Vision 2025 Extension - Package Details

[Ed W]

There were plenty of opportunities for public comment, during the presentation phase. And, there were plenty of ideas presented. Good ideas. I always had the feeling that, as in the past, these were merely theatre.

...Now its more formal. Yes, we will have more public comment but no changes allowed.

We've seen this time after time in bicycling advocacy in communities across the nation. Public input is solicited and it results in 4 or 5  plans, all but one or two totally unacceptable. The remaining ones are what the planners wanted to do in the first place, but needed the political cover of that supposed public input. (As you know, Joseph Stalin observed that who votes is irrelevant. It's who counts the votes that really matters.)

Is there a solution for this? Yes, but remember, I'm a radical and it involves blindfolds and final cigarettes.

[patric]

There were plenty of opportunities for public comment, during the presentation phase. And, there were plenty of ideas presented. Good ideas. I always had the feeling that, as in the past, these were merely theatre.

Likewise, how much of the extensive public comment on the new Zoning Code made it into the code?

[AquaMan]

The only thing that would work is if each proposal is separated. For instance I like the idea of planning for replacing the projects west of Riverparks West and totally re-developing the land towards Southwest blvd. That would stimulate the area and tie it into rt 66. I also like dedicating some funding to hasten the route 66 development across from Webster. However, they may be lost by tying them in with unpopular elements like the Jenks/casino dam, Gilcrease, Zoo, police/fire etc.

Is it too late for that change?

[brettakins]

http://www.newson6.com/story/30930557/vision-2025-proposal-could-bring-manufacturing-hub-to-tulsa

TULSA, Oklahoma - The Raw Space Tulsa proposal may have been left on the cutting room floor after last month’s Vision 2025 retreat between Tulsa city leaders.
However, those behind the idea for a maker’s village technology and manufacturing hub say a lot has changed since then, and they hope to convince the city council that this plan is exactly what Tulsa needs.

It is180,000-square feet of empty space.

The old Fin Tube site, sitting just outside of downtown Tulsa, is one of the city’s most historic properties.

It is surrounded by similar industrial warehouses that Scott Phillips says are ready to be brought back to life.

“So, if we can reinvigorate this area with an innovation hub that is growing, companies and jobs and inspiring students, we can take that million-plus square footage and turn it into an innovation hub for Tulsa," he said.

The idea is similar to what has been done in other cities across the United States, bringing together advanced technology, traditional manufacturing, already established industry and the community.

“I want a facility where Tulsa's greatest welder is mixing with one of Tulsa's greatest advanced technologists," he said.

Phillips is asking for $24 million in Vision funds.

“The message being Tulsa is truly visionary and embrace entrepreneurs and innovators globally and that would've been powerful message,” Phillips said.

He pointed out the volatile oil and gas industry and that the more options the better.

“We need to make that smart decision to invest in our future in technology and the maker movement and innovative and manufacturing,” he said. “Those jobs are a way to diversify our economy and grow our future."

Vision 2025 public town hall meetings begin Monday at 6 p.m. at the Greenwood Cultural Center.

[TulsaGoldenHurriCAN]

The article from today with more info:

What you need to know going into Vision town hall meetings

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

http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/what-you-need-to-know-going-into-vision-town-hall/article_439665ad-1b18-53ed-a8de-e9f4c1a2465b.html

Residents have three last opportunities this week to provide input on the Vision renewal tax package before it is put on a ballot to go before voters in April.
There will be town hall meetings from 6 to 8 p.m. Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, starting at Greenwood Cultural Center, 322 N. Greenwood Ave.
The process to draft the package began at least three years ago in some regard with Mayor Dewey Bartlett’s call for a portion of it to be dedicated to public safety.
Another major portion of the package, Arkansas River infrastructure, began to take shape on Councilor G.T. Bynum’s river taskforce formed in November 2013.
Despite years in the making, Vision renewal efforts changed dramatically just before Christmas when it was decided as a 15-year renewal to include more than $1 billion from taxpayers.
The $1 billion ask

Last week, Councilor Blake Ewing called the tax package the most complicated ever to be put before Tulsa voters.
It includes draws from three separate revenues, two of which are designed to be made permanent.
As drafted, the package would renew 0.55 percent of Vision 2025’s 0.6 percent sales tax. The city is leaving out 0.05 percent to be pursued by Tulsa County — whose officials have said they will pursue as much as 0.1 percent.
How much is 0.55 percent sales tax? Every $5 burger in the city limits would see 3 cents going to the projects listed. Those 3 cents are already taxed today under Vision 2025, which paid for the BOK Center and dozens more projects supported by voters in 2003. That tax is set to expire at the end of this year.
But renewing 0.55 percent isn’t the only thing being considered under the current draft.
At the Dec. 18 meeting, city officials agreed to pursue general obligation bonds and a two-year extension of the Improve Our Tulsa’s sales tax, collectively adding more than $370 million to the package aimed for voters in April.
How the billion breaks down

Almost a third of the package would become a permanent tax dedicated to public safety.
Out of Vision, $240 million would be obligated while $80 million would come from the Improve Our Tulsa extension.
That funding would go largely to hire 160 police officers, but would also hire 70 firefighters, 16 additional 911 staff, street maintenance crews and school crossing guards.
More than $642 million would go to economic development projects that include Arkansas River low-water dams, parks and amenities.
The low-water dams and other infrastructure, including a rebuild of Zink Dam and a new south Tulsa/Jenks dam, are to cost $177 million in the plan, which includes Turkey Mountain Urban Wilderness investments, levee rehabilitation and new parks.
The remaining $464 million, nearly half, is drafted to go toward projects that include — in order of expense — a Gilcrease Museum expansion, Cox Business Center improvements, airport infrastructure, Tulsa Zoo expansion, Center of the Universe transportation hub and the South Mingo Road street widening and improvement.
There are 28 projects in the remaining $464 million.
Transit operations and capital, also to become a permanent tax, will garner $60 million from the 15-year renewal — with those taxes being obligated past the package.
What to expectfrom the meetings

City officials have been arguing over what level of impact public input should have on the projects at this point.
The final 28 projects have the most contention due to a majority of the council and mayor having a consensus on the list from the Dec. 18 meeting they don’t want to lose.
The minority argued last week that the goal is not to change the project list but to engage the public with the final — and significantly larger — package before it’s finalized for voters.
Once the meetings are over midweek, the council may have a follow-up meeting where they would decide on any changes to make. However, doing so would be against a deadline.
City legal staff have said they need several weeks to prepare the ballot language, so as to avoid challenges. That work is up against a hard deadline of Feb. 4 to deliver the language to the state election board for an April 5 vote.Following Feb. 4 and until the vote, city officials will likely start a campaign to pitch the final package to voters, encouraging them to approve it in its final form.

[Townsend]

The article from today with more info:

What you need to know going into Vision town hall meetings

No islands in the river!  (Place disgruntled emoji here)

[Conan71]

In case anyone was curious about the breakdown on the river improvements.

[Bamboo World]

In case anyone was curious about the breakdown on the river improvements.

I don't see how Zink Dam can be re-built with recreational gates (whatever those are) and flume AND a new iconic pedestrian bridge (whatever that is) for $62,900,000.

What was wrong with the Midland Valley trestle bridge?

[PonderInc]

Here's the thing I struggle with: what is the "vision?"  I look at this list and it's just like someone bashed a pinata and a bunch of candy fell out and scattered all over the place.  I can't see a targeted strategic plan for accomplishing any particular thing.  And I can't say that the list is based on anything other than which organizations could rally the most squeaky wheels to the cause.

If we had started with PlaniTulsa as a guide for the types of projects that should receive public funding, this would make more sense to me.  The comprehensive plan includes sections on Economic Development, Housing, Transportation and Land Use.  We know that one of the major goals is to focus growth back into the existing center city and other underutilized spaces where we've already got infrastructure. Another was to spur economic development and revitalization of north and west Tulsa. But there are pages and pages of priorities and goals to be achieved in the near and long term... all based on the research and massive public input of the comp plan update.

But if feels like we just ignored all that and did the "scatter confetti" method here.  "Hey, if everyone gets a little something, they'll vote for it!"

Here's another question: public safety already consumes one quarter of the municipal budget (second only to streets and public works).  If they get this quarter billion dollars, can we re-purpose more of our city's annual budget for other critical purposes?  Like parks, for instance?  (Since strong parks programming is actually proven to reduce crime, while simply adding more cops does not.)

I really can't decide where I fall on this whole thing. The ballot for these items will be split into 4 categories: River, Economic Development, Public Safety and Transit. 

I guess we'll see how the final list shakes out. 

[DowntownDan]

I still can't get over that we're being asked to pay sales taxes to cover things that should come from income and property taxes (public safety and schools).  The Visions and similar packages are for truly visionary things that affect quality of life.  BOK Center put us on the map and has brought things to town that we otherwise were having to go to OKC, Dallas, or KC for.  The river plan is truly visionary, to make our city a river city again instead of a sand pit city.  New industry can thrive on it for boating, fishing, and entertainment along the river.  The travel hub also is visionary and would bring big changes to how we operate as a city.  I also can get behind our museums and other entertainment venues to make the city more attractive for tourists and conventions.  If we need more cops and to better fund our schools, that money comes from long term sources.  And yes, that means killing tax breaks and (gasp) raising some taxes.  We don't really have a choice at this point.  If we allow Visions funds and sales taxes to creep into areas they weren't intended, it'll set a precedent that will lead to all things being funded by sales taxes, which is a major problem since its the most regressive tax in the system.

[DowntownDan]

Along those lines, use the public safety funds for a soccer/multi-use stadium downtown.  USL is going to be the premier minor league for soccer soon and the Roughnecks can really thrive.  Make it multi-use enough to accomodate a high school football game of the week and available to host outdoor concerts and other shows and outdoor events.  Ideally it would be built with the ability to expand.  Even though MLS is largely a pipe-dream, lets leave the door open just in case.

[cannon_fodder]

The "vision" is for good schools, decent roads, functional public transit, consistently funded police and fire... Some people are confusing "vision" with "things local government should already be doing."

On the public safety tax: I hate funding firm commitments with sales tax revenue, but such is state law. However, I'm still skeptical that we need such a drastic increase. I'd be fun devoting the tax to them for somewhat of an increase, but can we supplant some of the other funding to other sources? I hate that the Golden "security" goose gets dedicated funding increases, while infrastructure, education, transit, community programs, parks, transit etc. etc. etc. fights for scraps.  (Similar to what Ponder said)

Otherwise - there is enough in there for me to vote YES.

The South Tulsa dam is a joke in my book, Jenks and the Creeks can build their own dam, but... package deals are a package.  Overall, they adjusted the dam proposal enough to get 'er done so they can shut up about "water in the river." Plus, Zink needs to happen and funding for trails and Turkey Mtn are priorities in my little world.

Yay public transit!  Ewings Transportation Hub idea is interesting and is outside the box thinking, but I hate the fact that it basically means abandoning a functioning and architecturally interesting bus station that isn't very old (also, the logistics of buses at the proposed location is interesting).  I suspect to get this funding there was a deal for an equal amount of funding for specific road projects, I don't know the road projects well enough to say yay or nay.

I'm a fan of the Gilcrease expansion, partially because I think uTulsa is doing a good job running it, partially because I think it is long overdue, and partially because I think the collection SHOULD be better known. If done right, it can clearly be an actual tourism draw.

The Convention Center, Airport, community health, parks, and performing arts center are all part of core infrastructure in my book. Yes, parks and performing arts centers are at the same level as airports and convention centers.

The Discovery Lab is a long overdue addition to Tulsa. It is just expected that a community of over 500k has such a thing.

Some "economic development" items in there that will probably fall short of their goals:  happy if we lure the BMX National HQ, particularly if it enhances our robust cyclist community. Same with the National Guard station, seeing new fighter jets out there will be neat and does dive some economics. But, I don't harbor the delusion that either will have a decent return on investment.

Education gets a few bones.  OSU-Tulsa, Langston, TCC - too bad OSU Tulsa will never be the 4 year on-campus institution we were promised.  I'm not even sure what Langston really does, other than be a Historically Black College.  TPS is broke, I'm sure they really need money to lower the student to teacher ratio, but funding is funding I guess.

Then we get "luxury" items which shouldn't be luxuries. The Arts Commission, city beautification, the Zoo, etc.

Toss in some slush funds...

Not sure on what a couple of the items actually are. And I agree with scatter gun criticism, but that's the "palm greasing" that apparently has to happen around here to get any progress.  Unfortunately, when we get a plan that has some, even mostly solid investments in it, I have to vote yes. Mostly because I doubt we will see a better plan and getting something in terms of public investment is better than nothing. (great attitude?)

[Conan71]

I’m of the opinion that higher education should not receive funds out of this package.  They have plenty of venues to raise the money and are a “pay-as-you-go” enterprise.  At the K-12 level or even Vo-Tech, I’d really have no problem with.  Air Guard? Unless our contribution is doubled or tripled by Federal funding and it actually adds a significant amount of jobs at the base, it’s a sink-hole.  I’m ambivalent on the airport.  That is a commerce hub, but like other projects still in the mix, I’d like to see a breakdown of what each proposal is.

Shocking to some, I even question the $9 million for Turkey Mountain considering the amount RPA is borrowing from GKFF and QT is only $5.6 million unless that is the ultimate payback with interest assuming it is 10 years or so before that project gets its funding.

[heironymouspasparagus]

http://www.newson6.com/story/30930557/vision-2025-proposal-could-bring-manufacturing-hub-to-tulsa

Except for that pesky little reality that the state has cut education 30% under Gov Failin'.  That will be a BIG draw to the state...not.

[TulsaGoldenHurriCAN]

I know we have all heard and read a lot about this this week, but there is one more public meeting tonight at 6pm (at TCC SE campus) and this is important to voice our concerns while it still might make a difference in the final proposals. It was nice to see a standing room only crowd at the Greenwood meeting Monday.

Tulsans could end up voting on as many as 11 Vision proposals

https://www.readfrontier.com/tulsans-could-end-up-voting-on-as-many-as-11-vision-proposals/

If too many Jeannette Kings and Karen Chapmans show up to vote April 5, the city’s billion dollar Vision 2025 renewal proposal could well turn into a billion dollar bust.

King and Chapman challenged city councilors at Monday’s town hall meeting to explain how and why they decided to move away from the traditional Vision format — a straight 0.6 percent sales tax — to one that includes multiple funding sources, some permanent some not, that do not all begin and end at the same time.

“I predict it won’t pass because it won’t even make sense,” King told a packed auditorium at Greenwood Cultural Center, adding, “this, to me, seems sneaky and not up front.”

Tuesday’s Vision 2025 town hall meeting will be held at 6 p.m. at Kirk of the Hills Presbyterian Church, 6040 S. Pittsburgh Ave. Wednesday’s meeting is 6 p.m. at Tulsa Community College Southeast Campus, 10300 E. 81st St.

Chapman elicited some of the loudest applause of the evening when she questioned why the Vision renewal proposal calls for revenue to be used to pay for operating costs in the city’s Police, Fire and Street Maintenance departments. Chapman pointed to the fact that the current Vision 2025 package, which expires at the end of the year, is dedicated solely to capital improvements and economic development.

“This Vision 2025 is not viable,” she said. “It’s not a good package.”

Councilors Phil Lakin, Blake Ewing and Karen Gilbert responded to King’s and Chapman’s concerns, noting that the draft package represents the City Council’s best effort to address the city’s needs as communicated to them by the public while not raising taxes.

“Lots of surveys were done, and lots of calls were made trying to figure out what the appetite of the Tulsa community was,” Lakin said. “The Tulsa community does not want a tax increase to pay for all of these things.”

As for King’s assertion that city leaders are trying to pull a quick one, the facts don’t bear that out. The City Council and Mayor Dewey Bartlett have held dozens of well-publicized and well-attended public meetings over the past several years as they’ve worked to put the Vision renewal package together.

But it’s also true that the composition of the package — including what funding sources would be included — has been fluid up to and including the Dec. 18 City Council/mayor retreat to finalize the draft proposal.

As recently as June, councilors held public meetings to discuss using as much as half of the expiring Vision 2025 sales tax to build low-water dams in the Arkansas River with the other half going to economic development projects. This was happening at the same time that Bartlett was pushing for using 0.2 percent of the Vision renewal for public safety.

By August, Bartlett and Councilor Karen Gilbert had announced a compromise plan for public safety that called for using 0.2 percent of the Vision 2025 renewal and another 0.1 percent of the Improve Our Tulsa sales tax when it expires no later than 2021. Both taxes would be permanent.

As Ewing noted Monday night, any question about whether the city’s public safety needs could be put off until after the Vision vote was put to rest when a University of Cincinnati study found that Tulsa needs 175 more patrol officers.

At that point, Ewing said, city officials could not go to the public and say, “Trust us, we’ll get to public safety after we get to the river.”

Above are the proposed funding sources for the city of Tulsa's proposed Vision 2025 renewal. PROVIDED
Above are the proposed funding sources for the city of Tulsa’s proposed Vision 2025 renewal. PROVIDED
Which brings us to another question asked of councilors Monday night: Just how many Vision propositions will Tulsans be asked to vote on in April?

City Finance Director Mike Kier told the crowd four: two permanent taxes, one for public safety and one for transit; one for Arkansas River Infrastructure; and one for economic development projects.

But speaking to The Frontier later in the meeting, he confirmed that he was referring strictly to questions related to how Vision 2025 sales taxes revenue would be spent.

Because the City Council and the mayor are also using Improve Our Tulsa funds to pay for Vision projects, an additional three questions will be on the ballot, Kier said.

Those include one proposition to extend a portion of the city’s Improve Our Tulsa general obligation bonds for three years beginning in 2020 to pay for transportation and street projects, and one proposition to extend a portion the city’s improve Our Tulsa general obligation bonds for three years beginning in 2020 to pay for Parks and Recreation projects.

The seventh ballot proposition would be to extend 1.0 percent of the Improve Our Tulsa sales for two years beginning no later than 2021 to pay for a variety of projects.

But that’s not the end of it. Tulsa County officials have said they plan to ask voters to approve a countywide 0.1 percent Vision 2025 sales tax renewal to fund approximately $150 million in road, street and building projects.

Depending on how the ballot is put together, that could mean an additional three or four Vision-related propositions Tulsa voters will have to decide come April 5.

So, yes, when it’s all said and done, Tulsans could be asked to vote on as many as 11 Vision 2025-related ballot questions.