Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details

[Conan71]

What does $269M get us for "public safety"?  More officers I assume but what else?  I agree that should be a separate deal.

I'm one of the few on here that supports the dams.  I support the other econ dev proposals but definitely think they missed the boat on any real game changers.  I think the process of getting public input was good and would like to see more of that.

Hoping for more of a mass transit push with the next transportation tax proposal, especially streetcar.  OKC will have one running by then so maybe it will have more support. 

What do you like about the dam proposal?  That’s not meant to be a rhetorical question.  The dams are such an unpopular measure, I’d like to hear the reasons you’d be for it.

[SXSW]

What do you like about the dam proposal?

I'm a fan of water in the river.  It's been talked about for so long that I want to just see it happen so we can focus on other things.  Most of my friends feel the same way, it's time to take action.

[Conan71]

I'm a fan of water in the river.  It's been talked about for so long that I want to just see it happen so we can focus on other things.  Most of my friends feel the same way, it's time to take action.

Fixing the Zink Dam would accomplish this from the existing dam north to at least the 11th St. bridge.  But there will still be a variable prairie river from south of the Zink Dam to about 73rd St. throughout most of the year, if I understand the final proposal for dams.

Maybe Kirby can speak to this, but are the Creeks and Jenks planning to help pay for a dam down near the Creek Turnpike or is that soley on the backs of Tulsa taxpayers?

[Vision 2025]

Fixing the Zink Dam would accomplish this from the existing dam north to at least the 11th St. bridge.  But there will still be a variable prairie river from south of the Zink Dam to about 73rd St. throughout most of the year, if I understand the final proposal for dams.

Maybe Kirby can speak to this, but are the Creeks and Jenks planning to help pay for a dam down near the Creek Turnpike or is that soley on the backs of Tulsa taxpayers?

From the discussions I have been a part of the City of Jenks is definitely planning to significantly participate (in excess of 1/2 of their Vision renewal) but the Council has not yet taken an official vote on the final package, just like Tulsa hasn't.  

I expect that meaningful discussions with the Creek Nation will occur following swearing in of the new leadership in early January that will include a request to participate.

[sgrizzle]

Fixing the Zink Dam would accomplish this from the existing dam north to at least the 11th St. bridge.  But there will still be a variable prairie river from south of the Zink Dam to about 73rd St. throughout most of the year, if I understand the final proposal for dams.

Maybe Kirby can speak to this, but are the Creeks and Jenks planning to help pay for a dam down near the Creek Turnpike or is that soley on the backs of Tulsa taxpayers?

I've heard 1/3rd each.

[Laramie]

I'm a fan of water in the river.  It's been talked about for so long that I want to just see it happen so we can focus on other things.  Most of my friends feel the same way, it's time to take action.

What do you like about the dam proposal?  That’s not meant to be a rhetorical question.  The dams are such an unpopular measure, I’d like to hear the reasons you’d be for it.

Not that familiar with the dam proposals on the Arkansas River.   I can say this.   Oklahoma City's North Canadian River was the pits.  Three dams were constructed on the 7-miles stretch of the North Canadian River that's now called the Oklahoma River at Eastern Avenue, Western Avenue and May Avenue in OKC.

The development from the construction of those 3 dams have changed the whole river development scene.  You know, people chuckled about OKC having to mow its river 3 times a year.   I've been on Tulsa's Arkansas River, it makes OKC's river look like an underdeveloped stream.  You have a lot more potential to make something happen.

Since the 3 OKC dams were built, a boathouse row was developed which spurred more than $100 million in development. MAPS 3 penny sales tax  includes a Riversport Rapids which is now under construction.    

Those dams totally transformed OKC's river:

Oklahoma City Boathouse Row: Fun Things to do in Oklahoma City | Boathouse District

Oklahoma City Riversport Rapids: Whitewater Rafting in OKC | Boathouse District

I've seen the scenic Arkansas River areas in Tulsa; your Vision 2025 future development plans look awesome.  I'm not familiar with how those dams will be strategically placed; however they could be a game changer.

  

[Conan71]

Not that familiar with the dam proposals on the Arkansas River.   I can say this.   Oklahoma City's North Canadian River was the pits.  Three dams were constructed on the 7-miles stretch of the North Canadian River that's now called the Oklahoma River at Eastern Avenue, Western Avenue and May Avenue in OKC.

The development from the construction of those 3 dams have changed the whole river development scene.  You know, people chuckled about OKC having to mow its river 3 times a year.   I've been on Tulsa's Arkansas River, it makes OKC's river look like an underdeveloped stream.  You have a lot more potential to make something happen.

Since the 3 OKC dams were built, a boathouse row was developed which spurred more than $100 million in development. MAPS 3 penny sales tax  includes a Riversport Rapids which is now under construction.    

Those dams totally transformed OKC's river:

Oklahoma City Boathouse Row: Fun Things to do in Oklahoma City | Boathouse District

Oklahoma City Riversport Rapids: Whitewater Rafting in OKC | Boathouse District

I've seen the scenic Arkansas River areas in Tulsa; your Vision 2025 future development plans look awesome.  I'm not familiar with how those dams will be strategically placed; however they could be a game changer.

  

I’ve competed on the Oklahoma River several times with Tulsa Rowing Club and it’s a great rowing venue.  Two things OKC has that Tulsa still won’t is the river is not near as wide through that part of OKC, and the impoundment used for recreation is longer than that of Zink Lake in Tulsa.  One reason it is ideal for training is how the banking works as somewhat of a shield against winds so training can pretty well happen year-round.  Once you get high south winds coming up the Arkansas against a water flow coming from the north, it gets very choppy and dangerous.

This proposal won’t be near as transformative as OKC’s unless a bunch of retail development is desirable to many others than myself and people I associate with. 

[SXSW]

I realize the Arkansas is different than the Oklahoma River, and it's more of a challenge to "tame" it.  The Oklahoma River is more similar to the Colorado in Austin where there is also a lot of on-river recreation.  However I think with Zink Lake you could have kayak rentals in the right conditions, maybe even stand-up paddle boards.  With the Gathering Place that could be a hub for River recreational activities.  The adjacent kayak flume next to Zink Dam which is part of the Vision proposal is really cool and will be an attraction.

[AquaMan]

Nothing has prevented a kayak operation currently that merely fixing the Zink dam couldn't cure. Or stand-up paddle boards as well. In fact I considered a dinner boat when it appeared as if the dam was going to be improved in the past. Ran a few practice runs with some dignitaries at the time with some water in the river. Had live music, catered food, liquour. They loved it. Lots of things can/could have been done with ongoing repairs and improvements over the last two decades. Now, deferred maintenance and more promises are being lumped in with an omnibus package and I am doubtful.

I hope some of these promises materialize. I hoped in the past. Hope is important in developments like this. But repairing or replacing the Zink with Gathering Place in mind is the best plan.

[cannon_fodder]

Oklahoma City spent $50mil for their river project to accomplish what Zink Lake has done in Tulsa for a generation - a stretch of water in the river that is available for fishing, man-powered boats, and looking at water in a river. Because they have a narrow stream and Tulsa has a wide prairie river prone to flooding, and because Tulsa has a large cyclical dam upstream - their dam provides a 7 miles stretch while Zink is only couple of miles long.

http://www.okc.gov/maps/river/

Zink Dam is nearly 1300 feet across. Oklahoma City has nearly 450 feet, and they doubled the width of the stream bed when they dammed it.

Also worth noting that the river area of Oklahoma City was built over and around, it was not developed or utilized. Only when they dammed it did they really put park amenities in.  Other than the publicly funded park facilities (Boat house, wake board facility, etc.)  there hasn't been significant development - you have a rail yard, Conway Freight, a junk yard, and a few other things that predated the development.

I think OKC did well with this development. But the Arkansas River will not be a stable world-class reservoir suitable for year round Olympic caliber rowing. It is simply too wide, too windy, and the flow is too varied (even with dams). As we have seen in OKC and in the last 40 years with Zink, simply adding water doesn't add development -  the real benefit is recreation (which Tulsa already does well utilizing the river area for)  and aesthetics.

Cost/benefit.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Oklahoma City spent $50mil for their river project to accomplish what Zink Lake has done in Tulsa for a generation - a stretch of water in the river that is available for fishing, man-powered boats, and looking at water in a river. Because they have a narrow stream and Tulsa has a wide prairie river prone to flooding, and because Tulsa has a large cyclical dam upstream - their dam provides a 7 miles stretch while Zink is only couple of miles long.

http://www.okc.gov/maps/river/

Zink Dam is nearly 1300 feet across. Oklahoma City has nearly 450 feet, and they doubled the width of the stream bed when they dammed it.

Also worth noting that the river area of Oklahoma City was built over and around, it was not developed or utilized. Only when they dammed it did they really put park amenities in.  Other than the publicly funded park facilities (Boat house, wake board facility, etc.)  there hasn't been significant development - you have a rail yard, Conway Freight, a junk yard, and a few other things that predated the development.

I think OKC did well with this development. But the Arkansas River will not be a stable world-class reservoir suitable for year round Olympic caliber rowing. It is simply too wide, too windy, and the flow is too varied (even with dams). As we have seen in OKC and in the last 40 years with Zink, simply adding water doesn't add development -  the real benefit is recreation (which Tulsa already does well utilizing the river area for)  and aesthetics.

Cost/benefit.

Don't forget...there may be an Indian Museum there sometime.... a long, long time from now.  Or not.

[Laramie]

Don't forget...there may be an Indian Museum there sometime.... a long, long time from now.  Or not.

City Manager Jim Couch requested the extension after the Chickasaw Nation offered to partner with the city, potentially bringing millions of dollars to the effort to get the dormant project on track.

Oklahoma City wins extension in finalizing plans for American Indian Cultural Center and Museum | NewsOK.com

The Chickasaw Nation wants to finish the museum and develop the land around it.   They have promised not to build a casino on the land if given the development rights for land around the  American Indian Cultural Center & Museum.  They are willing to underwrite it for $2 million for 7 years once its completed.   OKC city officials are working with the Chickasaw Nation to craft something that will allow them to move forward.


Excerpts from the Journal Record:  Possible partnership: Chickasaw Nation offers to save American Indian Cultural Center | The Journal Record

The Chickasaw offer could take care of that problem, at least for a while. Lance said his government would be willing to establish a foundation to operate the AICCM and provide up to $2 million annually to cover deficits for the first seven years, with the tribe and municipality to develop a sustainability plan thereafter.

As for as the surrounding area, Lance said the tribe wants commercial property to be leased or conveyed to the Chickasaws, thus giving the opportunity to develop it with the city’s cooperation. A tribal representative told city officials Tuesday the Chickasaws have no interest in trying to include gambling in the overall plan, even if it were legally possible to do so.

The Chickasaw Nation has the financial resources/portfolio to push the project forward; they own & operate the world's largest casino--WinStar World Casino & Resort in Thackerville, OK between Oklahoma City & Dallas on I-35.

[cannon_fodder]

What a farce. I'd take that deal too!

The Chicasaw can't build a casino there anymore than I can. It is not Chicasaw Trust land. So saying they won't build a casino is damn nice of them, but meaningless.

The land was donated by OKC and valued in 2004 at $15mil - it is 210 acres and in the master plan the group was going to develop it to generate money to pay bonds, operate, and expand the museum as they went along (So $2 - 10mil a year in expected development revenue). The Chicasaw have benevolently offered to develop underwrite up to $2mil a year in operating expenses for 7 years in exchange for $15mil+ worth of land and development revenue north of $2mil a year. Risking up-to $14 million in exchange for $15mil in land and development income.

Great move by them. The tax payers kick in $140 mil to make $15mil worth of land into a real revenue stream, and the Tribe gets to cash in on it while influencing the museum. WIN!  (for the Nation). What irritates me is the tone that this is some kind of a gift. Let them buy the damn thing, but it is a business proposition (not faulting the Nation, good move by them).

The Chickasaw recently built a $40million cultural center and museum for themselves...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickasaw_Cultural_Center


To go on more with this tangent:


The entire thing is a great example of Oklahoma government -

In 2003 Vision 2025 included a City of Tulsa plan for a Native American Center because, you know, we have lots of Indian tribes around here. Oklahoma City duped the state into funding their project instead, effectively killing Tulsa's effort. But OKC would only cost $70mil and would be fully funded before it even started...

http://m.newsok.com/article/1937204

But don't worry!  The Oklahoma City American Indian Cultural Center and Museum will only cost $110mil (di dI say $70?), will be open by 2007 2013 soon, and will convert worthless oil land into a $200,000,000.00 annual economic impact, creating 1,500 jobs and drawing in 500,000 visitors!!1!11!$$1!!! Better yet - it will generate revenue. The things a money maker!

http://www.theamericanindiancenter.org/oklahomas-next-tourism-asset

What I meant was, we need $180 million, a couple hundred acres, $2mil a year in operating money, and $5mil more to service annual bonds. Also, it is worth noting that we don't actually have fa museum yet, but we will soon. All we need is more money.

All this goes away if you just give the land the state has invested in to the Tribe. What a stupid catch-22. Land is donated to the State, we dump $100mil+ into making that land valuable, then create such a cluster f$^& that it might actually make more sense just to give it away.

Yay fiscally conservative small government Oklahoma!
- - - -

I support the arts. I support museums. I think quality of life is THE NUMBER ONE THING a community need to focus on (and it is nearly all encompassing, no quality of life without infrastructure, jobs, good schools, culture, etc.). Hand out money, grants, or limited operating guarantees. But the State should never be on the hook for an open ended project ever again.

[heironymouspasparagus]

What a farce. I'd take that deal too!


The entire thing is a great example of Oklahoma government -

In 2003 Vision 2025 included a City of Tulsa plan for a Native American Center because, you know, we have lots of Indian tribes around here. Oklahoma City duped the state into funding their project instead, effectively killing Tulsa's effort. But OKC would only cost $70mil and would be fully funded before it even started...

But don't worry!  The Oklahoma City American Indian Cultural Center and Museum will only cost $110mil (di dI say $70?), will be open by 2007 2013 soon, and will convert worthless oil land into a $200,000,000.00 annual economic impact, creating 1,500 jobs and drawing in 500,000 visitors!!1!11!$$1!!! Better yet - it will generate revenue. The things a money maker!

What I meant was, we need $180 million, a couple hundred acres, $2mil a year in operating money, and $5mil more to service annual bonds. Also, it is worth noting that we don't actually have fa museum yet, but we will soon. All we need is more money.

All this goes away if you just give the land the state has invested in to the Tribe. What a stupid catch-22. Land is donated to the State, we dump $100mil+ into making that land valuable, then create such a cluster f$^& that it might actually make more sense just to give it away.

Yay fiscally conservative small government Oklahoma!

I support the arts. I support museums. I think quality of life is THE NUMBER ONE THING a community need to focus on (and it is nearly all encompassing, no quality of life without infrastructure, jobs, good schools, culture, etc.). Hand out money, grants, or limited operating guarantees. But the State should never be on the hook for an open ended project ever again.

Sounds like you share my frustration due to the graft and corruption of this state...and the total ignorance and stupidstition that keeps people voting for the same ole thing election after election....

[TulsaGoldenHurriCAN]

Update on Vision 2025:


NOTE: there are meetings next Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday:

Vision public meetings
Monday, Greenwood Cultural Center, 322 N. Greenwood Ave.
Tuesday, Kirk of the Hills, 4102 E. 61st St.
Wednesday, TCC Southeast at the Van Trease PACE, 10300 E. 81st St.
All meetings scheduled for 6-8 p.m.

Link to pdf of Proposed capital improvements on new Vision proposal:
http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/1/39/13944bd8-4481-5d59-8cc7-cef03c9ddf77/568f5911c1bb4.pdf.pdf

City councilors debate whether more public input should be sought on Tulsa's Vision package
Posted: Friday, January 8, 2016 12:00 am | Updated: 7:55 am, Fri Jan 8, 2016.

City officials governing Vision renewal discussions tangled Thursday over how much influence an upcoming series of public meetings should have on the final shape of the package.
A majority of councilors defended keeping the plan largely as drafted at a meeting Dec. 18, when the overall scope of Vision changed dramatically to include votes on general obligation bonds and an extension of Improve Our Tulsa to accommodate the desired projects.
A majority group including Councilor Anna America and Mayor Dewey Bartlett defended the months and years of public engagement to date, saying enough public input has been gathered with little time left to make changes.
“We don’t have time to start from scratch, and that’s why we did such an exhaustive process,” America said. “So, yes, while people can give us feedback, I don’t want everybody who made a project coming back and start to tell us why we need to have an amusement park or why we need to have a rugby field or why we need to have any of these things we’ve gone through.”
But America said changes to the package are possible, and public input will be considered for the final package.
“I hope and believe we are pretty close,” America said. “That was the goal of the extensive public input up to this point. But we have to listen to the public. If the feel is that extensive changes are needed, we have to listen and respond.”
City legal officials said they would be able to accept changes into this month, but the hard deadline to get an item on the ballot is Feb. 4.
Councilor Blake Ewing, who introduced the idea of holding additional meetings, staunchly defended keeping the draft flexible to public opinion, saying the council would be ignoring public feedback if it finalized the package before bringing it to a vote.
“We are talking about things since the 18th that we’ve never talked about and that the public will have an opinion about, and that is the composition of what would be the most complicated package that has ever been presented to voters in the history of this city,” Ewing said.
He said he always intended for the final draft to be brought to residents before it was “set in stone.”
“There’s no way that the people we’ve talked to over the last year were anticipating six ballot questions or seven ballot questions all on the same day,” Ewing said. “And there’s no way that because they read the Tulsa World … we should assume that the citizens of Tulsa have a comprehensive understanding of the most complicated capital improvement package in the history of the city.”
As it stands, Vision would pare off more than a third of the 0.6 percent tax for a permanent public-safety tax contemplated by Councilor Karen Gilbert and Bartlett, which would become operations funding.
The remainder of Vision would become a 15-year plan to accrue about $523 million. The process also would obligate $148.8 million of upcoming general obligation bonds and $105 million in a two-year extension of Improve Our Tulsa.
Officials are contemplating putting all of the above before voters in early April.
The councilors eventually accepted the need for meetings, which are scheduled for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday next week.
However, the conversation turned to the level at which Vision should be open to change.
America and Bartlett defended the consensus reached at the Dec. 18 meeting, saying the projects should not be touched unless deemed necessary by city staff during the vetting process — not due to influence from the council or public.
Councilors who supported largely leaving the list of projects alone also included Jeannie Cue, Karen Gilbert, David Patrick and Connie Dodson.
“It needs to be final from us,” America said. “We’ve all made our case for the things we feel passionately about. … We don’t want everybody who made a case and didn’t make the final draft list to think, ‘Hey, another chance to come and send a thousand emails.’ “
Bartlett agreed and supported America in the meeting, at one point giving her a thumbs up.
“I think this has been an extremely good process, very transparent,” he said. “The public safety idea I started floating around three years ago, so other things have been done in that time. It’s been going on for a long, long time.”
Bartlett said the meeting on Dec. 18 only changed the package “in that we made decisions.”
“But it was still a huge volume of projects. We did have a lot of discussion about it,” Bartlett continued. “When you get to the tail end of it, you have to winnow it down, and that’s what we did.”
Bartlett said he would “prefer not to see a wholesale change on anything” in the project list decided Dec. 18.
“I would be open to it if there is very, very serious extenuating circumstances from a legal and/or financial perspective,” Bartlett said. “Other than that, I think changes are not warranted. We’ve gone through a process.”