Well, for river development being dead and there being "no plan 'B'", Randi Miller and Fred Perry are making more noise than a busted chainsaw about their new plan B.
There is a "private" meeting taking place tomorrow on this at an undisclosed location.
Two things I guess they didn't learn:
A) Many are not interested in the county taking the lead on this.
B) Plan A had the feel of too many private meetings.
I hope they open up to public input in very short order, otherwise they will have learned nothing other than the original proposal was shot down 52.5% to 47.5%.
I told you guys a month ago this is nowhere near dead, especially if the county still thinks they can keep their vanity and hands in it. Are you listening Swake, Waterboy, Artist, DScott, et. al.?
What've you heard coming from them?
Here we go again.
This was in the paper today: Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=071108_1_A1_spanc58735%22)
Excerpt:
The day after voters rejected a $282 million Arkansas River development plan, Randi Miller said no Plan B existed.
Now the County Commission chairwoman is checking one last time just to be sure.
"I've had a lot of citizens contact me, very disappointed with the river vote, and they've asked me to try to continue on with river development," Miller said Wednesday.
Miller has invited a group of local leaders to attend a private meeting Friday to discuss what can -- and should -- be done to advance a phased-in approach to river development.
The meeting comes exactly one month after county voters rejected a proposal Oct. 9 to raise the county sales tax four-tenths of one percent over seven years to pay for infrastructure projects and land acquisition along the river.
Proponents of the plan argued that creating a steady stream of water in the river would help stimulate economic development along its banks and leave a legacy of prosperity for residents throughout the region.
But 52.5 percent of voters rejected the measure and the promise of an additional $117 million in private funding.
Miller stressed that she is not trying to bring back to life what voters have killed.
"The citizens have spoken; they do not want this with a sales tax, so this will be a very minimal way to proceed with river development," she said
I think it is appropriate for the county to continue to talk and work on the topic of river improvements. I hope they learned from their mistakes on the sales tax vote and come up with a better financing plan next time.
I am disappointed to hear them go to the press and say there are going to be more private meetings, however. There is nothing you can do to raise suspicion...I take that back. I guess making people sign confidentiality statements like the Channels folks did was a little worse.
Now, I'm just guessing and you guys can shoot me down as usual BUT, I'm betting Lasalle, if hired, will weave it all together with a river running through it. Just my uneducated, voted no, guess.
Plans? They got em.
It's important to understand that, as of the U.S. House overriding Bush's veto, we've more than likely got $50 million in use-it-or-lose-it federal funding coming our way for waterway improvements. We'd better be ready or the money will go back into federal coffers after a set time period (TBD).
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
It's important to understand that, as of the U.S. House overriding Bush's veto, we've more than likely got $50 million in use-it-or-lose-it federal funding coming our way for waterway improvements. We'd better be ready or the money will go back into federal coffers after a set time period (TBD).
We are far from having the money yet. The spending has been approved, but no money has been appropriated for the project. It could be years or never still.
TONY! Come in from fishin'....it's started again!
Told you so, it ain't over.
Still it'll be an interesting twist if the Federal funds start their movement toward Tulsa, and it becomes obvious that the dams will be built as originally planned for in the Vision 2025 project.
Who told you so? Oh yeah, that was me. [:P]
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
It's important to understand that, as of the U.S. House overriding Bush's veto, we've more than likely got $50 million in use-it-or-lose-it federal funding coming our way for waterway improvements. We'd better be ready or the money will go back into federal coffers after a set time period (TBD).
And thence comes the matching federal funds to go along with the V-2025 allocation for LWD's. Unless that has already been allocated to other V-2025 projects or the arena over-runs.
Fred Perry started a cat-fight with Michael Bates in this week's UTW I picked up yesterday. Pretty much territorial petty sniveling on Perry's part is what I gleaned from it.
Sounds like Simonson is leading the way on this from what I've read so far. I feel somewhat better about him having a more integral role.
I can understand they need to have some organizational meetings. But I hope the county commission's TN mole will report back to them that there are some actively interested citizens who want to have a word in this and a whole lot more who want to see more transparency.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Told you so, it ain't over.
Still it'll be an interesting twist if the Federal funds start their movement toward Tulsa, and it becomes obvious that the dams will be built as originally planned for in the Vision 2025 project.
Who told you so? Oh yeah, that was me. [:P]
Copycat...
lol
From my understanding of the original plan, the money expected from the Fed might not cover the dams. Mainly because of increased material costs. But, there was also hope for additional work at the 31st Street dam, I think. Don't know.
It'll be interesting. I'd be perfectly fine if Tulsa came up with something only for land acquisition. And was able to put off the rest for a while. We already have a dam, it can be spruced up later.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Well, for river development being dead and there being "no plan 'B'", Randi Miller and Fred Perry are making more noise than a busted chainsaw about their new plan B.
There is a "private" meeting taking place tomorrow on this at an undisclosed location.
Two things I guess they didn't learn:
A) Many are not interested in the county taking the lead on this.
B) Plan A had the feel of too many private meetings.
I hope they open up to public input in very short order, otherwise they will have learned nothing other than the original proposal was shot down 52.5% to 47.5%.
I told you guys a month ago this is nowhere near dead, especially if the county still thinks they can keep their vanity and hands in it. Are you listening Swake, Waterboy, Artist, DScott, et. al.?
Sounds like there still is no plan B, but that they are working on the outlines for a plan B. Will be interesting to see what they come up with. I also hope they put something out there that is an idea people can comment on and allow to evolve if need be. I hope it includes the federal funds, that is the only way we are going to get anything decent done. I still want it to include the Sand Springs dam to help with Tulsas part of the river. Dont really care much about the Jenks dam personally.
But who gets to decide where and what specific projects along the Arkansas in Tulsa County get those federal funds? Everyone will be wanting a piece of the action including BA and Bixby I suppose.
Here is the Urban Tulsa story referered to by the earlier poster...
http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A18382
Back to the Arkansas
County Commissioner says City Council tries to pre-empt a new river development plan
BY FRED PERRY)
...In a recent edition of the Urban Tulsa Weekly, after the Tulsa City Council passed a resolution supporting river development, (OpEd writer) Michael Bates stated that the County Commission and Tulsa Mayor should follow the lead of the City Council as it relates to working to put a similar high quality development in Tulsa. This is amusing when one knows the facts.
The fact is that this County Commissioner (the writer) and County Commissioner Randi Miller have been meeting with Rick Hudson, Pat Cox and other HCW executives and investors (hereafter referred to as the Branson Landing people) for over a year. We have met numerous times with them since Skiatook developer Ron Howell called each of us in October of 2006 and invited us to visit Branson Landing. Both of us, on separate trips and at our own expense, took his advice and did so. Subsequently, in November of last year, we met with these same Branson Landing executives and Ron Howell over lunch in the Tulsa area. Commissioner Miller introduced the Branson Landing people to Mayor Taylor and City of Tulsa Economic Director Don Himelfarb. Other meetings followed including one in which I gathered 13 members of the Tulsa legislative delegation for a meeting with these gentlemen in order to educate the state representatives and state senators about Branson Landing type developments. It was done also to show that they too were interested in attracting such a development to Tulsa and to enlist the help of these local leaders.
Commissioner Miller and Deputy Commissioner Terry Simonson have also arranged meetings with the Tulsa Chamber, the Arkansas River Parks Authority and City Councilor Rick Westcott in whose district the west bank area of interest is located. During the past year, there have also been emails and conference calls involving everyone mentioned above. Mayor Taylor and Don Himelfarb have also conducted meetings and been in extensive telephone and email contact with the Branson Landing executives. The County Commissioners have, for the most part, deferred to the City of Tulsa since the land is located within the City limits of Tulsa. In all of these communications and meetings, Tax Investment Financing (TIFs), the Request for Proposal (RFP) process, and other such topics that Michael Bates suggested in his recent Urban Tulsa Weekly piece, have been discussed at length. So Michael is not introducing anything new when he writes about TIFs and RFPs and the west bank.
It is not necessarily the City Council's job, as part time elected officials, to do the ongoing continuing activity to attract such a development to Tulsa, so I don't fault them for not being more involved. Since the west bank is in his district, Councilman Westcott has worked on the project. But to say that the City Council is all of a sudden "leading the way" because they passed a resolution in support of such development is contrary to the facts.
It is also a fact that had then Mayor Jim Inhofe not pushed for and obtained a low water dam in the Tulsa area in the early 1980s, which was 70 percent financed with public resources, the Branson Landing people wouldn't even be considering Tulsa for a development in the hundreds of millions of dollars. One of the reasons the land is attractive to them, besides the great view of downtown, is that the Zink Dam provides a stretch of "water in the river" most of the time. This proves what other river towns, including Wichita and Oklahoma City, have also shown: That low water dams and pedestrian bridges attract investment and people.
Rest assured that your County Commissioners are continuing to work to get a "Branson Landing type development" to Tulsa and to help other developers. It is obvious from public statements by all three commissioners that we are also interested in doing what is possible to make other low water dams happen in the Tulsa area, and if possible, without further tax increases. We respect the recent 53/47 percent river plan/tax vote and the decision of the voters. By the way, why Councilman Eagleton continues to advocate a "use surplus Vision 2025 monies to finance low water dams plan" that several bond financing experts have repeatedly said is not feasible, and would even be detrimental, is puzzling.
I thought it was very interesting that a county commissioner would write a letter to an alternative newspaper correcting one of it's writers on a small detail.
The County clearly wants us to know that they consider the river development to be one of their programs and are not following the "city council's lead" on this.
The county commission and city council had a real falling out during the fairgrounds annexation meetings. It is a shame that two governmental bodies, both of whom want the best for the citizens, can't get along.
Maybe the 2008 elections can fix some of the rift.
The City can "take the rug out from under" the County. The Council could help. We'll see what happens. But if the City were to actually get their projects done, the County wouldn't have much to offer as far as any other development. Problem is, the City hasn't been interested enough in finding a way. Until, perhaps, now. Even then, the City has to get past home-grown conspiracy wackos.
This "let's pit the City versus the County" thing, is overplayed, luckily by only a few.
That was one of Miller's comments- they want to talk to Inhofe to see what/where those funds can go. I really don't understand why they need to be involved in the commercial/MU development since the two primary river-bank properties are within the city limits. Someone needs to talk to the holder of the concrete plant deed and tell them to swallow about $20mm of their greed. I believe the value of that property during the Channels fishing expedition was $30mm.
I'm still not overly comfortable with the county managing those funds. They, and their preferred contractors and project managers seem to have an insatiable thirst for growth.
Things are going to happen, that much was obvious, and I'm all for it. I just think they jumped the gun without all due dilligence being completed on the Oct. 9th vote. Many people maintained there was no need for a county-wide sales tax. I also believe we haven't seen the last of private funds being brought into the mix either. Might not be Kaiser, but he's not the only wealthy guy (or corporation) in town either, just happens to be THE wealthiest.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
There is a "private" meeting taking place tomorrow on this at an undisclosed location.
If Plan B will require another election for increasing taxes, then a private meeting is not a good way to start the efforts.
I'm not sure. But the County is already involved in the dams project, through Vision 2025. If it's a big project, that includes the dams, the County might be the way to. Besides the fact that the tax is County-Wide instead of exclusive to Tulsa.
But, for land acquisition alone, Tulsa can do it. You'll still have most of the same "no" voters in opposition, but, that's just the way it works. The City can do acquisition by itself, and leave everything else for later.
Acquisition is probably the most important thing, near term, IMO.
They are going to have to work hand-in-hand and apparently, Fred Perry doesn't seem to care for the city council resolution.
The worst thing which could happen is a cat-fight between the city and county. That could drag this out for a few more decades.
I think MC is right, the County does have dibs on the dams since that is in the V-2025 package.
I'll be interested to see if Kirby or David Arnett drop in to talk about this.
That's where the Council comes in, and the City.
The Sand Springs dam is purely outside City of Tulsa. We could fund it, but we already have a dam in place, and the entire idea is to get development in that area where a dam already exists.
Then there's the Jenks dam, nothing against SS or Jenks, but as far as priorities, I think Tulsa acquiring the needed land probably should be first.
I would definitely support a City-sponsored initiative for land acquisition only. Those other two dams, will eventually be built. But the development part at the 31st Street dam, that can happen right now.
However, I do think the City is using land acquisition as leverage for a County-Wide tax. Tulsa would get the biggest part of a County-tax, and the County would get it's dams. The tax burden wouldn't be entirely on Tulsa.
I'm fairly certain the federal money, which is almost a lock to come through at this point, will be restricted to work on the waterway. So it will be available for bank stabilization, park restoration, and yes, low water dams, but not land acquisition for commercial development.
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
I'm fairly certain the federal money, which is almost a lock to come through at this point, will be restricted to work on the waterway. So it will be available for bank stabilization, park restoration, and yes, low water dams, but not land acquisition for commercial development.
DING, DING, DING...Give the man a cigar!
To address another post: Why the County involved is easy, the River Corridor is bigger than the City of Tulsa's jurisdiction and we stand a significantly better chance of getting federal or private help when we look at the big picture. So, the County is the official sponsor with the Corps of Engineers (who any future federal funds will flow through) for implementation of the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan projects.
Well, all that needs to be done now is land acquisition, unless the dams go way over. Let's move on, see about getting us some land. Somebody needs to light a fire under these Councilors, give them constructive to work on.
Sounds like the roles are becoming more defined just in our discussion. The county should be working on the damn dams and main channel, and the city should be talking with HCW and whomever else may have an interest in making money on the riverbank using city owned property south of the concrete plant.
One thing which really pissed me off on the whole river tax was the guys from HCW being coached to say they needed the river tax to make their development happen. Now the story is, oh, well Tulsa is attractive because they already have a LWD, they don't need dams at SS and Jenks. Well no ****! And yes, the city can provide the necessary financing functions if they think this is the best/only developer available.
quote:
Originally posted by Vision 2025
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
I'm fairly certain the federal money, which is almost a lock to come through at this point, will be restricted to work on the waterway. So it will be available for bank stabilization, park restoration, and yes, low water dams, but not land acquisition for commercial development.
DING, DING, DING...Give the man a cigar!
To address another post: Why the County involved is easy, the River Corridor is bigger than the City of Tulsa's jurisdiction and we stand a significantly better chance of getting federal or private help when we look at the big picture. So, the County is the official sponsor with the Corps of Engineers (who any future federal funds will flow through) for implementation of the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan projects.
Thank you V-2025, I figured we could conjure you up!
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
One thing which really pissed me off on the whole river tax was the guys from HCW being coached to say they needed the river tax to make their development happen. Now the story is, oh, well Tulsa is attractive because they already have a LWD, they don't need dams at SS and Jenks. Well no ****! And yes, the city can provide the necessary financing functions if they think this is the best/only developer available.
You're talking about two different things. They weren't arguing the dams at all. They were just talking land acquisition. Which is most likely true. The City (replacing the County in the old River plan) will likely have to help out there, to some degree. Or it won't happen.
Why you'd be "pissed" off at that, I'm not sure.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Sounds like the roles are becoming more defined just in our discussion. The county should be working on the damn dams and main channel, and the city should be talking with HCW and whomever else may have an interest in making money on the riverbank using city owned property south of the concrete plant.
One thing which really pissed me off on the whole river tax was the guys from HCW being coached to say they needed the river tax to make their development happen. Now the story is, oh, well Tulsa is attractive because they already have a LWD, they don't need dams at SS and Jenks. Well no ****! And yes, the city can provide the necessary financing functions if they think this is the best/only developer available.
Are you sure HCW was being coached? Maybe they were being honest? They said they needed the land acquisition done through the tax. Well, the vote failed and now that there is no defined money source for the land acquisition HCW certainly seems to be gone.
Tulsa very much seems to back to square one paying for consultants and hoping for federal dollars and thinking about maybe doing a TIF.
The city needs to be really careful here, if they use a TIF to acquire the land and the development falls through the city is on the hook to pay back the money for the land. It will be years, if ever, before anything is done on the west bank now.
Tell me, how did you all spend that $2 you saved on the tax last month?
^^ I wisely invested it in the lottery, silly!
quote:
Originally posted by Vision 2025
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
I'm fairly certain the federal money, which is almost a lock to come through at this point, will be restricted to work on the waterway. So it will be available for bank stabilization, park restoration, and yes, low water dams, but not land acquisition for commercial development.
DING, DING, DING...Give the man a cigar!
To address another post: Why the County involved is easy, the River Corridor is bigger than the City of Tulsa's jurisdiction and we stand a significantly better chance of getting federal or private help when we look at the big picture. So, the County is the official sponsor with the Corps of Engineers (who any future federal funds will flow through) for implementation of the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan projects.
you better build those low water dams now that were PROMISED in the V2025 vote. No more excuses and "well buts..."
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
^^ I wisely invested it in the lottery, silly!
In that case I have some stock in a little company called "Blackwater" that you might be interested in taking off my hands. I hear it's going to do really well.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
^^ I wisely invested it in the lottery, silly!
In that case I have some stock in a little company called "Blackwater" that you might be interested in taking off my hands. I hear it's going to do really well.
Blackwater? Do they make balm? I think I'll put the balm on...
The county will be doing the public river infrastructure part with the dams. The city the private part with the developers. One small overlap I can see is coordinating some type of bank stabalization in the area where the development may go. Some federal funds there could come in handy to make that part nicer than piling a bunch of rocks along the embankment. Something nice, clean and more permanent in that area would be a plus.
I am really interested in hearing what specifically the federal funds can be used for on the river and what they will likely be used for.
Plus I am still interested in how the city is going to come by the money to buy the cement plant property. No sense in sending out an RFP until the have that property in hand or at least a deal from the owners of that property to sell it at such and such a cost to whichever developer is chosen for the RFP.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
The county will be doing the public river infrastructure part with the dams. The city the private part with the developers. One small overlap I can see is coordinating some type of bank stabalization in the area where the development may go. Some federal funds there could come in handy to make that part nicer than piling a bunch of rocks along the embankment. Something nice, clean and more permanent in that area would be a plus.
I am really interested in hearing what specifically the federal funds can be used for on the river and what they will likely be used for.
Plus I am still interested in how the city is going to come by the money to buy the cement plant property. No sense in sending out an RFP until the have that property in hand or at least a deal from the owners of that property to sell it at such and such a cost to whichever developer is chosen for the RFP.
I'm not certain on the legality or procedures of an RFP of that nature. I'm used to working in a realm of gov't RFP's which are for mechanical system retrofits, or design-build work on government-owned and occupied property, not an M.U.D. like this which will have a private developer/manager and leased space.
I'd agree that the city should have some sort of agreement, but doesn't necessarily need to have the land already purchased prior to an RFP. What if another developer came in and figured the price of the dirt was worth the reputed $50mm asking price and only required water/sewer/and street improvements to service the development. I guess I'm still not convinced that HCA may be the best developer. They aren't necessarily the best suitor, they sound more like the only one with some concept plans already drawn up.
Unless I've misunderstood something, the "value" increased by $20mm in the last year for the concrete plant from the Channels proposal to the river plan we voted on last month. That price sounds more like a similar sized property on Rodeo Drive, not sandwiched between a couple of refineries on the Arkansas River and bordered by a housing project to the immediate west.
I dunno, maybe that's not all "value", but part of the $50mm is for remediation work and stabilization which may be necessary. Even if $20mm represents rehab work, $30mm sounds incredibly high considering what Jerry Gordon reputedly paid for the land at Riverwalk Crossing in Jenks. Some better clarification from those in the know in gov't about that land acquisition cost would be nice.
I suppose that was another source of my frustration on the river plan: details like that ARE important to the people who ultimately pay for it- the tax payer. I know my seemingly constant skepticism is annoying, but details like that matter to those with OCD. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by Vision 2025
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
I'm fairly certain the federal money, which is almost a lock to come through at this point, will be restricted to work on the waterway. So it will be available for bank stabilization, park restoration, and yes, low water dams, but not land acquisition for commercial development.
DING, DING, DING...Give the man a cigar!
To address another post: Why the County involved is easy, the River Corridor is bigger than the City of Tulsa's jurisdiction and we stand a significantly better chance of getting federal or private help when we look at the big picture. So, the County is the official sponsor with the Corps of Engineers (who any future federal funds will flow through) for implementation of the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan projects.
you better build those low water dams now that were PROMISED in the V2025 vote. No more excuses and "well buts..."
I never promised to build 2 low water dams for $5.6 Million.
quote:
Originally posted by Vision 2025
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by Vision 2025
quote:
Originally posted by Floyd
I'm fairly certain the federal money, which is almost a lock to come through at this point, will be restricted to work on the waterway. So it will be available for bank stabilization, park restoration, and yes, low water dams, but not land acquisition for commercial development.
DING, DING, DING...Give the man a cigar!
To address another post: Why the County involved is easy, the River Corridor is bigger than the City of Tulsa's jurisdiction and we stand a significantly better chance of getting federal or private help when we look at the big picture. So, the County is the official sponsor with the Corps of Engineers (who any future federal funds will flow through) for implementation of the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan projects.
you better build those low water dams now that were PROMISED in the V2025 vote. No more excuses and "well buts..."
I never promised to build 2 low water dams for $5.6 Million.
How about for $55.6 million (and some overages if that is not sufficient)?
Now Vision 2025, someone, a blogger I think, told me that you personally were planning to build the dams, by yourself, out of acorns and the skulls of kittens. You're telling me that ain't right?
Well then, prove it! [:P]
We have already mentioned in the past that 5.6 million could purchase a LOT of beavers.
Sorry to "pile on" Vision 2025, but I think think if you bureacrats were at all creative, you'd have this "promise" fulfilled by now. Rereading Bob Dick's editorial (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectID=65&articleID=070929_7_G2_spanc31257%22) from Sept 30, I doubt that Inhofe's environmental money (ironic, huh?) will cover the work.
I suggest that you give back the $50 million (perhaps via a money order delivered by Dr. Sen. Coburn), and use the $5.6 million in V2025 seed money to buy millions of beavers. To supplement their work, we could start dumping trash in the River. That'd be free!
Problem solved. "Promise" kept. Stop overthinking this thing.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
We have already mentioned in the past that 5.6 million could purchase a LOT of beavers.
Dang it. Now I remember reading that. And I thought I was being witty.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
We have already mentioned in the past that 5.6 million could purchase a LOT of beavers.
Dang it. Now I remember reading that. And I thought I was being witty.
Thats pretty funny that you were typing your post while I posted mine :)
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Now Vision 2025, someone, a blogger I think, told me that you personally were planning to build the dams, by yourself, out of acorns and the skulls of kittens. You're telling me that ain't right?
Well then, prove it! [:P]
Those bloggers, I tell ya, they never get it right... I work more in the DUCT TAPE style!
quote:
Originally posted by Vision 2025
Those bloggers, I tell ya, they never get it right... I work more in the DUCT TAPE style!
Well, at least consider kitten skulls.
Recycle the world, that's my motto.
Besides, it would be very creepy, definitely a tourist attraction.
(http://dnr.state.il.us/orc/wildlife/virtual_news/images/beaver/beaver_looking_camera.jpg)
"Money? P-shaw! All I need is about 100,000 Christmas Trees."
quote:
Originally posted by Vision 2025
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC
Now Vision 2025, someone, a blogger I think, told me that you personally were planning to build the dams, by yourself, out of acorns and the skulls of kittens. You're telling me that ain't right?
Well then, prove it! [:P]
Those bloggers, I tell ya, they never get it right... I work more in the DUCT TAPE style!
No, no, no! Used tires and barbed wire make the best low water dams. They also provide a habitat for those endangered mosquitos.
Hey, we don't have "Burning of the Greens" anymore!
What a coincidence. Ask, and ye shall receive.
I'm actually quite fond of beavers. Have been since middle school or therabouts.
I heard that the price of the dams has risen so that the new money will only pay for one and perhaps some Zink improvements. Any truth to that?
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I heard that the price of the dams has risen so that the new money will only pay for one and perhaps some Zink improvements. Any truth to that?
Oh I'm sure that is the excuse they will use to weasel out of a promised ballot initiative.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I'm actually quite fond of beavers. Have been since middle school or therabouts.
Mmmmmm, beaver! It's what's for dessert!
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I'm actually quite fond of beavers. Have been since middle school or therabouts.
Mmmmmm, beaver! It's what's for dessert!
Tulsa should be the beaver capital of the world!
From Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=071110_1_A13_spanc85100%22)
quote:
A group of local officials who are looking to advance river development agreed Friday to push forward with river projects that already are funded through Vision 2025.
Those projects include engineering and environmental studies for low-water dams in Sand Springs and Jenks and modifications and improvements to Zink Dam.
Terry Simonson, who represented the county at the private meeting, said the working group also agreed, wherever possible, to have more than one initiative under way at once.
"Those were the two guiding principles we came away with," he said.
The group identified 23 projects that need to be accomplished between now and 2010, Simonson said.
The group also identified the predicted costs of the projects and existing funding sources.
Simonson has said previously that the group will look to see how those funds can be leveraged "for either additional public dollars, philanthropic dollars or private development dollars."
Earlier this week, County Commission Chairwoman Randi Miller said the county is committed to working with other interested parties to advance river development in a piece-by-piece manner.
She has vowed that the latest river development effort will not include a tax increase.
Friday's meeting came exactly one month after Tulsa County voters rejected a 0.4 percent county sales-tax increase to pay for $282 million in infrastructure projects in and along the river.
Earlier this week, Congress voted to override President Bush's veto of the Water Resources Development Act, which in cludes a $50 million authorization for river work pushed by U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe.
Those funds could be used for ecosystem restoration, recreation, and flood damage-reduction projects.
Passage of the water bill and Inhofe's efforts have provided "tremendous new incentive" to pursue river development, Simonson said.
Also attending Friday's meeting were Cynthia Kitchens of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Tulsa District; Tulsa mayoral aide Susan Neal; Matt Meyer, the River Parks Authority's executive director; Jerry Lasker and Rich Brierre of the Indian Nations Council of Governments; and Kirby Crowe of Program Management Group.
The projects list was not made public.
Simonson said the working group plans to meet again as early as next week.
quote:
Originally posted by Neptune
From Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=071110_1_A13_spanc85100%22)
quote:
A group of local officials who are looking to advance river development agreed Friday to push forward with river projects that already are funded through Vision 2025.
One of those things that makes you say: "Hmmmm".
Go ahead V-2025 and call me a pr!ck. It's what we thought we were getting in the first place. I'm not the only citizen who thought we hadn't gotten what we authorized in 2003.
I sure would've felt better handing over more money if I'd have thought that "progress as promised" was progressing in the first place.
More at Tulsa World (//%22http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=071116_1_A17_hDesi06362%22)
quote:
A group of local leaders plans to recommend that the county move forward with the designing and permitting of low-water dams in Jenks and Sand Springs and modifications to Zink Dam in Tulsa.
The preconstruction projects could be completed as early as December 2010.
"First things first is to start the process that puts water in the river," Terry Simonson, the county's representative at the meeting, said afterward.
The projects to be recommended to the county commissioners are not new, and funding to complete them already exists.
Voters in September 2003 approved $9.5 million for Arkansas River projects as part of Vision 2025; about $5.6 million of that is for the dam modifications and design work.
The meeting was the latest in a series of private gatherings intended to advance river development in the aftermath of a failed sales-tax initiative to fund infrastructure projects.
County voters in October rejected a proposed 0.4 percent sales-tax increase over seven years to raise $282 million to pay for river
projects.
The private sector had pledged to give an additional $117 million if voters approved the plan.
The working group now hopes to use a phased-in approach to implement the core elements of the Arkansas River Corridor Master Plan, which was the cornerstone of the public initiative that failed.
Those core elements are the dams.
County Commission Chairwoman Randi Miller said she was pleased with the group's decision.
Shouldn't that last line read, "Lame Duck County Commission Chairwoman Randi Miller..."?
Me and my random way of cutting things off. If I'd have posted the entire article you probably wouldn't have seen it.
Still, you may have a point.
quote:
The projects to be recommended to the county commissioners are not new, and funding to complete them already exists.
Do'h! Told ya so!
Here's the projects to be completed with Vision 2025 funds.
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2007/071116_A17_hDesi06362_a20dams.jpg)
Heh, that's pretty good stuff. Seems like Gaylon Pinc was saying they didn't have funds for the studies or wouldn't use funds from V-2025 to fund the studies if the river tax failed because there wouldn't be any point.
Might seem like it, but the Vision 2025 folks said all along the money was still there, basically untouched. It was the looneys and conspiracy theorists that implied the funds weren't there. The only question was, how to fund the rest, and whether or not to proceed without completion funds. Whether to accelerate the process, or wait on the next relatively normal Fed, which could have taken some time.
It appeared for quite some time that the Fed was in a cycle that would make them unlikely to provide the completion funds. The Fed was too busy fattening the foreign cow, and purposefully starving the domestic one. The City and County are lucky that there was a slight shift in the Fed.
I need to watch the tape of the TN debate it's been a couple of months, that's where I'm thinking I heard it. I could swear that Pinc or Piercey said they couldn't use any of the funds for studies. Hell Kirby Crowe might have said something on here about it.
By my understanding, part of the Vision 2025 money has already been spent. Something like 275K for Army COE studies.
Studies, and design, are all technically part of construction. So, I don't know why that would have been said, in those limiting terms.