Old Headlines
=============================================
Click
HERE
for Recent Headlines
============================================================================
5-31-06
Press Release
For Immediate Release
Newly Elected City
Council Opposes IVI Bridge Deal
The South Tulsa Citizens Coalition (“STCC”) is
pleased to announce that every member of Tulsa’s newly elected city
council has signed a representation letter to the voters of the City
of Tulsa opposing the IVI bridge deal. In their letters, all
nine of the councilors state that they will not support the opening
of the bridge until all of the infrastructure improvements necessary
to handle the additional traffic from the bridge are completed.
In addition, eight of the city councilors state that:
·
They will not allow industrial traffic, including 18
wheelers, to access or use Yale Avenue from 121st Street
to the Creek Turnpike; and
·
They will not allow the bridge to connect to 121st
Street and Yale Avenue or any minor deviation or variance from that
location. However, they will be able to support a bridge
connecting to 121st and Riverside.
On February 3, 2006, Mayor Kathy Taylor signed
a similar representation letter to the ones signed by the
councilors. The exact language of Mayor Taylor’s letter and
the city councilors’ letters may be viewed (below).
STCC spokesman
Michael Covey said “The message is clear. The IVI bridge is a
bad deal for the City of Tulsa. The city is not going to sit
back and be taken advantage of by a group of private investors and
their suburban politician. I think it is unfortunate that
Jenks Mayor Vic Vreeland refuses to work with the City of Tulsa on
ideas that will benefit both Tulsa and the surrounding communities.”
The City
of Tulsa city councilors and Mayor Taylor have signed representation
and warranty letters regarding the bridge. To see these
letters, click on the Mayor or councilor's name below: (these will
open as pdf files)
Barnes
Carter
Christiansen
Eagleton
Henderson
Martinson
Troyer
Turner
Wescott
Taylor
February 15, 2006
Press Release
For Immediate Release
STCC Files Lawsuit Against City of Jenks and IVI
This
afternoon, the South Tulsa Citizens Coalition (“STCC”) filed a lawsuit
against the City of Jenks (“Jenks”) and Infrastructure Ventures, Inc.
(“IVI”) pertaining to a Toll Bridge Agreement (the “Agreement”)
entered into between Jenks and IVI on February 9, 2006. The
Agreement is for a term of 75 years and calls for IVI to construct,
operate and maintain a toll bridge (the “Bridge”) spanning the
Arkansas River from 131st Street and Yale Place in Jenks to
121st and Yale Avenue in Tulsa. The text of the
lawsuit may be viewed at
www.movethatbridge.com. In summary, the lawsuit alleges:
·
Jenks violated the Oklahoma Constitution by granting IVI
a franchise without submitting the issue to a vote of the people and
by granting IVI a franchise for a term 50 years longer than allowed by
the Constitution;
·
Jenks violated the Oklahoma Constitution by incurring a
financial obligation extending past the current fiscal year related to
the Bridge without submitting the issue to a vote of the people;
·
Jenks exceeded its statutory authority by signing an
Agreement that calls for Jenks to use eminent domain over land not
located within the incorporated area of Jenks; and
·
Jenks violated the Oklahoma Public Competitive Bidding
Act of 1974 by not seeking free and open competitive bidding in
executing the Agreement with IVI and by not letting and awarding the
contract to the lowest responsible bidder.
STCC spokesman Michael Covey said, “The City of Jenks gave us no
alternative other than to file this lawsuit. They basically
signed the same bad deal that the County Commissioners signed nine
months earlier. We simply don’t understand why the City of Jenks
supports giving over half a billion dollars in public funds to private
investors instead of putting that money back into the community.”
Top of Page
February 11, 2006
Press Release
For Immediate Release
Leading Mayoral Candidates
Oppose IVI Bridge Deal
The South Tulsa Citizens Coalition (“STCC”) is
pleased to announce that the five leading candidates in the City of
Tulsa’s mayoral race have signed letters opposing the IVI bridge deal.
Bill Lafortune, Don McCorkell, Chris Medlock, Randi Miller and Kathy
Taylor have all signed letters stating in summary:
·
They will not support the opening of the bridge until
all of the infrastructure improvements necessary to handle the
additional traffic from the bridge are completed; and
·
They will not allow industrial traffic, including 18
wheelers, to access or use Yale Avenue from 121st Street to
the Creek Turnpike; and
·
They will not allow the bridge to connect to 121st
Street and Yale Avenue or any minor deviation or variance from that
location. However, they will be able to support a bridge
connecting to 121st and Riverside.
The exact language of each mayoral candidate’s
letter may be viewed at
www.movethatbridge.com.
STCC spokesman Michael Covey said “It’s now
clear that Tulsa’s current and future leadership oppose the IVI bridge
deal. Hopefully everyone, including Jenks Mayor Vic Vreeland,
will put an end to this ill-conceived proposal and begin working
together on ideas that benefit both Tulsa and the surrounding
communities. Too many people have spent too much time on this
bad idea, and I for one, am ready to get back to the job of working
together and making our community a better place to live.”
STCC spokesman Michael Covey may be contacted at (918) 625-5820.
Reply from Michael Covey, spokesman for the STCC, to Michael Bates on
his blog calling Councilor Bill Christiansen a "Copycat" -
Michael -
I read your blog titled "Copycat Christiansen?" and I respectfully
disagree with this post. On September 12, 2005, I, personally,
submitted a five page letter to Mayor Bill Lafortune and the entire
Tulsa City Council titled "Potential Resolution of Toll Bridge
Issues." You can view my letter in detail at
www.movethatbridge.com. My letter spelled out three separate
proposals to resolve the issues surrounding the south Tulsa toll
bridge (the "Bridge"). The second proposal in my letter is that
the City of Tulsa should be the major beneficiary of a public trust.
My letter was documented on Page A9 of the September 13,2005 edition
of the Tulsa World with the following comments from Councilor
Christiansen:
"City Councilor Bill Christiansen said he thinks the City Council
should consider Covey's proposals and hopes that the county
commissioners will, as well. He also said he favors moving the
bridge's
alignment."
My letter was also documented on the front page of the September 15,
2005 edition of the Tulsa Beacon, and I publicly spoke about my letter
on KRMG at 7:50 a.m. on September 13, 2005 and on KFAQ at 6:40 a.m. on
September 14, 2005.
Making good on his comments, Councilor Christiansen approached the
South Tulsa Citizens Coalition ("STCC") about the possibility of
passing another more detailed resolution (the "Resolution") regarding
the Bridge almost two months ago. I first spoke to Councilor
Christiansen about the substance of the Resolution on December 8,
2005, and I have been working hand-in-hand with Councilor Christiansen
on the specific language of the Resolution for the past few weeks.
The language of the Resolution tracts that of my letter and that of
the representation and warranty letters that STCC is submitting to
certain mayoral candidates. You can view the STCC representation
and warranty letters at
www.movethatbridge.com. Please note that mayoral
candidate Chris Medlock was the first to sign one of the STCC letters
on October 18, 2005, so the language and substance of the STCC letters
have been around since at least that time.
On January 20, 2006, Ron Macleod, the president of STCC, and I met
with District 8 city council candidate Cliff Magee to discuss the
Bridge. We met at 8:30 a.m. at Kaffe Bona on the northwest
corner of 91st and Yale. At this meeting, Mr. Magee admitted
that he knew very little about the
issues surrounding the Bridge and that he had never attended any
meeting (public, STCC or otherwise) regarding the Bridge. For
the next two hours of our meeting, Mr. Macleod and I educated Mr.
Magee on the various Bridge issues, including the three proposals set
forth in my letter to the Mayor and City Council and the language of
the STCC letters to the mayoral candidates.
Three days after our meeting, on January 23, 3006, Mr. Magee issued a
press release regarding a proposed solution to the Bridge. Much
to my dismay, Mr. Magee's proposed solution was almost identical to
the ideas put forth in my letter and the STCC letters. Even more
disturbing to me
is that on January 27, 2006, Mr. Magee called into KFAQ and publicly
claimed these ideas as his own and publicly criticized Councilor
Christiansen for plagiarizing his press release.
Michael, Mr. Magee's claims are simply without merit. Councilor
Christiansen has been working with STCC on the Resolution for over a
month. STCC fully supports the language of the Resolution and
STCC fully supports Councilor Christiansen's efforts regarding the
Resolution. While I cannot speak to other issues involving
Councilor Christiansen, I can say that Councilor Christiansen has
unequivocally
supported the citizens of the City of Tulsa on the Bridge. If
you have any questions regarding this email, please feel free to
contact me at your convenience at (918) 625-5820.
Michael Covey
Spokesman for the South Tulsa Citizens Coalition
Top of Page
Press Release
For Immediate Release
STCC Appeals To Oklahoma Supreme Court
On December 30, 2005, the South Tulsa Citizens Coalition (“STCC”) took
its case regarding the IVI toll bridge to a higher court and filed an
appeal with the Oklahoma Supreme Court. In its appeal, STCC
asked the Supreme Court to reverse a ruling made earlier this year by
Tulsa County District Court Judge Rebecca Nightingale to throw out
STCC’s lawsuit against Tulsa County. Unless the Supreme Court
decides to fast track the appeal, a final appellate decision on STCC’s
lawsuit could take well over a year.
STCC Spokesman Michael Covey said “The County did not give us any
alternative other than to file this appeal. To this day, the
County Commissioners as a whole have refused to sit down with the
citizens and discuss the issues surrounding the proposed IVI bridge.”
Covey added “STCC will continue to represent the citizens of Tulsa
County against this type of bad government and STCC is committed to
working with the various governmental entities to find a better
solution (other than the IVI bridge deal) to our transportation needs
in Tulsa County.”
December 14, 2005
Press Release
For Immediate Release
STCC Applauds Improved
Dialog With IVI, Rejects Incomplete Solution
On December 6, 2005, the South Tulsa Citizens Coalition (“STCC”)
received an alternate alignment for the proposed south Tulsa toll
bridge (the “Bridge”) from Infrastructure Ventures, Inc. (“IVI”),
the private investment firm planning to build the Bridge.
The alternate alignment connects 131st and Yale Place
on the South side of the Arkansas River to 121st and
approximately 850’ West of Yale Avenue on the North side of the
Arkansas River.
STCC is
pleased that IVI is now willing to consider alternate alignments
for the Bridge and to have an open dialog with STCC regarding its
concerns. However, an alternate alignment is only one piece
of the puzzle. An alternate alignment by itself does not
address the lack of infrastructure, the non-competitive financial
arrangements, or the lack of toll revenue to the City of Tulsa.
STCC also believes an infrastructure investment of this magnitude
should be ultimately debated in full view of the public before
final resolution is reached. STCC continues to advocate the
following:
·
the North side of the Bridge should connect into
Riverside Drive. This would allow the traffic easier access
to the Creek Turnpike and the existing commercial corridor along
Riverside Drive;
·
all of the necessary infrastructure should be
financed and completed before the Bridge is allowed to open.
If the financing of the infrastructure is not addressed upfront,
the City of Tulsa may be forced to undermine the proper budgetary
process and spend limited tax money here in advance of other more
important priorities; and
·
the County and IVI should terminate the existing
75-year Toll Bridge Agreement and begin any new negotiations with
greater community participation.
STCC spokesperson Michael Covey said, “I think everyone involved
with the IVI toll bridge finally realizes it was a mistake. As the
recent poll data has shown, over 60% of all voters across Tulsa
County oppose the existing contract, giving support to the
decision to let the contract expire on December 13th.”
Covey added, “When we first began, some ignored our legitimate
concerns by attacking us as NIMBYs, but our tenacity for good
government and wise decisions has resulted in a benefit for all.
As volunteers, this success makes our hard work all the more
worthwhile, and we look forward to continuing to help find a real
solution for everyone involved.”
Top of Page
New Phone Poll Being
Taken
There is currently a phone poll being taken by Sooner Polls
asking the following questions:
- What is your age?
- What is your education?
- What is your income?
- What is your political party?
- If the Mayoral election were
held today who would you vote for - LaFortune, Medlock,
Christiansen, Miller or Bridget (??)?
- (After describing the 4 to Fix
propositions) How would you vote on each one?
- Have you heard about the Bixby
Bridge?
- (After going into a lengthy
description of how the county had signed a 75 year agreement
with IVI and about where the bridge is to connect) Are you for
or against the bridge as proposed now?
- (After stating that many of the
bridge opponents are banning together to defeat 4 to Fix) Do you
consider yourself to be in that category?
If you are contacted for this poll, please let us know.
Bacon responds to coalition regarding South Tulsa County Bridge
By JIM PERRY
Managing Editor, Tulsa Front Page
A toll bridge spanning
the Arkansas River in southern Tulsa County would be for the greater
good and would follow a growing national trend, according to the man
who wants to build it.
Bill Bacon, president of
Infrastructure Ventures Inc., said he began breathing easier on Oct.
25 when Tulsa County District Judge Rebecca Nightingale dismissed a
lawsuit by the South Tulsa Citizens Coalition.
The lawsuit named the
Tulsa County Commissioners individually and as a group and questioned
"why is Tulsa County involved at all?"
Bacon responded following
the ruling.
"There has been a lot of
speculation of impropriety on my part and on the part of the county
commissioners," Bacon said. "By virtue of the judge's decision, that
speculation is no longer valid.
"There have been efforts
to vilify me.
"I want people to
understand this is not about appeasing the neighborhood associations.
It's about the long-term growth of Tulsa ."
A group of homeowners
representing 34 neighborhoods in the area near the proposed bridge *
it would link Yale Avenue and 121 st Street to Yale Place and 131 st
Street * has gathered a petition of 5,000 names of people opposing the
bridge. Michael Covey, a spokesman for the group, said STCC was "not
opposed to a bridge" but wanted more public debate on the issue.
"This is not a new idea,"
Bacon said. "This has been discussed in a public forum. Basically
everybody has said they want the bridge as long as nobody has to pay
for it."
Bacon said discussion on
the project began in January of 2002. He said he spent $60,000 for a
"nuts and bolts" feasibility study after discussion with county
commissioners "to see if they were interested."
The bridge, under Bacon's
plan, would be a privately financed public improvement * PFPI * and
would carry a $1 usage toll. After a decade, Bacon said, a percentage
of the tolls would go to Tulsa County and River Parks .
Bacon said officials from
Bixby, Jenks and Glenpool approve of the idea and said an economic
impact study by Insight Research Corporation of Dallas , Texas , shows
the Tulsa metropolitan area will benefit to the tune of $970.4 million
over the first 10 years of the bridge's existence.
"Why are people opposed
to that?" Bacon asked.
Opponents have complained
about the influx of additional traffic if the bridge is built and said
streets and intersections in the affected area cannot handle the added
stress.
"You can count on one
hand the number of road improvements south of 71 st Street ," Bacon
said. "That's because we as a metropolitan area do not have a plan.
"We've gotta have a plan
in hopes that, in 10 years, something will be built out as far as
infrastructure and roadways are concerned.
"Building this bridge
will cause a plan to be developed."
Bacon pointed to PFPI
projects by the Texas Department of Transportation and spoke of a
privately built gas pipeline under construction in Arizona .
" Tulsa hasn't grown and
kept pace," he said. " Oklahoma City , Dallas and other municipalities
charge developers for their projects. We sit around and wait.
"It's time to turn on the
welcome sign in Tulsa ."
Bacon said privately
financed public improvements in Tulsa have been effective in the past
and said his company has been involved in several.
Infrastructure Ventures
Inc. is a subsidiary of Cinnibar Service Company, a land and right of
way acquisition business currently involved in a buyout project
surrounding Tulsa International Airport .
Bacon has reiterated the
STCB will be built "at no cost to the taxpayers" but has not said what
his company stands to benefit from its construction.
"I want this bridge to be
my legacy," he said.
Editor - please be sure to read the
history and issues page)
STCC Lawsuit Articles
From News Channel 8
Tulsa - Plans for a
controversial south Tulsa bridge have cleared a major hurdle. A
lawsuit to stop the building of that toll bridge was thrown out of
court. NewsChannel 8's Nicole Burgin was in the courtroom for that
decision. But, as she shows us, the fight is not over.
The decision is a win for the county commissioners and a setback for
residents of south Tulsa who are opposed to the bridge. But, this
fight is already personal and one court ruling won't stop the fight.
It was not a good day in court for the South Tulsa Citizens Coalition.
"It's a shame we had to spend our money to fight our county," says
David Morrill. "And, the county has not listened to us."
The group of residents opposes the toll bridge, which would stretch
from 121st and Yale across the Arkansas River. Tulsa County signed an
agreement with Infrastructure Ventures Incorporated -- a private
company -- to build the toll bridge.
Tom Snider stands to lose his farm.
"I'm disappointed that my livelihood will be decided by the court who
has no feeling for my problem," Snider said.
The coalition says the problem is how the county commissioners made
the deal. But, the judge ruled against the citizens group on four
separate counts and dismissed the lawsuit.
As far as the county's reaction, the three commissioners targeted by
the lawsuit were absent from the courtroom.
It's clear this is personal.
"One thing about the posture of this lawsuit and why it got personal
is they were sued in their individual capacity as county commissioners
and then as individuals and then that always takes a lawsuit to
another level and makes it personal," says Paul Wilkening, Chief
Deputy to the County Commissioners.
For the residents of South Tulsa, the bridge is a personal issue and
is not over.
"Our position is they may have won this legal battle," says STCC
Spokesman Michael Covey. "But, they can't build this bridge without
the consent of the City of Tulsa. And, they certainly don't have it."
In fact, Tulsa's city council went on the record with a resolution
opposing the toll bridge. As for the citizen's group, they say there
will be an appeal. And, you can expect them to oppose the upcoming '4
To Fix The County' vote in December.
Top of Page
TV Channel 6 (Click here
for video)
Court Decides In Favor Of Proponents Of A South
Tulsa Toll Bridge Project
 Tulsa County's commissioners won a
legal victory Tuesday over how they approved a toll bridge for
the Arkansas River.
News on 6 reporter Emory Bryan was in the courtroom when the
ruling came down and he says it removes a legal hurdle for
construction of the bridge.
Tulsa County signed a deal this past summer that allows a
private company to build a toll bridge at 121st and Yale. It
would bridge the Arkansas River, connecting south Tulsa with the
south bank of the river.
A citizens group sued the commissioners over the deal and it
went to court Tuesday. The group alleged commissioners exceeded
their authority, met illegally, and should have put it out for
bids. The judge dismissed all their claims.
Michael Covey with the South Tulsa Citizens Coalition says they
were obviously disappointed with the judge’s decision.
And it's not over for either side. The County commissioners
still face opposition from the Tulsa City Council, but with a
signed deal in place, it could move forward if commissioners and
the company building bridge decide to proceed.
|
How Good An Ol’ Boy Are You?
Tulsa County’s aversion to competitive bidding might very well be
shortchanging taxpayers
by Michael Bates
Smokey Robinson’s mama told him, “You better shop around,” and that’s
good advice, especially when a big commitment is involved. Tulsa
County’s Commissioners seem to avoid shopping around as much as
possible, and their reluctance to put contracts up for competitive bid
is one of the central issues in the controversy over the proposed toll
bridge in south Tulsa County.
Tulsa County’s long-range street and highway master plan shows a
bridge crossing the Arkansas River from 121st and Yale in
Tulsa south to the undeveloped western fringes of Bixby.
Transportation planners say the bridge won’t be needed for another 10
years, but a private company, Infrastructure Ventures, Inc. (IVI), has
made a deal with Tulsa County to build it as a toll bridge now and
give it to Tulsa County.
In return, IVI would receive 100% of tolls for the first 10 years and
85% for the next 65 years. IVI would operate and maintain the bridge,
but Tulsa County would handle law enforcement, ice removal, and
traffic signals. Although it’s been described as a private toll
bridge, IVI needs Tulsa County to use its power of eminent domain to
acquire the land, and the bridge will be owned by Tulsa County.
That may sound like a good deal, but the Tulsa City Council passed a
resolution expressing their opposition, and more than 5,000
citizens--including Mayor Bill LaFortune and every councilor except
Tom Baker and Susan Neal--have signed a petition against the bridge
deal. Last Thursday, the executive committee of the Tulsa County
Republican Party took the unusual step of passing a resolution
opposing the bridge deal.
Over the years, far south Tulsa voters have provided a reliable base
of support for tax renewals and bond issues, but there are rumblings
that they’ll oppose the County’s attempt to renew its “4 to Fix the
County” sales tax in December because of the County/IVI bridge deal.
Concern about the traffic impact of the bridge on two-lane Yale Ave.
initially mobilized opposition among south Tulsa residents, who
proposed realigning the bridge to connect to Riverside Drive--thus the
name of the opposition website, movethatbridge.com.
What ought to concern all Tulsa County taxpayers is that the IVI
bridge deal is the latest in a long series of high-dollar county
contracts that were negotiated with a sole source, rather than put out
for competitive bid. Here are just a few examples:
In 1997, the Tulsa County Public Facilities Authority (TCPFA) made a
deal allowing Ralph W. Jones to build a hotel on the Tulsa County
Fairgrounds, and giving him exclusive rights there for 25 years. The
TCPFA board is made up of the three County Commissioners plus two
appointees, Jim Orbison and Bob Parmele. Jones had been campaign
manager and a major contributor for County Commissioner Bob Dick’s
1994 campaign for Mayor of Tulsa. The opportunity was not put out for
competitive bids, and no other proposals were considered.
In August 2000, the TCPFA entered into a three-year, $540,000 contract
with Public Affairs Group LLC to lobby for state funding for the
Fairgrounds. Public Affairs Group LLC was a partnership between
Claudia Tarrington, Bill LaFortune, and John Nicks. The opportunity
was not put out for competitive bids, and no other proposals were
considered.
From 2002 through 2005, Cinnabar Service Co. was the sole source for
appraisals and other services for the County’s expansion of O’Brien
Park. Cinnabar's owners are Bob Parmele and Bill Bacon, who, along
with builder Howard Kelsey, are also the principals in IVI.
In October 2003, following the passage of Vision 2025, the Tulsa
County Industrial Authority (TCIA) took steps to borrow money against
future Vision 2025 sales tax revenues so that projects could be built
faster than a pay-as-you-go approach would allow.
The TCIA, whose board consists of the three County Commissioners,
voted to enter into negotiations with Leo Oppenheim and Co. and Wells
Nelson and Associates to handle bond underwriting for the half-billion
in revenue bonds that would be issued, and with the law firm of
Hilborne and Weidman to serve as bond counsel and with Riggs, Abney,
Neal, Turpen, Orbison, and Lewis to serve as special contracts
counsel. Fees for the entire investment team on the initial bond issue
of around $250 million were estimated to be between $687,500 and $3.4
million.
Leo Oppenheim and Co. was affiliated with Bank of Oklahoma, and their
lead bond advisor was John Piercey, who has been the sole source on
many county bond issues over the last 20 years. County Commissioner
Dick described Piercey to the Tulsa World as a “dear friend.”
Orbison is Jim Orbison, mentioned above as a member of the TCPFA.
Wells Nelson and Associates is affiliated with F & M Bank and Trust
Co. Although school districts and local governments routinely use
competitive bidding for bond underwriting contracts, advertising
opportunities nationwide via publications like The Bond Buyer,
Tulsa County and its related authorities rarely put bond services up
for competitive bids.
The TCPFA is currently in the process of negotiating a five-year
extension of their contract with Murphy Brothers for the Tulsa State
Fair midway. Murphy Brothers has had the contract since 1971; it has
never been competitively bid.
The proposed IVI bridge is the latest example of Tulsa County’s
aversion to competitive bidding. After 2½ years of private discussions
between individual County Commissioners and IVI principals, the
Commission discussed the bridge deal for the first time at a public
meeting in February 2005. On June 14, the Commission unanimously
approved the contract. Two of the commissioners, Randi Miller and
Wilbert Collins, have testified that they reviewed no documents other
than the executed agreement prior to voting to approve the contract.
Effectively the deal provides that IVI will receive $658 million,
according to an independent financial analysis, as compensation for
building and operating a publicly-owned bridge over the life of the
contract. The same financial analysis, conducted by George K. Baum and
Co., shows that the County or the City could build the bridge itself,
financing the bridge with revenue bonds. Under that scenario, the toll
could be lifted after 30 years or the excess revenue could be used to
fund other public infrastructure.
To cite this list of sole-source contracts is not to say that any laws
were broken (although that has been alleged in the South Tulsa
Citizens Coalition lawsuit against the County Commissioners), or that
the people who were awarded the contracts were incapable of doing the
work. But sole-source contracts rarely serve the best interests of the
public. Competitive bidding opens opportunities up to all businesses,
not just to those with political connections. Competitive
bidding means the public gets better services, better rates, or a
better return on their investment in public facilities.
Take the midway, for example. The Tulsa State Fair attracts nearly a
million people each year, and there are dozens of companies in the
outdoor amusements business who would be interested in reaching that
market. Competitive bidding could mean more rides, a better variety of
rides, better reliability, and a lower price per ride, all of which
would serve the fair-going public. It could also mean a better
share of the revenues for the TCPFA, money that could be used instead
of sales tax funds to pay for Expo Square improvements, and that would
serve every Tulsa County taxpayer.
In the past, Commissioner Bob Dick has defended sole-source contracts
on two grounds. Regarding the Vision 2025 bonds, Dick told the
Tulsa World that there was a “great deal of value with having a
team that understands the government they are serving.” On the
exclusive deal for the fairgrounds motel, Dick said that because a
businessman came to them with the idea, it would have been unfair to
solicit bids from other businesses, “to use entrepreneurs' ideas
against them.” The same rationale has been used for not soliciting
other proposals for a south Tulsa bridge.
If a contractor approached me with a proposal to add a room to my
home, would I have a moral obligation to use that contractor? Of
course not. Any reasonable person would see if there were other
contractors who could provide better value. Even if Commissioner Dick
feels obliged to the company who came forward with the idea, he and
his fellow commissioners should feel a greater obligation to the
taxpayers who elected them, who have entrusted to them hundreds of
millions of dollars in tax revenues and public assets.
The County Commissioners are asking the voters to renew the “4 to Fix
the County” sales tax in December to generate $62 million. Why should
we, when the County Commissioners have blithely left 10 times that
much money on the table in this controversial toll bridge deal?
(Top of News Page)
(Home)
Press Release
For Immediate Release
Republican
Party Executive Committee Opposes IVI Bridge
On October 14, 2005, Jerry Buchanan, Chairman of
the Tulsa County Republican Party, announced that the Party’s
Executive Committee had considered both sides of the IVI Toll Bridge
Issue and that a motion was passed expressing opposition to the
current IVI Toll Bridge proposal. The exact language of the
motion is as follows:
The Executive Committee of the Tulsa County
Republican Party has considered a response to the IVI Toll Bridge
proposal signed by the Tulsa County Commissioners. From the
information available through public reporting, and from presentations
offered by both supporters and opponents of this specific bridge, we
have chosen to announce our intent to join with our Republican Mayor
of Tulsa, and the majority of our Republican Tulsa City Councilors and
oppose the construction of the IVI Toll Bridge. If the desire
for a south Tulsa bridge remains, we recommend future negotiations be
open and public, in the hopes that a better solution can be obtained.
Upon receiving word of the Party’s position,
Michael Covey, spokesman for the South Tulsa Citizens Coalition
(“STCC”) remarked, “This is fantastic news! All citizens should
be grateful that the local Republican Party took the time to study the
details of the IVI Toll Bridge proposal, and they rejected it. I
am confident that as more and more people understand the details, they
will join with STCC, numerous elected officials, and now the
Republican Party, and work together to find a better solution for our
transportation needs in Tulsa County.”
(Top of News Page)
(Home)
Tulsa
County Lacks Ownership Rights To Arkansas River
The South Tulsa Citizens Coalition (“STCC”) has
uncovered new evidence which indicates that Tulsa County has no
ownership rights in any of the land or riverbeds associated with the
IVI Toll Bridge deal. It has always been known that the
ownership of the banks of the Arkansas River reside with the Cities of
Tulsa and Jenks at the proposed IVI Toll Bridge location, but new
information reveals that Tulsa County has no rights in the Arkansas
River either. STCC has obtained copies of a title opinion
commissioned by the City of Tulsa’s Public Works Department that
concludes that the landowners abutting the Arkansas River are the
rightful owners of the Arkansas River, not Tulsa County. The
title opinion clearly eliminates the State of Oklahoma and likewise
Tulsa County from owning any portion of the Arkansas River at the IVI
Toll Bridge location. A copy of the title opinion is enclosed
with this press release. The applicable portions of the title
opinion are highlighted in yellow.
The landowners abutting the Arkansas River in
the location where the proposed IVI Toll Bridge is to be located are
the City of Tulsa and the City of Jenks. This means that the
City of Tulsa and the City of Jenks own that portion of the Arkansas
River from the banks of their respective land to the middle of the
river. As a result, Tulsa County owns absolutely no land or the
body of water where the proposed IVI Toll Bridge is to be located.
In response to the newly uncovered evidence,
STCC spokesman Michael Covey said “The County Commissioners’ conduct
with regard to this whole IVI Toll Bridge deal has been nothing but
smoke and mirrors. They can’t sell what they don’t own and they
can’t build a bridge where they don’t own the land.” Covey went
on to add, “We knew this IVI Toll Bridge was a bad financial deal for
the citizens of Tulsa County when we discovered a $35 million bridge
would cost the citizens over $650 million, but to now find out that
the County doesn’t even own the rights they gave away, well, that kind
of bad government must stop!”
(Top of News Page)
(Home)
Press Release
For
Immediate Release
Over 5,000 Citizens Oppose
IVI Bridge Deal
On September 16, 2005, the South Tulsa Citizens Coalition (“STCC”)
announced the initiation of a petition drive against the IVI bridge
deal. The purpose of the petition drive was to allow citizens
the opportunity to express their opposition to the IVI bridge deal
promoted by Tulsa County Commissioner Bob Dick. STCC’s stated
goal was to obtain 5,000 signatures in 3 weeks. At this time,
STCC is pleased to announce that in less than 3 weeks it has
accomplished its goal and obtained well over 5,000 signatures against
the IVI bridge deal.
Top reasons for
citizens’ opposition to the IVI bridge deal include the bad financial
structure which charges Tulsans a toll and gives away the profits, the
ongoing secret meetings designed to avoid public scrutiny, the poorly
studied impact of traffic patterns, the loss of land donated to the
city for a public park and the added infrastructure expense that
jeopardizes higher priority needs in the city’s budget.
Notable signatures on
the petition include those of Tulsa Mayor Bill LaFortune and Tulsa
City Councilors Bill Christiansen, Jack Henderson, Chris Medlock,
Randy Sullivan and Roscoe Turner.
With regard to STCC
exceeding its goal in less than 3 weeks, STCC spokesman Michael
Covey said “if Commissioner Bob Dick thinks only 5 people are opposed
to his IVI bridge deal, he is sorely mistaken. These signatures
prove that Commissioner Dick is wrong by a multiple of over a
thousand. I am very impressed by the diversity of the people
opposed to this IVI bridge deal, it’s not just people in south Tulsa,
but includes people from all across the county, including Jenks and
Bixby.” Covey went on to add that “Tulsans expect their
government officials to be concerned with the interests of all the
people, not just a select few. Tulsans know how to use the
ballot box when government loses touch with the people, and the people
want the IVI bridge deal stopped.”
STCC spokesman Michael Covey may be contacted for interviews and sound
bites at (918) 878-5547 or (918) 625-5820.
(Top of News Page)
(Home)
Boeing! Boeing! Boeing! Was the Bridge Bounced for
Boeing?
It’s amazing how easily Bob Dick can revise history if it fits his
purpose in building the IVI Bridge. On KRMG’s Morning News with Joe
Kelley today, Commissioner Dick made the following remark:
“Joe…a quick history…and you weren’t here. This bridge was part
of the 2025 Vision [sic] package…and only because Boeing came into the
picture did it get dropped out of that package, because we needed to
accommodate the money for the Boeing plant. You know, obviously we
didn’t get it. But had that not occurred, this bridge would’ve been
part of 2025 and would’ve been being built right now.”
Why is this interesting? Because
Commissioner Dick emphatically states that this bridge was part of
some final package to go before the voters. However, I was present at
the final meeting of the Vision Leadership Team, and this bridge
wasn’t mentioned. In fact, there was no public mention of the bridge
making any final cut that I can remember and I was pretty involved in
the process.
In a story published on March 8th, 2003, the Tulsa World listed the
bridge along with a laundry list of other projects that had been
supplied by both governmental entities and private citizens as part of
the Dialog/Visioning process. The listed it as follows:
City of Bixby
-
South Tulsa County
bridge project, $7.3 million
-
Haikey Creek drainage
basin flood protection project, $14 million
Nowhere in any of my records, or anywhere that I can find online, does
it ever state that the bridge had made the final cut (at least
publicly) before the Boeing opportunity came along. Of course, I can
only talk about what was “publicly” the case. Perhaps Mr. Dick has
information about how the final list was determined that the public
isn’t aware of? Perhaps Mr. Dick is familiar with final lists that the
public was never intended to see, until the people cutting the deals
behind closed doors were ready for them to see them?
This is apparently part and parcel as to how Mr. Dick prefers
government to operate. The grand flaw in our county governmental
structure is that the County Commission is both the executive and
legislative branches. There is no formalized oversight, or at the very
least, very little.
The suspicion that a deal had been cut can be heard on the audio tape
from the August INCOG meeting that was secured by the leadership of
South Tulsans Citizens’ Coalition, on which a Bixby public official
can be heard chastising Mayor LaFortune about “Tulsa” going back on
the deal that was cut to remove the bridge from the final list. If
that deal occurred, and there is no reason to believe it didn’t, then
our mayor showed a distinct lack of respect for the concept of public
disclosure with regard to projects that could have a very negative
impact on the citizens of the city he’s supposed to represent.
Finally, it’s pretty disingenuous to make the assertion that had the
bridge been part of the package that was placed before the voters in
September, 2003, that it would’ve passed and would be “being built
right now.” Does Commissioner Dick think the homeowners that are upset
about this bridge today, would’ve been less upset during the Vision
2025 campaign? Would crowded streets near their schools and homes be
any more acceptable, just because the Chamber would’ve had a budget to
sell the idea?
The reality is, given the galvanizing effect this bridge has had on
the citizens of South Tulsa, Commissioner Dick should be counting his
lucky stars that the bridge proposal was never part of the final
package, because there is a good chance that whatever package it was
included in, might not have passed.
If this were the case, then there are a lot of other projects that
might have never seen the light of day, either.
(Top of News Page)
(Home)
Non-Open Door
Meeting
County Commissioner Bob Dick called a meeting with a select few of
our elected officials on Thursday, September 29th regarding the
proposed toll bridge. Commissioner Dick invited City Councilors Bill
Martinson, Randy Sullivan and Tom Baker, Bixby Mayor Joe Williams,
Jenks Mayor Vic Vreeland and Tulsa Mayor Bill LaFortune and his chief
of staff. City Councilor Bill Christiansen (who's district the
proposed toll bridge will be in) was not invited, but attended anyway.
Commissioners Miller and Collins did not attend.
It is STCC's understanding that Commissioner Dick invited only
certain city officials to this meeting as to not trigger the Open
Meetings Act. Once again, more meetings regarding the proposed toll
bridge without public input and behind closed doors.
During the meeting, Commissioner Dick made the following comments
.....
- The proposed toll bridge must be constructed at its current
location because various individuals and entities had bought land
counting on the toll bridge to go in at its current location.
- IVI and/or the County is willing to give the City of Tulsa a
piece of the pie in order to get the bridge constructed. No specific
numbers were discussed however.
Jenks Mayor, Vic Vreeland commented that STCC is a group of only 5
people and that STCC does not represent the number of people that it
purports to represent. (He obviously has not been to any of our
meetings)
It is STCC's understanding that the basic tone of the meeting was
"what can IVI and/or the County do to get this toll bridge pushed
through?"
The meeting concluded with Commissioner Dick agreeing to come back
to the table at a later date with the specifics of the deal the County
and IVI are proposing. STCC encourages you to email or write the
elected officials and advise them not to be persuaded by Commissioner
Dick and IVI's tactics. An attachment is included with this message
with all of their email addresses.
Please let them know that you know what is going on and it is not
acceptable.
Thank you once again for your continued support.
Click
here for a Tulsa Beacon article on this meeting
Michael L. Covey Jr.
11301
South Fulton Avenue
Tulsa,
Oklahoma 74137
(918)
878-5547: Telephone
(918)
878-5704: Facsimile
michael.covey@vintagetul.com
September 13, 2005
The
Honorable Bill LaFortune
Office of
the Mayor
200 Civic
Center
Tulsa, OK
74103
Tulsa
City Council
200 Civic
Center
Tulsa, OK
74103
Re: Potential Resolution of Toll
Bridge Issues
Dear
Mayor LaFortune and Tulsa City Councilors:
The purpose of this letter is to advise you of three proposals that I
have developed to resolve the issues surrounding the location,
construction and financing of the proposed toll bridge (the “Bridge”)
spanning the Arkansas River from 121st and Yale Avenue to
131st and Yale Place. However, before I expand on
these proposals, I must tell you that I personally believe that (1)
the Bridge should be a public, non-toll bridge, (2) the Bridge should
not be constructed until all of the safety and infrastructure
needs in the applicable area have been addressed and are in place, and
(3) the Bridge should be financed, constructed and maintained by an
appropriate public agency or political subdivision. With that
said, if the Parties, as defined below, collectively agree that the
Bridge is needed today and that tolls are the only way to finance the
construction and operation of the Bridge, then I offer the following
proposals to help resolve the current Bridge controversy. The
first proposal is that the City of Tulsa should build the Bridge.
The second proposal is that the City of Tulsa should be the major
beneficiary of a public trust. And, the third proposal is
that the City of Tulsa should lease the land to the County, as defined
below.
Each of
these proposals will address the concerns of the citizens of south
Tulsa, the City of Tulsa, the City of Jenks, the City of Bixby and the
County of Tulsa (the “County”) (individually a “Party” or collectively
the “Parties”). While these proposals may appear to be simple,
the implementation of any one of these proposals will be multifaceted
and will require the cooperation of all the Parties. A detailed
explanation of the steps necessary to implement each of these
proposals is as follows:
Proposal No. 1
The
City of Tulsa Should Build The Bridge
The County
would terminate its toll bridge agreement (the “IVI Agreement”) with
Infrastructure Venture I, L.L.C. (“IVI”) regarding the Bridge.
The City of Tulsa would move the northern location of the Bridge to
121st Street and Riverside Parkway. The City of Tulsa
would annex the riverbeds where the Bridge is to be located into the
City of Tulsa. The City of Tulsa would construct and operate the
Bridge through revenue bonds that are secured by tolls from the
Bridge. Throughout the operational life of the Bridge, the City
of Tulsa would take 7% of the net toll revenues off the top and retain
and earmark those funds for bridge repair and replacement. For
the first ten years of Bridge operation, the City of Tulsa would
retain the remaining 100% of the net toll revenues. Beginning
with the eleventh year of Bridge operation, the City of Tulsa would
retain 82% of the remaining net toll revenues and pay 12% of the
remaining net toll revenues to the County and 6% of the remaining net
toll revenues to the River Parks Authority. Over 75 years, this
proposal would net approximately $611 million to the City of Tulsa,
$89 million to the County and $44 million to the River Parks
Authority.
Proposal No. 2
The
City of Tulsa Should Be The Major Beneficiary Of A Public Trust
The County
would terminate the IVI Agreement. The County, the City of Tulsa
and the City of Jenks would form a public trust (the “Trust”) for the
purpose of financing, constructing and operating the Bridge. The
Trust would move the northern location of the Bridge to 121st
Street and Riverside Parkway. The City of Tulsa would assign to
the Trust that portion of the City of Tulsa’s property needed to
connect the northern portion of the Bridge into 121st
Street and Riverside Parkway. The City of Jenks would assign to
the Trust that portion of the City of Jenks’ property needed to
connect the southern portion of the Bridge into 131st and
Yale Place. The Trust would construct and operate the Bridge
through revenue bonds that are secured by tolls from the Bridge.
Throughout the operational life of the Bridge, the Trust would take 7%
of the net toll revenues off the top and retain and earmark those
funds for bridge repair and replacement. For the first ten years
of Bridge operation, the Trust would pay 100% of the remaining net
toll revenues to the City of Tulsa. Beginning with the eleventh
year of Bridge operation, the Trust would pay 82% of the remaining net
toll revenues to the City of Tulsa, 12% of the remaining net toll
revenues to the County and 6% of the remaining net toll revenues to
the River Parks Authority. Over 75 years, this proposal would
net approximately $611 million to the City of Tulsa, $89 million to
the County and $44 million to the River Parks Authority.*
Proposal No. 3
The
City of Tulsa Should Lease The Land To The County
The County
would terminate the IVI Agreement. The County would move the
northern location of the Bridge to 121st Street and
Riverside Parkway. The County would lease from the City of Tulsa
that portion of the City of Tulsa’s property needed to connect the
northern portion of the Bridge into 121st Street and
Riverside Parkway. The County would construct and operate the
Bridge through revenue bonds that are secured by tolls from the
Bridge. Throughout the operational life of the Bridge, the
County would take 7% of the net toll revenues off the top and retain
and earmark those funds for bridge repair and replacement. For
the first ten years of Bridge operation, the County would pay 100% of
the remaining net toll revenues to the City of Tulsa. Beginning
with the eleventh year of Bridge operation, the County would retain
12% of the remaining net toll revenues and pay 82% of the remaining
net toll revenues to the City of Tulsa and 6% of the remaining net
toll revenues to the River Parks Authority. Over 75 years, this
proposal would net approximately $611 million to the City of Tulsa,
$89 million to the County and $44 million to the River Parks
Authority.*
Two
additional implementation requirements for each of these proposals are
that (1) the Parties would have to work together to address all of the
current safety and infrastructure issues associated with the
construction of the Bridge and (2) the Parties would have to work
together to secure funding for the immediate “responsible” widening of
121st Street from Riverside Parkway to Memorial Drive and
Riverside Parkway from 121st Street to the Creek Turnpike.
These funds could potentially be obtained from the Oklahoma
Transportation Authority or through the issuance of additional revenue
bonds secured by tolls from the Bridge.
As you can see from the expanded explanations, each of these proposals
addresses the concerns of all the Parties. The City of Bixby and
the City of Jenks receive their Bridge in a timely manner. This
is exactly what these cities will receive under the IVI
Agreement—nothing more and nothing less. The County will receive
$89 million* in net toll revenues over 75 years. This
is exactly what the County will receive under the IVI
Agreement—nothing more and nothing less. The River Parks
Authority will receive $44 million* in net toll revenues
over 75 years. This is exactly what the River Parks Authority
will receive under the IVI Agreement—nothing more and nothing less.
The City of Tulsa will however receive no less than $611 million*
in net toll revenues. This is $611 million* more than
the City of Tulsa is currently receiving under the IVI Agreement.
Simply put, each of these proposals puts over half a billion
dollars of future net revenue into the City of Tulsa that would
otherwise go to private investors. The City of Tulsa
could use these funds for police, fire and infrastructure needs
throughout the entire city, not just south Tulsa, and the City of
Tulsa could use these funds to develop the Arkansas River corridor.
Last but not least, the citizens of south Tulsa receive what they have
always wanted—for the north side of the Bridge to connect into
Riverside Parkway, for the necessary safety and infrastructure needs
to be funded and put into place in a timely manner and for the land
that has been earmarked for a public park to remain earmarked for that
purpose.
There are
numerous questions that still need to be addressed. Can the
County terminate the IVI Agreement? Can the County or City of
Tulsa issue revenue bonds that are secured only by toll revenues from
the Bridge? Will the County or City of Tulsa need to submit
these proposals to a vote of the people? Will the County or City
of Tulsa need to put the construction of the Bridge out for free and
open competitive bidding? I submit to you that the answers to
all of these questions are in the affirmative and I would be more than
willing to meet with the Parties to discuss the detail behind these
answers.
The purpose
of this letter is not to put forth the answers to every possible
question that may arise. The purpose of this letter is to put
forth a number of proposals for the responsible building of a
bridge. Proposals that benefit not only the City of Jenks, the
City of Bixby, the County and the River Parks Authority, but also the
City of Tulsa and the citizens of south Tulsa. Proposals that
encourage economic growth south of the river, while at the same time
providing compensation to the City of Tulsa for its police, fire and
infrastructure needs and for its future economic development of the
Arkansas River.
If the Parties collectively agree that the Bridge is needed today and
that tolls are the only way to finance the construction and operation
of the Bridge, then I call for a cooperative effort of the Parties to
investigate the potential of these proposals. I call for the
Parties to work together to build the Bridge in a responsible manner,
because the scenario under the IVI Agreement is not responsible.
The IVI Agreement soaks the citizens of Tulsa County out of over half
a billion dollars in future net revenues.
Before proceeding, I do, however, recommend that the City of Tulsa
engage its own independent market research firm to determine the
financial and economic impact the Bridge will have on the City of
Tulsa as a whole and that the City of Tulsa independently verify IVI’s
future traffic projections across the bridge. It is my
understanding that INCOG’s future traffic projections are
substantially less than IVI’s. If you have any questions
regarding this letter, please feel free to contact me at your
convenience.
Very truly yours,
Michael L. Covey Jr.
cc:
Tulsa County Commissioners
Tulsa River
Parks Authority
Tulsa Park
& Recreation Board
Tulsa Metro Chamber of Commerce
Tulsa Fraternal Order of Police
Tulsa Firefighters
The Honorable Joe Williams
Bixby City Council
Bixby Chamber of Commerce
The Honorable Vic Vreeland
Jenks City
Council
Jenks Chamber of Commerce
Oklahoma Department of Transportation
South Tulsa Citizens Coalition, L.L.C.
=============================================================================
September 1, 2005
Press Release
For Immediate Release
No Documents Reviewed Prior to Approving Toll
Bridge
The South Tulsa Citizens Coalition (“STCC”) has learned that a
majority of the Tulsa County Commissioners (the “Commissioners”) did
not review a single piece of paper prior to approving the 75 year toll
bridge agreement (the “Agreement”) with Infrastructure Venture I,
L.L.C. (“IVI”). The Agreement gives IVI over $650 million in
toll revenues to construct a $33 million bridge that only has a life
expectancy of 50 years. During the discovery phase of its
lawsuit against the Commissioners, STCC requested each of the
Commissioners to produce all documents they reviewed in their
consideration and evaluation of the toll bridge project. In
response to this request, Commissioner Wilburt Collins stated under
oath “I received no documents regarding the toll bridge project.
I reviewed the executed Agreement…,” Commissioner Randi Miller stated
under oath “I have no documents in my possession. I reviewed and
executed the official Agreement…,” and Commissioner Robert Dick stated
under oath that the only documents he reviewed in consideration and
evaluation of the toll bridge project were the official minutes of
past County meetings, a sign-in sheet from a prior Cinnabar meeting, a
letter from Wilbur Smith Associates to IVI, and a draft of the
Agreement.
With regard to the Commissioners’ responses, STCC spokesperson Michael
Covey said, “I think it is embarrassing that our Commissioners had to
admit under oath that they did not review a single sheet of paper
before handing over $650 million to IVI. At the very least, our
Commissioners should have reviewed cost estimates, performed an
economic analysis or feasibility study and weighed all of the
financing options. It’s as if the Commissioners had on
blindfolds and walked the plank with $650 million of the taxpayers’
money. The citizens of Tulsa County elected these Commissioners
to protect us from this kind of financial “looting,” and sadly, they
didn’t do their job.”
STCC spokesperson Michael Covey may be contacted for
individual interviews at (918) 878-5547 or (918) 625-5820.
(Top of News Page)
(Home)
=============================================================================
INCOG Meeting Notes - August 11, 2005
Transportation Reauthorization
Bill
The most recent bill signed into
law by President Bush (some 1000 pages in length, and generally
requiring at least two people to carry) brings some $549 Million to
Oklahoma to install/fix/improve various transportation issues within
the State. One interesting point is that Oklahoma to date has been a
"donor" state, receiving only $.90 of every $1.00 given to the
government. That number is improved to $.92 and soon we will be
moving from donor to donee when the return will be $1.02. The list
of projects went too fast for me to copy them all down (and I think
that only a few of the total were mentioned) but they did include
bridges and roads, notably from I44 south and Yale to the River as
an area of concern. Other roads like Highways 121, 60, and 412 were
also mentioned. I'm sure that there's a complete list of Oklahoma
projects on the DOT web site and I believe it was also in the
Whirled.
Tim Armer made the presentation and it
was basically short and to the point, although he did give
particular attention to the Bridge and the fact that he had received
a lot of comments about it (mostly negative). He stated to this fine
group of adults that the location of the bridge at 121st and Yale
was NOT mandatory, only that there needed to be a bridge in
the vicinity at some point in the future. The floor was then opened
to questions.
Mayor Lafortune to Tim: though he was
voting for the plan, it didn't mean the bridge had to go at 121st
and Yale, right?
Tim: Yes, that's right.
Joanie to Tim: Isn't EMSA
performing within the guidelines today? We don't need a bridge for
them to comply, correct?
Phil to Tim: How would you
characterize the public input (quantity and content) that you
received regarding the plan?
Tim: Majority of input was
related to the bridge. Quite a lot of input.
Bob Dick to room: "Hey
we've just got the big list of projects and they don't have
priority, and we're just trying to get it all done. They don't have
an order". He was trying to make it look like he was the good guy
(my opinion) and playing to the Jenks and Bixby Mayors. There were
also words exchanged between Lafortune and Dick.
Mayor Bixby to everyone: Hey, we
need this bridge for safety concerns. When the big explosion
happened a few years back, the emergency vehicles couldn't get
through...we need it now. How come a bunch of South Tulsa folks are
dictating what we can and can't have? (I'm paraphrasing here but he
sounded like he was reading from his interview in the Whirled).
Mayor LaFortune to Bob Dick and the
rest of the room: (To his credit, Mayor LaFortune came to our
defense stating that we are a group of intelligent, articulate
people who are looking out for the needs of the city). He stated
that the "cooperation" would require that Tulsa benefit somehow from
the bridge. He didn't say Tulsa WAS benefitting. He couldn't
see eliminating projects on Tulsa's list of things to do simply so
that Jenks and Bixby could benefit. Widening of Yale and
improvements that would be necessary to make the bridge work were
just not going to happen, given that we're so far in the hole,
monetarily.
Mayor
Jenks : He also quoted from his interview, stating that
medical services were needed. He also complained about how Tulsa
doesn't even mow the grass on the bridge crossing today.
Carla stepped up to the plate and
really let them have it, indicating that this was a City and County
issue and not a NIMBY issue. Very clear, concise message to all of
them at the meeting. Confirmation from Tim that the bridge DIDN'T
need to be at 121st and Yale. No answer as to why Riverside changed
from 6 to 4 lanes, but still extremely effective. Thanks Carla.
Baker stopped the debate which was
actually getting interesting and called for a vote. The measure was
approved.
Federal Certification Review
Tim Armer said that ODOT was reviewing
them and that everything looked pretty good.
The rest of the meeting was pretty dull
by comparison.
My sense of this whole thing is that it
was a good meeting, generally, although what really came out was
that these folks haven't been playing together. Bob Dick's wonderful
"coming together" is just a sham. There's some real angry people
running these towns. Hope they don't have gun racks. Only decorum
kept the room from becoming a shooting gallery.
What popped into my mind was: "What we
have here is a failure to communicate!" These folks need to actually
TALK to each other. Clearly promises made, promises not kept, money
paid, whatever...Bob Dick beat a hasty retreat once the meeting was
adjourned. Incidentally, during the meeting he strategically
positioned himself so we couldn't see him and he couldn't see us.
Maybe a new definition for "no see 'ums!" (little bugs you can't
see, but their bites itch like crazy!)
In private conversations after the
meeting, Joanie asked Mr. Baker why he stopped the meeting. He
replied that is was getting too heated (no wonder we never get to
the good stuff that results in positive growth). She told him we
weren't finished with asking our questions. She also pounded
home her efforts to him that appropriate real estate disclosures
could help Tulsa become part of the 21st century in the area of
consumer protection laws. He told her he had never lived
anywhere else and didn't know it was any different here. This
was probably the scariest comment all day!
We then schmoozed with Mayor Bill, Tim
Armer, and Susan Neal. We also talked to Susan Neal about the
real estate disclosures as she is heading up efforts on the
Comprehensive Plan. She seemed rather empathetic because she's
had something similar happen to her in the past. Councillor Neal
indicated that the City should "lift" good ideas from other places
and not try to "reinvent the wheel". Find best practices and use
'em!
I had an interesting little one on one with
Mayor LaFortune. After exchanging pleasantries about California (he
graduated from UC Santa Barbara, which may explain his fishy
smell-UCSB is the Marine Biologist's ultimate destination for
education opportunities-you gotta ask yourself how someone
graduating from there can end up as Mayor of Tulsa!) we got into a
discussion of the bridge, and how "[he's] never wavered in his
position" regarding support for the bridge, and he indicated that
his one big concern is "safety for the school area" since he
remembered one person's comment at one of our meetings: "how can you
support a project that doesn't have all the proper bits in place."
It's good to know that he remembers something from the meeting.
Anyway, at this point, I think he's begging forgiveness from Bob
Dick, but seems to be leaning in our direction.
Press Release
Citizens Call for Toll Bridge Investigation
The South Tulsa Citizens Coalition (“STCC”) requested a
detailed financial analysis of the Toll Bridge Agreement made between
Tulsa County and Infrastructure Venture I, L.L.C. (“IVI”). The
financial analysis was prepared by George K. Baum & Company, Inc.
(“GKB”), a leading investment banking firm in the area of
transportation finance.
The analysis concludes that IVI will net $658 Million
in profit with the County only receiving $133 Million over the life of
the agreement. If the County had chosen to “publicly finance”
this bridge, over 75 years the total net revenue to the County would
have been $800 Million. If the County chose to stop collecting
tolls on the bridge once it was paid for, the bridge would be free
after 30 years at a total cost of only $35 Million plus financing
costs.
STCC spokesperson, Michael
Covey, said “This is an outrage. Is there no leadership at the
County level looking out for the interests of the taxpayers? The
75 year IVI agreement soaks the citizens of Tulsa County out of over
half a billion dollars more than is needed to build this bridge, and
of that money the County Commissioners gave away $658 Million to their
buddies. I am calling for an investigation into the Tulsa County
Commissioners handling of this bridge. We either have an abuse
of power, or financial incompetence, and neither is good for the
taxpayers, or toll payers of Tulsa!”
Click here for
Financial Review
Press
Release
July 13, 2005
12:44 PM US Eastern Timezone
South Tulsa Citizens
Coalition Opposes Tulsa Toll Bridge - Eminent Domain for Private
Investment
TULSA, Okla.--(BUSINESS
WIRE)--July 13, 2005--On June 27, 2005, the South Tulsa Citizens
Coalition, LLC filed a lawsuit against the Board of County
Commissioners of the County of Tulsa, Okla. The lawsuit alleges that
the defendant violated certain Oklahoma state laws by entering into a
75 year agreement with Infrastructure Venture I, L.L.C. to construct
and operate a toll bridge over the Arkansas River between 121st Street
and 131st Street linking Yale Avenue to Yale Place. A portion of the
land where the toll bridge is to be located was conveyed to the City
of Tulsa in 1998 for the express use as a public park. The land is
also located in an environmentally sensitive area which includes a
bald eagle nesting habitat. On July 7, 2005, the Tulsa City Council
voted to oppose the construction of the toll bridge. The defendant has
alleged that it will attempt to use its power of eminent domain to aid
in the construction of the toll bridge. On July 12, 2005, the Tulsa
City Attorney issued a formal legal opinion stating that the defendant
has no eminent domain power over the City of Tulsa's property. The
lawsuit was filed in the District Court of Tulsa County and assigned
Case No. CJ-2005-03749. According to media sources, Bill Bacon, Bob
Parmele and Howard Kelsey are partners in Infrastructure Venture I,
L.L.C. and the company is working with a New York investment banking
firm to identify prospective lenders to fund the toll bridge. For
additional information, please go to
www.movethatbridge.com
======================================================================================
Speechless at City Hall
City Hall - July 7th, 2005 - The mayor
stayed on the fence for another week or so when he refused to join the
council on the resolution against the Yale Bridge because he hadn't
had time to read it. Joining the Mayor in his "straddling of the
issue" was Councilor Neal of District 9 as she decided to abstain
rather than vote no (however, abstaining is the same as a "no" vote
according to the law). Councilor Neal said that bridges have
historically been good for Tulsa growth (there was an editorial in the
Tulsa World with the same comment, justifying it by talking of the way
it was rather than the way it is). The rest of the council who
were in attendance (what happened to Baker and Martinson?) voted loud
and clear - YES!
In other news, the STCC was totally
ignored by the County Commission this morning as Commissioner
Dick said that there was nothing to discuss with regards to the bridge
at the meeting since everything was discussed in executive session.
The STCC will continue this fight -
stay tuned. (See
Editorial and
Mayor's Memo)
==============================================================
Minutes of May 9th Meeting
15 May 2005
Page 1 of 3
The
following summary is a highlight of issues presented at the meeting.
It is not a complete list of issues and concerns.
Additional
concerns were raised at the meeting by audience members that are not
reflected in this outline summary.
SUMMARY OF
CONCERNS AND ISSUES PRESENTED AT
Move That
Bridge Association – Town Hall Meeting
Held on May
9, 2005
GENERAL
ISSUES/CONCERNS
-
Move That Bridge Association is not opposed to a
bridge in south Tulsa.
-
28 Tulsa subdivisions are being represented at this
meeting.
-
Limited information is being made available about
how & why certain decisions were made.
-
Conflicting information exists.
-
No answers to many residents’ questions.
-
Ensure that a safe and responsible bridge is built
in South Tulsa.
-
Improve communications to minimize & avoid adverse
impacts to existing subdivisions.
-
Demand accountability of those who are making the
decisions.
-
Rationale for current bridge location has not been
adequately conveyed to residents.
SAFETY ISSUES/CONCERNS
IMPACT OF CURRENT PROPOSAL ON BRIDGE SAFETY
IMPACT OF CURRENT PROPOSAL ON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
-
2 of 3 traffic routes on the north side route cars
past elementary schools.
-
Current estimates suggest 7500+ cars/day
(increasing up to 20,000) will cross the bridge.
-
Divided equally, that’s 2500+ additional cars/day
on Yale, 121st, & Riverside.
-
Assuming 70% of bridge traffic continues straight,
then potentially 5000+ additional cars/day on Yale.
-
Children that walk & ride bikes to school have to
cross Yale.
-
Jenks SE Elementary School children will be placed
directly in the path of large trucks from Kimberly Clark, a large
plant, located on the opposite side of the river.
-
Need to consider building an overwalk or crossover
to allow safe crossings.
-
Parents park along Yale regularly because of
inadequate parking at Jenks SE Elem.
-
The City of Tulsa needs to work with Jenks Public
Schools to provide ample parking.
-
Parents stop along Yale and drop off their kids.
-
Yale is a major Jenks Public Schools bus route.
Buses stop at many neighborhood entrances, delaying traffic and
completely stopping traffic in both directions.
IMPACT OF CURRENT PROPOSAL ON FIRE STATION
-
New fire station to be built on Yale at 111th.
-
Concerns about response time to emergency calls if
traffic is bumper-to-bumper and stopped in both directions along
Yale.
IMPACT OF CURRENT PROPOSAL ON RIVERSIDE ROAD
15 May 2005
Page 2 of 3
CONGESTION
AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROBLEMS
-
Growth must be supported by well-planned and
executed infrastructure.
-
Yale Ave. is currently is severe disrepair, barely
supporting existing traffic load.
-
Large trucks travel Yale frequently, contributing
to the road damage.
-
Lack of infrastructure in the surrounding
communities.
-
Many homes are not even connected to a sewer
system.
-
Statements are made that progress happens and
infrastructure follows – it’s not.
-
What is the improvement plan for Yale to prevent
further destruction by traffic to and from a neighboring city?
-
No widening of Yale scheduled for at least 10
years, according to a City of Tulsa Representative.
-
No plans to protect the surrounding neighborhoods
from increased air, light and noise pollution.
-
Bridge route is directly through a section of
designated City of Tulsa park land.
-
Current proposal may impact a state Registered
Natural Area.
AN
ALTERNATIVE TO THE CURRENT PROPOSAL
(a picture
was presented to depict the conceptual alternative in red – see
picture below)
BENEFITS OF
THE ALTERNATIVE BRIDGE PROPOSAL
-
It will join two major thoroughfares, 121st Street
and Riverside Drive, both of which are scheduled for widening.
-
It limits safety and economic impacts on
neighborhoods already in existence.
-
It does not go through a school zone.
-
It will eliminate the dangerous curve on 121st
street that has caused many accidents and deaths.
-
It will eliminate the bottleneck situation that
will be created by the IVI proposed bridge location since a
majority of the traffic will be trying to get to and from
Riverside Drive.
-
The alternate location is shorter in length that
the IVI proposed location and should be less expensive or at least
the same capital cost.
-
The alternative location will be lower cost to the
city of Tulsa. It dovetails well with the book plans for Riverside
Drive and avoids forcing the city to fix problems along Yale
created by the bridge.
-
It will provide a straight unencumbered 4-lane
access between Bixby, South Tulsa, Creek Turnpike and Downtown
Tulsa once Riverside is widened for the last two miles from the
Creek Turnpike to 121st street.
-
The alternative route is straighter than the IVI
proposed route, with fewer potentially hazardous curves and
complex intersections for emergency vehicles and trucks to
maneuver through.
-
The alternative route will allow Yale Avenue from
the Creek Turnpike to 121st to be zoned for no truck traffic and
allows the anticipated truck traffic with a straight unencumbered
route to the Creek Turnpike via Riverside Drive which already has
heavy truck traffic.
-
The alternate route will not encroach upon the
future Tulsa city park that is planned for the south side of 121st
street north of the river as much as the IVI proposed route.
15 May 2005
Page 3 of 3
Move That
Bridge Alternative for South Tulsa County Bridge
