4 tenths part 3? What would it have?

[TheArtist]

Lets say this river tax does not pass and imagine that there may be another push down the line to do something with the river or a general Tulsa County improvements tax. What advice would you give and what would you want included this time?

 To keep this simple by not try to fix the roads with this plan because that is going to open a whole other can of worms and raise any tax price tag.

Its my opinion that only a smaller tax in the 200-300 million dollar range is passable with the street issue in front of us still to be taken care of. So a 2025 part 2, in the 600 million to 800 million plus range, is not at all likely.  (OKC is currently getting ready to vote on a MAPS 3 at over 700 million)  

So if you could create a plan that would use around 200 to 300 million over 7 years, what would it contain?

River development, how much and what and where?      Parks and pools?      Expanding our new Colleges?        The 6th street Pearl District?       Downtown, west side, north side improvements? and what kind?

Should it be a county tax or a city tax? (if it were a city tax it may take a bit longer than 7 years or you may choose to make the tax smaller)


Lets debate a plan and try to see if we can come to something that we could all agree on. Or at least 90% of us lol.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Lets say this river tax does not pass and imagine that there may be another push down the line to do something with the river or a general Tulsa County improvements tax. What advice would you give and what would you want included this time?

 To keep this simple by not try to fix the roads with this plan because that is going to open a whole other can of worms and raise any tax price tag.

Its my opinion that only a smaller tax in the 200-300 million dollar range is passable with the street issue in front of us still to be taken care of. So a 2025 part 2, in the 600 million to 800 million plus range, is not at all likely.  (OKC is currently getting ready to vote on a MAPS 3 at over 700 million)  

So if you could create a plan that would use around 200 to 300 million over 7 years, what would it contain?

River development, how much and what and where?      Parks and pools?      Expanding our new Colleges?        The 6th street Pearl District?       Downtown, west side, north side improvements? and what kind?

Should it be a county tax or a city tax? (if it were a city tax it may take a bit longer than 7 years or you may choose to make the tax smaller)


Lets debate a plan and try to see if we can come to something that we could all agree on. Or at least 90% of us lol.

come back with the Tulsa portion of the Arkansas Master River Plan word for word and I'll vote Yes on a Tulsa CITY vote, not a Tulsa COUNTY vote.

[sgrizzle]

$50M for road improvements, although I believe a gas or diesel tax increase is more important for road funding.

The other $250M
1. 41st street Vehicular  & adjacent pedestrian bridge
2. Land purchases on the west bank from 11th to 21st and around 41st bridge landing.
3. Additional pedestrian bridge (location TBD).
4. New central library either at South denver location or where permits is located now.
5. Regional library for BA.
6. Outdoor performance space for large events (relatively cheap)
7. New 71st & 169 interchange, construction of a 66th Street to divert some traffic.
8. Replacement/reconstruction of boulder bridge.
9. Funding towards commuter rail and increasing bus coverage.
10. Jenks and Sand Springs Low water damns
11. Partial funding for south-tulsa river bridge.
12. Route 66 projects in west Tulsa.

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Lets say this river tax does not pass and imagine that there may be another push down the line to do something with the river or a general Tulsa County improvements tax. What advice would you give and what would you want included this time?

 To keep this simple by not try to fix the roads with this plan because that is going to open a whole other can of worms and raise any tax price tag.

Its my opinion that only a smaller tax in the 200-300 million dollar range is passable with the street issue in front of us still to be taken care of. So a 2025 part 2, in the 600 million to 800 million plus range, is not at all likely.  (OKC is currently getting ready to vote on a MAPS 3 at over 700 million)  

So if you could create a plan that would use around 200 to 300 million over 7 years, what would it contain?

River development, how much and what and where?      Parks and pools?      Expanding our new Colleges?        The 6th street Pearl District?       Downtown, west side, north side improvements? and what kind?

Should it be a county tax or a city tax? (if it were a city tax it may take a bit longer than 7 years or you may choose to make the tax smaller)


Lets debate a plan and try to see if we can come to something that we could all agree on. Or at least 90% of us lol.

come back with the Tulsa portion of the Arkansas Master River Plan word for word and I'll vote Yes on a Tulsa CITY vote, not a Tulsa COUNTY vote.

I second this........... Keep the County out of it.

[Wrinkle]

I think I'd head to court with the County on the dam construction promised in Vision2025. Once settled, I'd plan anything which takes the County out of it.

But, I wouldn't expect a 0.4%/7-year budget.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Lets say this river tax does not pass and imagine that there may be another push down the line to do something with the river or a general Tulsa County improvements tax. What advice would you give and what would you want included this time?

 To keep this simple by not try to fix the roads with this plan because that is going to open a whole other can of worms and raise any tax price tag.

Its my opinion that only a smaller tax in the 200-300 million dollar range is passable with the street issue in front of us still to be taken care of. So a 2025 part 2, in the 600 million to 800 million plus range, is not at all likely.  (OKC is currently getting ready to vote on a MAPS 3 at over 700 million)  

So if you could create a plan that would use around 200 to 300 million over 7 years, what would it contain?

River development, how much and what and where?      Parks and pools?      Expanding our new Colleges?        The 6th street Pearl District?       Downtown, west side, north side improvements? and what kind?

Should it be a county tax or a city tax? (if it were a city tax it may take a bit longer than 7 years or you may choose to make the tax smaller)


Lets debate a plan and try to see if we can come to something that we could all agree on. Or at least 90% of us lol.

come back with the Tulsa portion of the Arkansas Master River Plan word for word and I'll vote Yes on a Tulsa CITY vote, not a Tulsa COUNTY vote.

So you dont think the new idea of a larger dam in Sand Springs to help keep water flowing in Tulsas part of the river more often is a good idea?

[Rico]

Artist you asked a question.......

Inteller answered it..

If you are setting this up to debate each and every point of the current offering...

shame on you.[}:)]

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Lets say this river tax does not pass and imagine that there may be another push down the line to do something with the river or a general Tulsa County improvements tax. What advice would you give and what would you want included this time?

 To keep this simple by not try to fix the roads with this plan because that is going to open a whole other can of worms and raise any tax price tag.

Its my opinion that only a smaller tax in the 200-300 million dollar range is passable with the street issue in front of us still to be taken care of. So a 2025 part 2, in the 600 million to 800 million plus range, is not at all likely.  (OKC is currently getting ready to vote on a MAPS 3 at over 700 million)  

So if you could create a plan that would use around 200 to 300 million over 7 years, what would it contain?

River development, how much and what and where?      Parks and pools?      Expanding our new Colleges?        The 6th street Pearl District?       Downtown, west side, north side improvements? and what kind?

Should it be a county tax or a city tax? (if it were a city tax it may take a bit longer than 7 years or you may choose to make the tax smaller)


Lets debate a plan and try to see if we can come to something that we could all agree on. Or at least 90% of us lol.

come back with the Tulsa portion of the Arkansas Master River Plan word for word and I'll vote Yes on a Tulsa CITY vote, not a Tulsa COUNTY vote.

So you dont think the new idea of a larger dam in Sand Springs to help keep water flowing in Tulsas part of the river more often is a good idea?

 water flowing and water in the river are two different things.  if you notice in the current proposal all they talk about is water in the river.  not flowing (despite the fake blue water illustrations)  SO I could give a rats donkey what sand springs does, but if they want to pass a tax to build a dam up there more power to them.  the 41st and 61st st dams in the ARCMP will keep water in tulsa's part.  i've already said it before.  I want river development, but I don't want the county paying for tulsa welfare, just like I wouldn't expect tulsans to pay for crap in bixby or owasso.  so drop the regionalist bull****.

[TheArtist]

Why are you being an donkey? I was in no way trying to suggest or proffer a regionalist agenda.  I am honestly interested in seeing what we can come up with.  Sorry I framed my response that way though. I had actually thought earlier about mentioning the idea of possibly "teaming up" with Sand Springs ONLY and doing a coordinated effort with just them if we thought that the dam there would be a good idea for Tulsa as well.  

I was thinking the dam in Sand Springs could help allay some of the concerns some people on here have about fish migration by having more running water, more often and more aerated water, and it could also help Tulsas "lake" in other ways. If we all agree that it is not a good idea then fine. I have no regionalist agenda with this.

I actually think Jenks could build their own dam. They are in a much better financial situation to do so. However I dont know if Sand Springs could afford to build a larger, more expensive dam by themselves. They may just opt to do a smaller version if they have to do it by themselves.  I remember reading somewhere that the Jenks dam that will give the fish the most trouble, will likely be the most stagnant, could further reduce Least Turn nesting sites  and have other concerns, pollution etc. Someone from some environmental group (sorry dont remember lol) said the other dams could actually improve some things. Its the Jenks dam that they had problems with. I say if Jenks wants it let them deal with the troubles, environmentalists, sewage plant, etc. that dam could bring.

I was not vying for a regional or county thing in bringing up the Sand Springs idea. Just trying to point out that the larger Sand Springs dam could benefit Tulsa, it could help allay the concerns of the environmentalists and "fish lovers" among us. Thus possibly helping to create a plan that more people could support.

So far the few people who have responded apparently want just a City of Tulsa tax if there were to be one.

But again, and dont jump down my throat lol. In our imaginary City of Tulsa plan, is there no room to figure out a way to coordinate something with Sand Springs (only lol) to help them build a larger dam? Or will it not be worth it to us?

[waterboy]

The living river won't work without the Sand Springs dam holding water. So there goes a good portion of the current Tulsa plan. So Sand Springs decides to go ahead and build their dam and also do not believe in regionalism so they hold the water for their own usage, strangling the Tulsa lakes. Also, the 61st street dam would conflict with the one planned by Jenks at 96th street. That would end up in court no doubt as Jenks could build their dam and flood yours.

Yeah, that regionalism just doesn't make sense.

I wouldn't support any plan without flowing water. I would support collecting a toll fee on suburban cities that refuse to participate in the funding of regional developments. Don't know how it would be done but I read that St.Louis does it. Hmmm. Maybe we could build a wall...

[TheArtist]

I dont think we need to do a dam at 61st anyway, especially if Jenks wants a dam bad enough they will build one that will put more water in the river in parts of Tulsa. And they can deal with the headaches that a dam in that are could bring.

 I would rather just improve the Zink dam and use a bit of money to help Sand Springs do a larger one and coordinate with them only.

Waterboys concern with the flowing water is an example of what I was trying to address with the Sand Springs idea. Its not county or regionalism, but it could get the job done. I think just coordinating with them on this one thing could be a compromise position to help us come up with a plan most of us can agree with?

Remember, no plan is going to be perfect. But can we cobble together something that we can mostly agree on?

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Lets say this river tax does not pass and imagine that there may be another push down the line to do something with the river or a general Tulsa County improvements tax. What advice would you give and what would you want included this time?

 To keep this simple by not try to fix the roads with this plan because that is going to open a whole other can of worms and raise any tax price tag.

Its my opinion that only a smaller tax in the 200-300 million dollar range is passable with the street issue in front of us still to be taken care of. So a 2025 part 2, in the 600 million to 800 million plus range, is not at all likely.  (OKC is currently getting ready to vote on a MAPS 3 at over 700 million)  

So if you could create a plan that would use around 200 to 300 million over 7 years, what would it contain?

River development, how much and what and where?      Parks and pools?      Expanding our new Colleges?        The 6th street Pearl District?       Downtown, west side, north side improvements? and what kind?

Should it be a county tax or a city tax? (if it were a city tax it may take a bit longer than 7 years or you may choose to make the tax smaller)


Lets debate a plan and try to see if we can come to something that we could all agree on. Or at least 90% of us lol.

come back with the Tulsa portion of the Arkansas Master River Plan word for word and I'll vote Yes on a Tulsa CITY vote, not a Tulsa COUNTY vote.

Except for the fact that you live in Bixby

[TheArtist]

Hmmm. I suppose if we decide to go with the Tulsa City only idea, with perhaps a joint venture with Sand Springs on the dam part... only those who live in those two communities should be allowed to have input.


One of the other ideas I would like to see in any plan would be the 6th street Pearl District.

That is said to run about 55 million.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

$50M for road improvements, although I believe a gas or diesel tax increase is more important for road funding.

The other $250M
1. 41st street Vehicular  & adjacent pedestrian bridge
2. Land purchases on the west bank from 11th to 21st and around 41st bridge landing.
3. Additional pedestrian bridge (location TBD).
4. New central library either at South denver location or where permits is located now.
5. Regional library for BA.
6. Outdoor performance space for large events (relatively cheap)
7. New 71st & 169 interchange, construction of a 66th Street to divert some traffic.
8. Replacement/reconstruction of boulder bridge.
9. Funding towards commuter rail and increasing bus coverage.
10. Jenks and Sand Springs Low water damns
11. Partial funding for south-tulsa river bridge.
12. Route 66 projects in west Tulsa.

Nothing for North Tulsa?

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by waterboy

 I would support collecting a toll fee on suburban cities that refuse to participate in the funding of regional developments.

and the suburbs would support watching you swing high.

so Sand Springs has an economic advantage in regards to the river because they live up stream from tulsa.  Good for them.  If I were Sand Springs I would use it as a point of leverage.  However, as tax out as Sand SPrings is, a tax for anything else is destined to fail.  Hell they barely renewwed their road tax.  That town has serious tax issues.