near dead, especially if the county still thinks they can keep their vanity and hands in it.  Are you listening Swake, Waterboy, Artist, DScott, et. al.?

Sounds like there still is no plan B, but that they are working on the outlines for a plan B. Will be interesting to see what they come up with. I also hope they put something out there that is an idea people can comment on and allow to evolve if need be.  I hope it includes the federal funds, that is the only way we are going to get anything decent done. I still want it to include the Sand Springs dam to help with Tulsas part of the river. Dont really care much about the Jenks dam personally.  

But who gets to decide where and what specific projects along the Arkansas in Tulsa County get those federal funds? Everyone will be wanting a piece of the action including BA and Bixby I suppose.

[RecycleMichael]

Here is the Urban Tulsa story referered to by the earlier poster...

http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A18382

Back to the Arkansas
County Commissioner says City Council tries to pre-empt a new river development plan

BY FRED PERRY)

...In a recent edition of the Urban Tulsa Weekly, after the Tulsa City Council passed a resolution supporting river development, (OpEd writer) Michael Bates stated that the County Commission and Tulsa Mayor should follow the lead of the City Council as it relates to working to put a similar high quality development in Tulsa. This is amusing when one knows the facts.

The fact is that this County Commissioner (the writer) and County Commissioner Randi Miller have been meeting with Rick Hudson, Pat Cox and other HCW executives and investors (hereafter referred to as the Branson Landing people) for over a year. We have met numerous times with them since Skiatook developer Ron Howell called each of us in October of 2006 and invited us to visit Branson Landing. Both of us, on separate trips and at our own expense, took his advice and did so. Subsequently, in November of last year, we met with these same Branson Landing executives and Ron Howell over lunch in the Tulsa area. Commissioner Miller introduced the Branson Landing people to Mayor Taylor and City of Tulsa Economic Director Don Himelfarb. Other meetings followed including one in which I gathered 13 members of the Tulsa legislative delegation for a meeting with these gentlemen in order to educate the state representatives and state senators about Branson Landing type developments. It was done also to show that they too were interested in attracting such a development to Tulsa and to enlist the help of these local leaders.

Commissioner Miller and Deputy Commissioner Terry Simonson have also arranged meetings with the Tulsa Chamber, the Arkansas River Parks Authority and City Councilor Rick Westcott in whose district the west bank area of interest is located. During the past year, there have also been emails and conference calls involving everyone mentioned above. Mayor Taylor and Don Himelfarb have also conducted meetings and been in extensive telephone and email contact with the Branson Landing executives. The County Commissioners have, for the most part, deferred to the City of Tulsa since the land is located within the City limits of Tulsa. In all of these communications and meetings, Tax Investment Financing (TIFs), the Request for Proposal (RFP) process, and other such topics that Michael Bates suggested in his recent Urban Tulsa Weekly piece, have been discussed at length. So Michael is not introducing anything new when he writes about TIFs and RFPs and the west bank.

It is not necessarily the City Council's job, as part time elected officials, to do the ongoing continuing activity to attract such a development to Tulsa, so I don't fault them for not being more involved. Since the west bank is in his district, Councilman Westcott has worked on the project. But to say that the City Council is all of a sudden "leading the way" because they passed a resolution in support of such development is contrary to the facts.

It is also a fact that had then Mayor Jim Inhofe not pushed for and obtained a low water dam in the Tulsa area in the early 1980s, which was 70 percent financed with public resources, the Branson Landing people wouldn't even be considering Tulsa for a development in the hundreds of millions of dollars. One of the reasons the land is attractive to them, besides the great view of downtown, is that the Zink Dam provides a stretch of "water in the river" most of the time. This proves what other river towns, including Wichita and Oklahoma City, have also shown: That low water dams and pedestrian bridges attract investment and people.

Rest assured that your County Commissioners are continuing to work to get a "Branson Landing type development" to Tulsa and to help other developers. It is obvious from public statements by all three commissioners that we are also interested in doing what is possible to make other low water dams happen in the Tulsa area, and if possible, without further tax increases. We respect the recent 53/47 percent river plan/tax vote and the decision of the voters. By the way, why Councilman Eagleton continues to advocate a "use surplus Vision 2025 monies to finance low water dams plan" that several bond financing experts have repeatedly said is not feasible, and would even be detrimental, is puzzling.


I thought it was very interesting that a county commissioner would write a letter to an alternative newspaper correcting one of it's writers on a small detail.

The County clearly wants us to know that they consider the river development to be one of their programs and are not following the "city council's lead" on this.

The county commission and city council had a real falling out during the fairgrounds annexation meetings. It is a shame that two governmental bodies, both of whom want the best for the citizens, can't get along.

Maybe the 2008 elections can fix some of the rift.

[MichaelC]

The City can "take the rug out from under" the County.  The Council could help.  We'll see what happens.  But if the City were to actually get their projects done, the County wouldn't have much to offer as far as any other development.  Problem is, the City hasn't been interested enough in finding a way.  Until, perhaps, now.  Even then, the City has to get past home-grown conspiracy wackos.

This "let's pit the City versus the County" thing, is overplayed, luckily by only a few.