Quote
"Mayor, are we taking over?" County Commission Chairwoman Karen Keith asked Bartlett, who was sitting behind her.
As others laughed, Bartlett quipped: "Take what you want."
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20100324_11_A8_MayorD309269
Side question: Where do you find gumdrops in this day and age?
Quote from: sgrizzle on March 24, 2010, 07:42:28 AM
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20100324_11_A8_MayorD309269
Side question: Where do you find gumdrops in this day and age?
Gum drops, jelly belly's whatever....more nonsense from the liars that run our city.
How does the county negotiate with people who lie to the citizenry and to the TPD?
Integrity is something you have or don't have. There's no in between. Pass this on to the negotiators who manage your taxes and may have cost us $300,000 trying to bust the police union.
Ah! the American dream with the pink clouds floating across the skies. It is beyond ones comprehension to believe the founding fathers in hiring a lamp lighter would surely not intend for him to have someone do the job for him.
Again it is being flaunted before the taxpaying public where county chairwoman Keith, who received a majority of the vote against a longtime provider of jobs, on the stance that she as a reporter and was most familiar with writing and reporting, demands she be provided with a $90,000 ghost writer to perform the duties that was to qualify her for the job she was elected to do..
Then there is the "Lets make a survey mayor" who requires a $150,000 "Finder of free money" who's duties are to make a survey weekly why the downtown is not recapturing the area 25 years ago when small business were driven out of the downtown area to the 71's street corridor .
Behind the smoke screen is the finders of "give-me-sector" to find how many grants are available to pay these high price salaries.
When is the next pink cloud to come over?
Quote from: shadows on March 24, 2010, 03:45:38 PM
Ah! the American dream with the pink clouds floating across the skies. It is beyond ones comprehension to believe the founding fathers in hiring a lamp lighter would surely not intend for him to have someone do the job for him.
Again it is being flaunted before the taxpaying public where county chairwoman Keith, who received a majority of the vote against a longtime provider of jobs, on the stance that she as a reporter and was most familiar with writing and reporting, demands she be provided with a $90,000 ghost writer to perform the duties that was to qualify her for the job she was elected to do..
Then there is the "Lets make a survey mayor" who requires a $150,000 "Finder of free money" who's duties are to make a survey weekly why the downtown is not recapturing the area 25 years ago when small business were driven out of the downtown area to the 71's street corridor .
Behind the smoke screen is the finders of "give-me-sector" to find how many grants are available to pay these high price salaries.
When is the next pink cloud to come over?
I don't know why I do it.
I wasted 60 seconds of my life reading that. Maybe it's in the hopes that one day you'll make a cohesive thought or point...
Quote from: Hoss on March 24, 2010, 04:16:20 PM
I don't know why I do it.
I wasted 60 seconds of my life reading that. Maybe it's in the hopes that one day you'll make a cohesive thought or point...
I still believe in the great triumvirate too...
(http://www.kchristieh.com/blog/images/bunny_king_santa.jpg)
Quote from: Hoss on March 24, 2010, 04:16:20 PM
I don't know why I do it.
I wasted 60 seconds of my life reading that. Maybe it's in the hopes that one day you'll make a cohesive thought or point...
Surely this is the belated form of Tulsa county/Tulsa city combining governments where Commissioner Dick, Smith, Bell and other interest citizens, after getting the statute passed to combine governing bodies, convened meetings throughout the city/county to combine governments. Since the county is established by constitution and the city is chartered by state this leaves the preverbal apple to oranges match. The city any time can revoke their state charter and the county government automatically becomes the governing body.
The statue did not meet the requirements of the Oklahoma Constitution and was struck down. Boy we seem to have a passel of new-be's demanding a change. It is time to post Bugs Bunny comments on how the new-be's are at it again..
Try looking behind you at the road you already traveled
As it is evident by the lack of posters on this forum that many are finding that the putting forth of ideas are only taking your time but the prevailing usage of trying to point out the ignorance of our very existence of why we are physically here, where did we come from, and where are we going when we leave this physical body seems to escape even those considering themselves as the elitist.
Quote from: shadows on April 12, 2010, 05:13:55 PM
As it is evident by the lack of posters on this forum that many are finding that the putting forth of ideas are only taking your time but the prevailing usage of trying to point out the ignorance of our very existence of why we are physically here, where did we come from, and where are we going when we leave this physical body seems to escape even those considering themselves as the elitist.
Wow, now responding to your own posts after two weeks of no replies.
Seek some treatment. Or drink more...something.
Quote from: shadows on April 12, 2010, 05:13:55 PM
As it is evident by the lack of posters on this forum that many are finding that the putting forth of ideas are only taking your time but the prevailing usage of trying to point out the ignorance of our very existence of why we are physically here, where did we come from, and where are we going when we leave this physical body seems to escape even those considering themselves as the elitist.
(http://www.breakfreeinme.com/storage/deep%20thoughts.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1252464303792)
Quote from: swake on April 13, 2010, 08:55:54 AM
(http://www.breakfreeinme.com/storage/deep%20thoughts.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1252464303792)
"Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, you'll be a mile from them, and you'll have their shoes."
Quote from: Hoss on April 13, 2010, 09:41:03 AM
"Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way, you'll be a mile from them, and you'll have their shoes."
Assume you mean to stumble along in their shoes like they seem to be doing because we are not intelligent enough to realize how ignorant we are going down the path that was blazed by those who came before us.
Quote from: shadows on April 13, 2010, 01:59:16 PM
Assume you mean to stumble along in their shoes like they seem to be doing because we are not intelligent enough to realize how ignorant we are going down the path that was blazed by those who came before us.
Are you really THAT dense? Seriously?
I have no more to say.
Quote from: Hoss on April 13, 2010, 02:35:15 PM
Are you really THAT dense? Seriously?
I have no more to say.
Have you every attended one of those city/county work shops?
It is the Lords of the rings.
Quote from: fotd on March 24, 2010, 02:34:58 PM
Gum drops, jelly belly's whatever....more nonsense from the liars that run our city.
How does the county negotiate with people who lie to the citizenry and to the TPD?
Integrity is something you have or don't have. There's no in between. Pass this on to the negotiators who manage your taxes and may have cost us $300,000 trying to bust the police union.
How far does this have to go ?
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100413_11_0_Svrlct155037
Let me say something about the county claim for waiving stormwater fees.
In every development agreement between COT and a second party, a stormwater clause specific to drainage and fees is addressed. If there is no specific clause with regard to a fee or detention of water, then the assumption is always that a fee is assessed by the city. Often, if for instance water can be stored on the property then a fee is waived in lieu of detention. Last I looked, the Fairgrounds had no on site detention for drainage. If the agreement between the city and county did not specifically address this situation then it's obvious the county owes the city the money.
The stormwater fee was a great idea. The program for preventing flooding is a magnificent model for other cities to follow. But the administrators were hydrologists and not good managers for necessary growth. They are not capable of continuing on as civil servants in the effort to keep Tulsa beautiful. They have fumbled around and flunked when it comes to streets and future growth.
What specifically does the COT/County agreement say with regard to drainage/stormwater fee?
Quote from: fotd on April 14, 2010, 08:25:42 AM
Let me say something about the county claim for waiving stormwater fees.
In every development agreement between COT and a second party, a stormwater clause specific to drainage and fees is addressed. If there is no specific clause with regard to a fee or detention of water, then the assumption is always that a fee is assessed by the city. Often, if for instance water can be stored on the property then a fee is waived in lieu of detention. Last I looked, the Fairgrounds had no on site detention for drainage. If the agreement between the city and county did not specifically address this situation then it's obvious the county owes the city the money.
The stormwater fee was a great idea. The program for preventing flooding is a magnificent model for other cities to follow. But the administrators were hydrologists and not good managers for necessary growth. They are not capable of continuing on as civil servants in the effort to keep Tulsa beautiful. They have fumbled around and flunked when it comes to streets and future growth.
What specifically does the COT/County agreement say with regard to drainage/stormwater fee?
You are incorrect,
EXPO has a Stormwater detention facilityFirst the County had no development agreement with the City, they were outside of the City when developemnt began and as annexation was mid-development there was an agreement entered into which addressed it as is the case in many such instances.
The County and EXPO jointly constructed a significant storm water detention facility at EXPO which directly benefited the City. As EXPO was a long existing fully urbanized facility it generated little additional runoff with the redevelopment and was therefore under limited obligation to construct storm water detention facilities yet today, there exists a nearly million dollar facility which by design benefits the City (but is not maintained by the City). EXPO and the County took the staunch stance to be a good neighbor as there were homes downhill of EXPO which were routinely flooded due to chronically undersized City storm sewers which the City had long identified in the City's Master Drainage Plan but improvements were nowhere on the horizon for funding. The County evaluated the situation and directed that this position that the EXPO storm water facility and storm sewers would be sized greatly in excess of any site redevelopment improvements so that they would address the problems of area residents and essentially eliminated much of the City's backlog of needed improvements in this sub-basin and improved the conditions residents regularly faced.
In short, the County did the right thing in constructing their facility which is located at the NW corner of the property (West of the permanent RV Park).
My knowledge of the memorandum of understanding is a couple of years stale but my recollection is that it states EXPO will not be subject to any fees or regulations it has not been subject to previously. As EXPO had (for a fee) Water and Sanitary sewer service from the City (for usage) it would appear that all that was to change there would be a rate adjustment (downward) to the "in City" rates in exchange for collecting City sales taxes at EXPO. I guess my take on it is that (from media accounts) the EXPO administration believes that as it was not previously subject to the City's storm water (and perhaps trash) fees they believe it constitutes a new regulation/fee and therefore violates the Memorandum of Understanding whch was the basis for dropping the annexation protest.
Incorrect? For asking a question and stating a process? Such egos here at TNF...
But thanks for the clarity. If I were judge in this matter, I would rule that a fee is reasonable if there is not enough adequate on sight detention for draining the entire fairgrounds based on the 100 year flood plain. BUT, if the memorandum of understanding specifically addresses this drainage situation and waives the fee then I would rule no past accruals for storm water are due, obviously.
More than often, the city tries to slip in the fee as a co payment with water and sewer charges.
Thanks again for attempting to clarify. The county has good reason to hold off paying the cost if indeed the agreement specifies no fee in lieu of defined detention. Is the facility at the NW corner buried like the new one at 41st and Harvard (that's a weird underground system)? Also, is the system on the NW corner for the entire fairgrounds? It really does not matter if this is well defined in their MOU.
Do you think infrastructure improvements to keep downstream property owners safe is the same as detaining storm water? I would think those improvements were necessary with the addition of the new buildings, race track and relocated ballpark. Is there somewhere the storm water ends up downstream? I'm thinking the racetrack is part detention as well...Glad to understand that the NW corner holds the 100 year overflow runoff because for a minute I visualized an additional use for the old Driller Stadium (just kidding RUF). Much of the fairgrounds drains in that eastern direction which makes the engineering to place all runoff in the NW corner suspect.
Quote from: fotd on April 14, 2010, 11:31:35 AM
Incorrect? For asking a question and stating a process? Such egos here at TNF...
But thanks for the clarity. If I were judge in this matter, I would rule that a fee is reasonable if there is not enough adequate on sight detention for draining the entire fairgrounds based on the 100 year flood plain. BUT, if the memorandum of understanding specifically addresses this drainage situation and waives the fee then I would rule no past accruals for storm water are due, obviously.
More than often, the city tries to slip in the fee as a co payment with water and sewer charges.
Thanks again for attempting to clarify. The county has good reason to hold off paying the cost if indeed the agreement specifies no fee in lieu of defined detention. Is the facility at the NW corner buried like the new one at 41st and Harvard (that's a weird underground system)? Also, is the system on the NW corner for the entire fairgrounds? It really does not matter if this is well defined in their MOU.
Do you think infrastructure improvements to keep downstream property owners safe is the same as detaining storm water? I would think those improvements were necessary with the addition of the new buildings, race track and relocated ballpark. Is there somewhere the storm water ends up downstream? I'm thinking the racetrack is part detention as well...Glad to understand that the NW corner holds the 100 year overflow runoff because for a minute I visualized an additional use for the old Driller Stadium (just kidding RUF). Much of the fairgrounds drains in that eastern direction which makes the engineering to place all runoff in the NW corner suspect.
Sorry, I modified my first statement to be specific to the detention facility. Guess I could have said 'please look again, it's been there for years' or some other such but it is a pretty good sized nicely landscaped hole in the ground and I'm maybe a little cranky today.
OK enough of that, please take a look, the facility is of conventional design not buried like at 41st site you mention which was an interesting minimization of the site impacts.
Via site storm sewers, (as I recall) the facility captures runoff from portions of the midway; all of the new parking west of the midway to 21st, the reconstructed Pavilion area parking, RV park, armory area and a portion of the livestock area. I don't know about the racetrack complex, I assume it heads east.
I would disagree with your judicial ruling simply because the City has an ordnance that requires improvements from what existed at a fixed point in time and since the site was very nearly fully developed (lots of roofs and paving) it was grandfathered for those runoff volumes, except for the increased volume which was fairly minimal. As I recall this approach was utilized as a way of protecting existing property owners from having to make retroactive improvements and may have been part of the justification for the establishment storm water fees, in addition to general maintenance to be able to go into problem areas and make improvements to decades old problems funded by those who may not actually have problems.
I understand EXPO complied with the City's storm water discharge standards and As I recall actually went one better as the detention facility is/was oversized to knock the peak down further in this area because of the undersized pipes which caused water in houses issue so actually EXPO provided protection in this area making it constructed to a higher standard than a private developer would have under the same redevelopment conditions within the City limits.
I've got no dog in the billing fight, I just know a little more than some about the issue and it is my own observation in response to question on an issue that hasn't been all that well reported yet in the media (IMHO).
V
Ps. Denny Tuttle and Bob Dick were who championed making the stormwater improvments.
I'm pretty certain anything just a tick east of Pittsburg Avenue's alignment with the Expo is going to flow toward the east.
Yes Conan is correct. The stormwater runoff from Expo Square goes into two different watersheds. The western half of the fairgrounds is in the Coal Creek drainage basin which was a big flooding concern a number of years ago. The water runs straight north to Will Rogers High School. The fairgrounds designed a detention area that works to keep their water from flooding the area uphill from Rogers and the City of Tulsa designed a multi-use facility as part of the school that solved drainage problems from there till Mohawk Park.
The remaining area of the fairgrounds drains to the east. It is part of the Mill Creek drainage basin. Water leaving that part of Expo Square does drain into the city stormsewer system directly upon leaving the fairgrounds, then flows to McClure Park where it becomes an open creek again.
I think Expo Square should pay the fees. Their runoff from all the new barns and newly paved areas contributes to problem just as does the Lowe's parking lot across the street.
I personally don't know if the city and county have an agreement that says the county has to pay or not, but because they contribute to the problem, they in all fairness should be willing to fund the solution.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 14, 2010, 03:16:12 PM
Yes Conan is correct. The stormwater runoff from Expo Square goes into two different watersheds. The western half of the fairgrounds is in the Coal Creek drainage basin which was a big flooding concern a number of years ago. The water runs straight north to Will Rogers High School. The fairgrounds designed a detention area that works to keep their water from flooding the area uphill from Rogers and the City of Tulsa designed a multi-use facility as part of the school that solved drainage problems from there till Mohawk Park.
The remaining area of the fairgrounds drains to the east. It is part of the Mill Creek drainage basin. Water leaving that part of Expo Square does drain into the city stormsewer system directly upon leaving the fairgrounds, then flows to McClure Park where it becomes an open creek again.
I think Expo Square should pay the fees. Their runoff from all the new barns and newly paved areas contributes to problem just as does the Lowe's parking lot across the street.
I personally don't know if the city and county have an agreement that says the county has to pay or not, but because they contribute to the problem, they in all fairness should be willing to fund the solution.
Totally agree...This is not some private developer getting away with something he shouldn't. It's the county. Pay up! The citizens of Tulsa relieved you of your burden. Pay us back. Seriously.
Also, thanks for the big picture. Forgot what that map from skycam looks like....it's like a prehistoric dinosaur tromped through that entire basin years ago...and all those areas that sift further out into Mingo and Mohawk. The Rodgers dry pond was another achievement of the storm water fee. Same with the tennis courts at McClure. JD done us good.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on April 14, 2010, 03:16:12 PM
Yes Conan is correct. The stormwater runoff from Expo Square goes into two different watersheds. The western half of the fairgrounds is in the Coal Creek drainage basin which was a big flooding concern a number of years ago. The water runs straight north to Will Rogers High School. The fairgrounds designed a detention area that works to keep their water from flooding the area uphill from Rogers and the City of Tulsa designed a multi-use facility as part of the school that solved drainage problems from there till Mohawk Park.
The remaining area of the fairgrounds drains to the east. It is part of the Mill Creek drainage basin. Water leaving that part of Expo Square does drain into the city stormsewer system directly upon leaving the fairgrounds, then flows to McClure Park where it becomes an open creek again.
I think Expo Square should pay the fees. Their runoff from all the new barns and newly paved areas contributes to problem just as does the Lowe's parking lot across the street.
I personally don't know if the city and county have an agreement that says the county has to pay or not, but because they contribute to the problem, they in all fairness should be willing to fund the solution.
Michael, just for discussion do you think they should get credit for what they spent beyond of what was required against the fee ?
Much quoted:
The program for preventing flooding is a magnificent model for other cities to follow.
__________________________________
It has worked well since no rainfall has been measured to equal the flood of '86.
I have questioned what other cities have follow our water retention system?
Why was it not developed as the Corps designed it?
Retention pond at East Central seems to be designed to hold only one foot of water.
The SWM fee is being assessed as a property tax therefore the city cannot assess government owned property.
Quote from: shadows on April 14, 2010, 06:35:48 PM
Much quoted:
The program for preventing flooding is a magnificent model for other cities to follow.
__________________________________
It has worked well since no rainfall has been measured to equal the flood of '86.
I have questioned what other cities have follow our water retention system?
Why was it not developed as the Corps designed it?
Retention pond at East Central seems to be designed to hold only one foot of water.
The SWM fee is being assessed as a property tax therefore the city cannot assess government owned property.
(http://connectbiz.com/stories/nissen-k5.gif)
I thought it was a utility expense...it is for me.
Perhaps it's viewed as a trade-off as a portion of the stormwater flow is retained and managed and the other goes direct to the city. However, the part which goes to the city, as RM alluded to, is the part with the largest percentage of biological (animal waste) and chemical (i.e. oil, spilled gas, snow melt, etc.) runs direct to the city storm sewer system.
RM, as the stormwater is not treated, is the city assessed any sort of fine or fees by the ODEQ or EPA based on an average sample of COD's, BOD's, TSS, etc.? If the city is not being assessed something extra due to this, it seems like the Expo/County/collaboration is sort of a wash (no pun intended).
Quote from: fotd on April 14, 2010, 06:44:06 PM
I thought it was a utility expense...it is for me.
How can it be a utility fee when there are no utilities present. It is where the county is the prevailing entity of 77 counties and the city is subservient to it only by a revocable charter.
Just think how many time the Federal Government has given the lands in Oklahoma to the tribes since the trail of tears and keep saying that was a mistake and takes it back.
Quote from: shadows on April 14, 2010, 07:46:54 PM
How can it be a utility fee when there are no utilities present. It is where the county is the prevailing entity of 77 counties and the city is subservient to it only by a revocable charter.
Just think how many time the Federal Government has given the lands in Oklahoma to the tribes since the trail of tears and keep saying that was a mistake and takes it back.
LITHIUM!! GET THE LITHIUM!! STAT!!
Quote from: Conan71 on April 14, 2010, 08:24:32 PM
Why did I know a Nirvana reference was on the way? Might be because I was thinking of the song when I posted...
Still seeking to the answer of other cities that are follow our design of retaining the storm water.
Believe our stage settings ends I/2 mile south of pine street in a concrete wall and the down stream Bird Creek flood basin begins at 36 St North where the future planning calls for filling it to make an industrial park by the city.
The county should be in charge of the SWM as to intelligent planning that would include more than putting street flooding signs out after a couple inches of rain fall.