The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Smart Growth Tulsa Vision 2025 Budget Allocator Survey
http://smartgrowthtulsa.com/vision-2025-renewal-survey/ (http://smartgrowthtulsa.com/vision-2025-renewal-survey/)

Cody Brandt’s proposal to take out the east leg of the IDL is the most “out of the box” thinking I saw in any of the proposals which were put forth.  There’s a lot to like about more ad valorem tax, creating more opportunities for good development, and capturing more sales tax.   My main hope is that funding for that could help un-cap Elm Creek along with the Pearl District and SoBo’s ask.

Obviously, I allocated quite a bit of funding to green space and pedestrian issues as well as mass transit.

Some of the proposals seem to overlap like the Evans Fintube brownfield site proposals.  As well, there were some transit proposals  that seemed to be duplicated by the transit tax ask of $200M unless I missed something.

Everyone needs to fill out the survey and let your voices be heard!

I came in dead even.

I came in slightly below.

I believe removing half of the IDL is a cool idea but a non-starter. It costs more than the Arkansas river proposal and even less people in the city care about the highway. When the downtown master plan was drafted, it was suggested that the southern portion, and maybe part of the eastern portion, could be capped for a fairly reasonable price which I think is the best cost/benefit. 169 is a bigger barrier than the IDL and development has progressed past it without much issue and I don't feel the IDL is a $143M priority.

I refuse to lend support to anything that should be funded from general ongoing operations. Public safety is example #1.

If we decide to make those "special" tax items we will NEVER see that change. Our tax money for visionary proposals will always be reduced by the cut for what should be ongoing spending.

I found myself supporting:
1) Zink Dam
2) Mass transit
3) Recreation/bikes
4) Beautification/walk ability projects
5) Entrepreneurial encouragement

I did as well.  You must be channeling me.


Since $80mm of that would come from ODOT funding and only $63mm from this funding package, I liked it a lot better than dams at $75mm apiece but I did allocate for a $75mm rebuild of Zink Dam.

I feel like returning the road and nearby right of way back to developable land would have a solid return on investment and would not be near as speculative as the dams downstream of Zink Lake creating a commercial boon.  I just don’t see a lot of pent up demand for commercial development along the river which cannot be done elsewhere.  At least not near as much demand as there is/will be for the east side of downtown.  The IDL removal could also help make uncapping Elm Creek much more of a reality.

I also believe taking down the concrete curtain between East Village and the Pearl is a major development WIN! and will help redevelopment spill into the Pearl much easier than it is now.  YMMV.


You didn’t vote to give those TUWC fruit loops money, did you?  :P

We will get $80M from ODOT towards taking AWAY a highway after pigs fly. Cost them millions to lower their federal funding by removing miles. I'm sure the check is right next to the $50M in state funding for the Zink Dam from ten years ago.

Also, I didn't see a tax proposal for continued subsidies for the Thunder or the Native America Museum in OKC. We aren't expecting them to pay for their own crap now are we?

Very biased survey.

When the people who make the survey feel compelled to make commentary with each question, the survey becomes worthless.

These lines were included in the survey to purposely influence the author's favorite projects.

"Due to the growth in public safety and public works spending, the Parks and Recreation budgets have been starved and unable to kept pace with the rising costs required to adequately fund maintenance...

"...the project would address bad road conditions in a crucial stretch of Riverside Drive serving A Gathering Place. It is in the worst shape of any section of Riverside Drive."

"They are valuable assets in providing safe transportation networks for pedestrians and bicyclists."

"Sponsored by the Smart Growth Tulsa Coalition project funding would add appeal and ambiance to the plaza area and create and an inviting open public space in and around the new 5th Street opening serving the Library..."


Other projects simply stated, "sponsored by" and the party.

Of course, all the author's favorite projects are also listed first in the survey. He also added some new ones that were never actually proposed at the many public meetings

Don't waste your time filling out this survey. Because of bias, any result is worthless.

Thanks for the warning.  So far, my time spent with the survey has been minimal.

I've received emails inviting me to participate.  The emails have a link starting here:  http://vision2025.budgetallocator.com/ (http://vision2025.budgetallocator.com/)

Then, on that page, there are a few more links:

The first, to a list of proposed projects on a City of Tulsa website:  https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/vision/submitted-proposals.aspx (https://www.cityoftulsa.org/our-city/vision/submitted-proposals.aspx)

The second, to Smart Growth Tulsa Coalition's (SGTC's) Vision 2025 Extension Proposal:  http://smartgrowthtulsa.com/a-vision-2025-extension-proposal/ (http://smartgrowthtulsa.com/a-vision-2025-extension-proposal/)

The third, to SGTC's privacy policy, which I didn't click, because the privacy policy link is followed by these words:  "Your individual project choices will remain annonomous, not even SGTC staff can see them.  Your comments including your name however will be shared with Mayor Bartlett and the Tulsa City Council to help them construct a winning ballot. If you do not make any comments, your name will also remain annonomous."

The fourth link is to the survey:  http://vision2025.budgetallocator.com/#ba

If I do spend some time with the survey, it most likely will be from my own curiosity about how I'd allocate a certain budget, given the opportunity to make all of the decisions myself.  

I won't use the survey in an effort to influence the mayor or any city councilors, however.  I've discovered that they usually do as they wish, despite my opinion.

Update:  I've made my first picks on the survey, and my total stands at $86 million.

My choices and a few comments:

1. Transportation /  Rebuild the IDL, $63m  (If I could choose only one proposal, it would be this one.)  
2. Arts & Culture / National Art Deco Museum, $12m
3. Neighborhood Revitalization / Downtown Sealed Rail Corridors, $5m
4. Arts & Culture / Spotlight Theatre Rehabilitation, $4m
5. Transportation / Fund to widen sidewalks and install planters on bridges, $1m
6. Transportation / Safer School Crossings and Crosswalks, $500k
7. Neighborhood Revitalization / IDL Underpass Illumination & Beautification, $500k

I'm considering the Center of the Universe Multi-Modal or Travis Eslick's proposal for lowering or re-locating the east-west railroad tracks.  For making connections north and south of the tracks, Eslick's idea is superior to the Center of the Universe Transit Hub proposal, but I'm not sure if it's ten times better at ten times the price.

If new dams are combined on a ballot with any of my seven choices above, I'll vote NO.

If the replacement of Zink Dam is combined on a ballot with any of my seven choice above, I'll most likely vote NO, but I'm not certain yet.  Rationale:  If Zink Dam is partially or completely demolished, then it shouldn't be replaced.  I'd rather see the existing Zink Dam remain mostly as it is, with gates lowered opened or removed.

If you're okay with it breaking... sure, go that way.

Breaking it? Could you elucidate?

Not in public. We need to get rid of the solid wall/silt problem.

Seriously?   I like the new strategy.   We HAVE to spend millions on dams because they could "break"?    (Or just fill so full of sediment they are useless.)


Silt happens.  

As long as you slow the water, the silt will precipitate.   There isn't any way around it.

The dam has been "broken" for many years. Probably a decade or more if you're referring to the retracting gates. Even when they were predicted to work a sand dredge was purchased to remove the silt/sand buildup. That didn't work too well.

I meant "opening" the existing gates, not "lowering" them.  Sorry, I was thinking of the proposed bladder gates instead of the existing gates.  I will edit my previous post.

By leaving the existing weir in place, and opening or removing the existing gates, would there be a silt problem?  Wouldn't water flow through the existing gate openings?

By leaving the existing weir in place, and opening or removing the existing gates, would something on or within the dam's structure be in danger of breaking?

I'd like for the smallest amount of money as possible to be spent on Zink Dam.

Today I received an email with the survey results (http://smartgrowthtulsa.com/vision-renewal-survey-results/) (to date through November 9).

A summary of the votes (http://smartgrowthtulsa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Appendix-One-Summary-of-Votes.pdf) is in Appendix One (http://smartgrowthtulsa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Appendix-One-Summary-of-Votes.pdf).

My seven choices weren't particularly popular with those who responded to the survey.

1. Transportation /  Rebuild the IDL, $63m  (Only 22.8% of the respondents chose my first choice.)  
2. Arts & Culture / National Art Deco Museum, $12m  (28.1% of respondents agreed with me on this choice.)
3. Neighborhood Revitalization / Downtown Sealed Rail Corridors, $5m (Only 19.5% chose this one.)
4. Arts & Culture / Spotlight Theatre Rehabilitation, $4m (27.5% of respondents agreed with me.)    
5. Transportation / Fund to widen sidewalks and install planters on bridges, $1m (25.3% chose this item.)
6. Transportation / Safer School Crossings and Crosswalks, $500k (37.9% agreed with me on this choice -- the highest percentage of my seven choices.)
7. Neighborhood Revitalization / IDL Underpass Illumination & Beautification, $500k (30.1% chose this item.)

My seven choices, ranked in order of respondent popularity:

1. 37.9% -- Transportation / Safer School Crossings and Crosswalks, $500,000.00
2. 30.1% -- Neighborhood Revitalization / IDL Underpass Illumination & Beautification, $500,000.00
3. 28.1% -- Arts & Culture / The Absolutely Fabulous National Art Deco Steampunk Moderne Googie Museum, $12,000,000.00
4. 27.5% -- Arts & Culture / Spotlight Theatre Rehabilitation, a mere $4,000,000.00
5. 25.3% -- Transportation / Fund to widen sidewalks and install planters on bridges, $1,000,000.00
6. 22.8% -- Transportation /  Rebuild the IDL, $63,000,000.00
7. 19.5% -- Neighborhood Revitalization / Downtown Sealed Rail Corridors, $5,000,000.00

I was surprised by some of the rankings by category (http://smartgrowthtulsa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Appendix-Two-Summary-of-Votes-by-Category.pdf), particularly the relatively high percentages favoring the permanent fractional penny taxes for public transit, parks & recreation, and public safety.

The Smart Growth Tulsa Coalition appears to be ready to conduct a second survey, as mentioned in the last paragraph of this letter to the mayor and city councilors (http://smartgrowthtulsa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Appendix-5-Text-of-email-to-mayor-and-council.pdf).

P.S. The survey (http://vision2025.budgetallocator.com/) is still active.  The results described above were updated through yesterday, November 9.

I wish they had included our first proposal for the Tulsa Art Deco Museum at 4.5 million.  When you go to the city website list of proposals, its one of the first listed.  

We were all then encouraged to "think big and game changing" so thats what we did and put out our National Art Deco Museum proposal for 12 mill.

Then we were told that the funds were getting tight with all the various proposals (including the public safety component) and that we might want to consider pairing back lol.  

We are still trying to get on the list with something.  I feel like I am trying to nail down a moving target.  I have had discussions with several property owners downtown and there are some very interesting possibilities for what we could do with a smaller budget.  We could pull off a smaller (phase one perhaps) National Art Deco Museum.  With the smaller ask we could still create a solid museum/attraction that would definitely be a good asset to the city and finally begin to really benefit from and utilize to the fullest its well known Art Deco heritage.

There is one building we could purchase and renovate and that has paying tenants in part of it already to help with long term funding, another that we may be able to get 2 floors donated if we do the build out and put in a cafe, another that has wonderful large floor plates that we could rent long term, another that we could "pair up" with the development that will be going into it along with having a space of our own as well.  Can't go onto specifics on here for they are all just talk right now for I can't really begin to negotiate or nail things down, just talk to the owners about possibilities...if we get the funding.  And we don't know how much funding that would be.  It's not a fun place to be lol.  But I have notified some of the city counselors in a little more detail about the conversations I have had and what we have found.

If we got on the list and actually had a chance at the 4.5 mill, then I could go around and really begin digging deeper into the different options to figure out which possibility would be best. 

Keep in mind, SGTC’s poll is not binding, it’s simply Bill Leighty’s way to try and inform or sway the mayor and council.  Councilors encouraged me to keep in touch regarding the proposal I presented on behalf of TUWC to expand Turkey Mountain.  Certainly a poll does help gauge public opinion and might help seed the ballot, but personal communication and follow up will undoubtedly help endear them to your project.  That might also be an opportunity to point out you could do what you need to with a $4.5 million seed.

Using Smart Growth Tulsa Coalition's (SGTC's) summary of votes (http://smartgrowthtulsa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Appendix-One-Summary-of-Votes.pdf), I went back to SGTC's budget allocator (http://vision2025.budgetallocator.com/#ba) and started picking the most popular items (based on the 307 respondents with verified emails).

Here's a list of the most popular survey line items, with the cumulative total staying below the $1 billion budget:

1. Permanent Dedicated Public Transit Tax 2/10th %, $200m
2. Permanent Dedicated Parks & Recreation Tax 1/10th %, $100m

(The top two choices account for 30% of the overall budget.)

3. Economic Development / Build free city-wide wi-fi system, $2m
4. Permanent Dedicated Public Safety Tax 2/10th %, $200m

(The top four choices account for slightly more than half of the overall budget.)

Continuing with the next $497,900,000:

5. Arkansas River Development - Rebuild Zink Dam, $75m
6. Transportation / Implement the GO Plan - Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan, $15m
7. Arts & Culture / Tulsa Children's Museum Permanent Site, $10m
8. Transportation / Connecting Downtown to the River via improvements to Boulder Ave, Denver Ave, Houston Avenue, $12m
9. Transportation / Phase I - Center of the Universe Inter-modal transit hub and Greenspace connecting the M.B. Brady, M.B. Greenwood, and M.B. Blue Dome Districts with the M.B. CBD, $25m
10. Transportation / Safer School Crossings and Crosswalks, $500k
11. Arts & Culture / PAC Renovation and Expansion, $95m
12. Transportation / Riverside Drive (41st to I-44) resurfacing and improvements, $11m
13. Economic Development / Hospital replacement/Substance Abuse Treatment Program, $400k
14. Tulsa County / Road & Bridge Projects, $62m
15. Transportation / Bike Share Program Implementation, $3m
16. Transportation / Phase I Streetcar - Route to be determined., $57m
17. Parks Sports & Recreation / Expand River Parks and Turkey Mountain Urban Wilderness, $42m
18. Arts & Culture / Improve City-County Library Branches, $55m

The total cost of the top eighteen choices in the survey is less than $1 billion.

However, the nineteenth most popular proposal (chosen by 34.9% of respondents), Bigger Better Tulsa Zoo, was a budget buster at $60 million.  So I skipped Bigger Better Tulsa Zoo, and went on to the next most popular line items which stayed within the remaining budget.  I could add six more proposals without exceeding the overall $1 billion budget.  Here are the six, with the percentages of respondents who voted for each:

- Neighborhood Revitalization / Mixed Use Parking Garages Downtown, $22m (34.2% of respondents chose this item.)
- Neighborhood Revitalization / IDL Underpass Illumination & Beautication, $500k (33.2%)
- Arkansas River Development / Levee Repairs, $10m (32.9%)
- Transportation / Close Lanes and Expand Sidewalks along Wide Streets for Restaurant Expansion and Outdoor Seating, $2m (26.1%)
- Transportation / Safewalk in Suburban Acres Neighborhood, $300k (14.3%)
- Parks Sports & Recreation / Trixx Skaters Club, $200k (Only 10.4% of respondents chose this item.)

Yea I didn't even vote in the poll and didn't mention it to any of our members or friends to do so either.