Move That Bridge News Page

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 131^st Street and Yale Place in Jenks to 121^st 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.”

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 121^st Street to the Creek Turnpike; and

· They will not allow the bridge to connect to 121^st Street and Yale Avenue or any minor deviation or variance from that location. However, they will be able to support a bridge connecting to 121^st 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.”

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

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 131^st and Yale Place on the South side of the Arkansas River to 121^st 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 13^th.” 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.

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.

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 121^st 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?

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.”

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!”

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.

Dispatch Filed On: Monday, October 03, 2005 - From Medblogged.blogspot.com

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:

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.

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.

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.

- 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.

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 121^st and Yale Avenue to 131^st 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:

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 121^st 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.

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 121^st 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 121^st 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 131^st 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.^*

The County would terminate the IVI Agreement. The County would move the northern location of the Bridge to 121^st 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 121^st 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 121^st Street from Riverside Parkway to Memorial Drive and Riverside Parkway from 121^st 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.

* These numbers are based upon the future traffic projections across the Bridge as determined by Wilbur Smith Associates. A copy of the traffic projections is enclosed with this letter as Exhibit A. These numbers are also based on the financial analysis prepared by George K. Baum and Company regarding the public financing of the Bridge. A copy of the financial analysis is enclosed with this letter as Exhibit B.

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

12-31-05 Coalition challenges decision on bridge

12-30-05 Commissioners struggle with the validity of the deal with a private firm.

Dispatch Filed On: Monday, October 03, 2005 - From Medblogged.blogspot.com

Boeing! Boeing! Boeing! Was the Bridge Bounced for Boeing?