Tulsa City Hall: October 2019 Archives

Brent Isaacs, a native Tulsan and city planner active for many years in advocating for a better Tulsa, has has written a piece below about why you should to vote against the first item on the November 12, 2019, Tulsa ballot. Labeled on the first sheet of the ballot as "PROPOSITION IMPROVE OUR TULSA (Streets and Transportation Systems Construction and Repair Bonds)," it is a $427,000,000 general obligation bond issue "for the purpose of constructing, reconstructing, improving, repairing and/or purchasing streets and transportation systems," which will be paid for by an increase in property tax rates within the City of Tulsa.

When Brent posted an earlier version of this essay on Facebook, I commented that the Engineering Services Department is like a computer, and it's running a program that it was given to run 50 years ago. The neighborhood-destroying zombie project that is the Elm Creek West Pond is another case in point. It's time that Tulsans, through our vote on November 12 and through our support for candidates for mayor and city council in 2020, terminated the current, outdated program and launched a newer, better program that takes these economic realities into account. He has kindly granted permission to publish an updated version of his essay here at BatesLine.

Why I am Voting No on Improve our Tulsa 2's Streets and Transportation Package

Brent C. Isaacs, AICP, 10/29/19

Tulsa is trapped in a structural infrastructure deficit- and that's why I am voting no on Improve our Tulsa 2, item one on November 12. Item one is a general obligation bond for mostly street projects. Say what? Why would I vote no? Wouldn't that make the problem worse?

I get that there are legitimate capital improvement needs for our city, the third penny sales tax is up for renewal and there will be no tax increase required. I wanted to vote yes, and will do so on item three that would create a standing "Rainy Day" fund for the City, and leaning toward voting yes on item two, for all the non-street projects that will be funded by extending the third penny sales tax. Normally, I am in favor of all propositions funding capital improvement projects but this time I have decided to vote no on the streets package. Here's why.

1. When it comes to streets, Improve our Tulsa 2 is doing the same thing we have been doing for over 40 years and it hasn't worked. Yes, streets have been widened and improved but we are still are no closer to ending our structural infrastructure deficit.

The land area in Tulsa grew dramatically in 1966 when the number of square miles in the city limits more than doubled nearly overnight. While that allowed for a population increase and allowed the City to capture sales tax revenue from the booming growth to the south and east, it also created demand, particularly for new street infrastructure, that has yet to be met. For a while, as the growth periphery continued to largely be in Tulsa's city limits, sales tax dollars continued to increase. However, over the last 20 years, as the growth periphery has moved beyond the Tulsa city limits to places like Jenks, Bixby and Broken Arrow, the growth in sales tax revenue has slowed dramatically and City operating costs just to maintain the same level of service have outpaced available tax revenue. The population of the city of Tulsa has been around 400,000 for nearly the same time frame.

Now we are faced with not only having to add infrastructure just to catch up with all the sprawling growth for neighborhoods developed long ago, but also having to rehabilitate infrastructure that was built in the 1960s, 70s and 80s that is largely worn out. Item one, the general obligation bond for $427,000,000, includes $64,000,000 for additional street widening with $295,800,000 for existing street repairs. But, this is just a portion of what's reported to be needed. The current capital improvement needs list is estimated to be in the billions. This is occurring as the city is no longer growing in population, sales tax revenues are flat and operating costs for the City of Tulsa are increasing faster than tax revenue.

2. The current growth patterns that have been fueled by our street infrastructure investments aren't sustainable.

The reality is that we cannot continue to invest in street infrastructure that does not more than pay for itself and fund its replacement with regular sales tax revenue. Otherwise, we will never get caught up. By continuing the cycle of investing in more of the same infrastructure, we are facilitating low density sprawling development that will not adequately pay for the cost of this infrastructure.

Joe Minicozzi, Principal and Founder of fiscal, development and tax analysis firm Urban 3 (http://www.urban-three.com/), stated in a 2012 Atlantic Cities article, now Citylab (https://www.citylab.com/life/2012/03/simple-math-can-save-cities-bankruptcy/1629/) "Low-density development isn't just a poor way to make...tax revenue. It's extremely expensive to maintain. In fact, it's only feasible if we're expanding development at the periphery into eternity, forever bringing in revenue from new construction that can help pay for the existing subdivisions we've already built."

This describes the situation in Tulsa accurately. The only way to fund all this street infrastructure and even possibly get caught up is to dramatically increase sales and property taxes. This is largely viewed as being politically unfeasible and, as I argue below, is economically unwise.

3. Infrastructure should generate additional wealth for a city, not create additional tax burdens.

Minicozzi and Chuck Marohn, Founder and President of Strong Towns (https://www.strongtowns.org/), an organization promoting smart, incremental development that is financially sustainable for cities, have created models showing the amount of property tax created per acre for different types of development. They have showed that while everyone thinks a big Walmart on a suburban site will generate an enormous amount of tax revenue, because of the infrastructure required to service such a large site, the amount of property tax revenue per acre is much lower than traditional denser development found in downtowns and older urban neighborhoods. While the City of Tulsa is dependent on sales tax, not property tax, revenue to fund operations, locally the Urban Data Pioneers civic group attempted to do a similar analysis of Tulsa development patterns based on sales tax revenue in 2017. The picture was largely similar.

Thus, for example, when considering street improvements, we need to look at more than just traffic counts or the pavement condition index. We need to consider what type of development will this facilitate and will it generate additional tax revenue that more than covers the cost of the improvement and provides replacement cost funding.

4. The list of street projects included in a proposal needs to be subjected to more than just the analysis from Engineering Services. The economic value created and whether the improvement facilitates the type of city Tulsans desire should be part of the selection criteria.

As I currently understand it, Engineering Services maintains the list of needed capital improvement projects. Street projects are reviewed and ranked to determine which have the greatest need based on traffic counts, age, pavement condition index, etc. However, nowhere in these is the level of economic activity, tax revenue likely to be generated and whether the type of development helps create Tulsans' desired city, considered. With a few exceptions, Engineering Services largely controls the capital improvement process.

The most recent gauge of what Tulsans would like for our city is the Tulsa Comprehensive Plan, that came out of PlaniTulsa. It represents the views what thousands of Tulsans said they wanted our city to look like. Currently, the plan is administered by the Tulsa Planning Office at INCOG. They should have a formal role in reviewing and determining which capital improvement projects are needed to achieve this vision.

Besides opening the process up to the Tulsa Planning Office, there should be an independent economic analysis done for projects to determine whether they generate additional tax revenue or economic activity that exceeds their original and replacement costs. Ultimately, a project selection committee should be formed that makes the final recommendations on projects based on these criteria to the Mayor.

5. The City has done a poor job managing and completing construction on existing capital improvement projects that have already been funded.

You don't have to look far to see projects, particularly projects impacting our streets, that have taken a really long time or have been redone multiple times in Tulsa in recent years. As I speak, there has been a large hole on Denver right in front of 5th Street by Central Library and the Tulsa County Courthouse that has been there for weeks and weeks. Nothing seems to really be happening but it is causing back ups regularly for people going to court, the library or the BOK Center. I don't understand why there hasn't been more a sense of urgency in getting this inconvenient construction completed. Or, outside of downtown, Lewis between 11th and 21st Streets has been in different stages of construction for years. First, it was redoing the intersection at 15th and Lewis, then multiple projects from 15th to 21st Streets, then work from the Broken Arrow to 11th Street to narrow the street creating on street parking. Now, with the work on the Broken Arrow Expressway bridges over 15th and Lewis, the area is torn up again. I don't understand why these projects, along with countless others, couldn't have been better coordinated and completed in a much shorter timeframe.

Tulsans have expressed frustration with continual street construction. Bumper stickers have been spotted that say "Tulsa...finish something!" or "Welcome to the City of Road Construction". I realize that construction is often the price of progress but can't we figure out a way to do it better? Other cities don't seem to have as much constant construction as Tulsa does.

While some people will say voting no on the street improvements will halt progress in our city, I disagree. There are plenty of capital improvement projects, including streets, that have been approved by the voters but have yet to be completed. In the meantime, can't we rethink our street capital improvements approach and come back with a new proposal that considers these options above? Tulsans deserve better and we should start now.

Brent C. Isaacs, AICP, is a local urban planner in Tulsa.

Prior to yesterday's meeting concerning the Elm Creek West Pond in Paul Harvey's old neighborhood, the Institute for Justice issued a media advisory:

HEARING: Tulsa Residents Protest City's Attempt To Take Their Homes Using Eminent Domain For Redevelopment Project

Today, the city of Tulsa has scheduled a public meeting with residents of Tulsa's Pearl District to explain why the city will use eminent domain to take residents' homes if they refuse to sell. Tulsa residents attending today's meeting plan to protest the city's attempt to forcibly take their homes against their will. Tulsa, in partnership with the Tulsa Development Authority and Universal Field Services, have targeted approximately 45 homes in phase one, near VFW Post 577 and the Indian Health Care Center Resource Center on Sixth Street, to pave the way for a mixed-use development where the neighborhood currently sits. The city's plans call for taking almost every residence in this subdivision.

"The city's claims that it needs a stormwater pond are a thinly veiled attempt to do an end run around the Oklahoma Constitution's prohibition on the use of eminent domain for economic development," said Arif Panju, a managing attorney with the Institute for Justice. "Eminent domain should be reserved for public use--such as roads--not for redevelopment projects that involve the use of public power for private gain."

The city's claim of using eminent domain for a public use due to needing stormwater drainage has raised eyebrows in the neighborhood, both due to the existence of stormwater drainage immediately next door in Centennial Park, and because developers have purchased homes and land in and around their neighborhood.

John Dawson, whose home Tulsa plans to take through eminent domain, calls his home in the Pearl District "his family's little slice of paradise. He added, "I can see how it might not be appealing on the surface to some people, but it wouldn't take long for most people to realize it's pretty awesome."

The Institute for Justice is a pro-bono legal-aid organization that helps citizens fighting unconstitutional government overreach. The abuse of the government's power of eminent domain abuse is a principal focus of the group.

The IJ's statement seems to allude both to the concept sketches from Alaback Design which shows new condos and mixed-use development surrounding the pond and to the acquisition by the Indian Health Care Resource Center (IHCRC) of nearly all the remaining property in the neighborhood (outlined in blue in the map below), including the entire block between Owasso and Peoria Avenues, 5th Street and 5th Place, which would have a view toward the downtown skyline over the new pond.

This will be brief, as I'm worn out. Over 100 people turned out for tonight's meeting between city officials and contractors and neighborhood residents to discuss the Elm Creek West Pond, a stormwater detention facility which would wipe out Paul Harvey's childhood home and his neighborhood, using eminent domain to displace families who moved into the area because of the neighborhood's well-built but affordable homes near downtown, parks, and entertainment.

I live-tweeted the meeting as a Twitter thread; the unrolled version is here. Councilor Kara Joy McKee livestreamed the meeting on Facebook.

Councilor McKee did a fair job of running the meeting. She started with a recitation of her "communication norms" -- ten practices to keep the meeting focused and civil -- then collected questions from the audience. There was a presentation from members of the project team, including the project manager, the hydrologist, and the real estate acquisition manager. The presentation was supposed to have been tailored toward answering questions, but that didn't quite happen, and the final session, which was supposed to have allowed for comments from the community, instead went back to ensure that a portion of the questions had been answered.

One of the key unanswered questions is how the City intends to pay for construction of the pond. We were told that acquisition is funded and that there's money, from stormwater management fees, to cover maintenance of the acquired properties. There was a vague slide about funding from stormwater revenue bonds, but the question "how much?" went unanswered. We also need to know who would authorize the issuance of these revenue bonds.

Because so many questions went unanswered and the building was due to close, Councilor McKee said she would abbreviate a meeting scheduled for Tuesday evening at the Central Center and would devote another 90 minutes to this topic, beginning at 6 pm.

There was a passing mention by City Engineer Paul Zachary about the urgency to acquire a boundary of properties to block acquisition by the Indian Health Care Resource Center. More about the IHCRC's recent purchases later.

Councilor McKee mentioned she would be contacting the City Attorney's office to see what options the council has. I would caution any elected or appointed official to take advice from city attorneys and bureaucrats with a grain of salt, to listen as much for what they don't say as what they do. I've seen citizens elected or appointed to boards, and then they are trained and tamed by the bureaucracy. I told this to my thirteen-year-old son, who was at the meeting, and immediately he said, "Just like Yes, Minister!" We've been watching the timeless British sitcom about the struggle between a government department's permanent bureaucrats and the politicians who are in charge in name only. It ought to be mandatory viewing as part of civics education and for new elected officials.

More tomorrow.

VIDEOS:

October 14, 2019, meeting, as live-streamed by Councilor McKee
October 15, 2019, meeting, as live-streamed by Councilor McKee

DOCUMENTS:

Here are documents mentioned or handed out at the October 14 meeting and its continuation on October 15. In response to my request, Mayo Baugher, Councilor McKee's aide, emailed me these documents on November 20, 2019. I have run optical character recognition on the Pearl District Small Area Plan PDF to make it more accessible to search engines:

• West Pond Concept Report - March 2018: Presented by Guy Engineering, Swift Water Resources Engineering, Alaback Design Associates to the City of Tulsa. The report notes that the $22 million needed for completion of design and construction has not been secured, but the city will continue to acquire properties until the money they have runs out. The report also shows potential private residential redevelopment around the ponds.


• Parcel Right-of-Way map with pond overlay: Detailed map, as of 1 October 2019, showing parcels in Central Park Place to be acquired for the proposed Elm Creek West Pond. Three parcels are shown as in the process of acquisition. Note that 48 lots are going to be permanently under water in order to remove 50 other lots from getting wet once in 100 years.


• Properties Removed From Floodplain: Map and list of 50 properties that are claimed to be removed from the City of Tulsa 100-year regulatory floodplain by the Elm Creek West Pond. It looks like the biggest claimed hazard -- flooding of the Inner Dispersal Loop -- could be handled with detention ponds in vacant state-owned land south of 13th Street.


• Powerpoint for City Engineering Services Q&A presentation on October 14, 2019: Answers seem responsive on the surface, but many sidestep what's really at stake.


• "Alternative Pond Sites": The title is misleading. In fact, this shows alternative pond configurations for the west pond, east pond, and a potential third pond northeast of the MKT tracks. Only one truly alternative site is shown: Using open space between the ramps of the 7th Street/8th Street interchange with the east leg of the Inner Dispersal Loop. This document is only maps -- no information about capacity, advantages, disadvantages.


• 2797-1004 (CPA-81) Pearl District Small Area Plan: Includes adoption documents from the TMAPC and the City Council.

Tulsa District 4 City Councilor Kara Joy McKee is hosting a public meeting on Monday, October 14, 2019, at the Central Center at Centennial Park, 1028 E 6th St, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74120, from 6 pm to 8 pm, to discuss the planned Elm Creek West stormwater detention pond. The City Council has begun condemning homes in the neighborhood where legendary radio newsman Paul Harvey spent his childhood, and his childhood home is itself in the footprint of the pond and threatened with demolition for the sake of a pond of questionable utility and funding.

The Dawson home at 1111 E. 5th Place is one of the homes that Councilor McKee and her colleagues have voted to condemn, with the approval of Mayor G. T. Bynum IV. The Dawsons purchased the home last summer, moved in, and have done extensive renovations to the century-old home. The homes of other urban pioneers in the neighborhood have not yet been condemned, but unless the City Council votes to halt the acquisition process, it's only a matter of time. Other owners would gladly begin renovation work but have been deterred by the city's pond plans.

Here is Councilor McKee's note about the event:

This letter below was sent to affected residents earlier this week. If you know residents in this area, please help me remind them to attend. Many have questions about the use of eminent domain and what houses may or may not be taken by the city and why. I am hopeful that we'll get more clarity at this meeting.

Dear Property Owner/Resident in the Elm Creek Basin- north of Central Park:

You are invited to a public meeting with the City of Tulsa's engineering staff and consulting engineers to discuss a project in your neighborhood.

The meeting will be held Oct. 14, 2019, at 6 p.m. in the auditorium of Central Center at Centennial Park, 1028 E. Sixth St.

PROJECT AREA: Elm Creek Basin - north of Centennial Park

PROPOSED WORK: Pearl District Flood Control
(Elm Creek West Pond)

FUNDING SOURCE: 2014 Improve Our Tulsa sales tax

CONSULTING ENGINEER: Guy Engineering Services, Inc.

CONTACT:
Chris Gimmel
Stormwater Design Project Manager
City of Tulsa
(918) 596-9498
cgimmel@cityoftulsa.org

This meeting will give area residents and property owners the opportunity to ask questions and learn about the scope and duration of the project.

Anyone wishing to attend and needing accommodation for a disability can contact Compliance Officer, LaKendra Carter, in the Mayor's Office of Resilience and Equity, (918) 576-5208, at least 48 hours before the meeting.

The public is welcome to attend to attend to watch, listen, and hold us accountable as we work out what has happened so far and what should be happening going forward.

I hope that the councilor and the other city officials who plan to attend will come a little early and then walk a block north to see the Dawsons' home and the other renovated homes threatened by this pond. A City Council vote set condemnation in motion, and a City Council vote could rescind it.

Tulsa has a bad habit of condemning property and then not using it. Maple Park sits on land where homes once stood, cleared for a Riverside Expressway interchange that was killed by neighborhood protests. The near northside neighborhood still sits empty, 15 years after the city finished clearing it for college buildings that will never be needed. When the "Model Cities" urban renewal program bought and cleared most of Deep Greenwood, the promised redevelopment never took place, and the land sat empty until it was repurposed decades later for what are now the OSU-Tulsa and Langston-Tulsa campuses.

Property acquisition should stop and condemnation actions should be rescinded until the necessity of the Elm Creek Basin ponds are re-evaluated and, if the ponds are still deemed necessary, full funding for construction has been secured.

MORE -- A few examples of public officials rescinding an eminent domain taking:

Johnstown, New York, June 2019 (Leader-Herald): Council unanimously votes to rescind condemnation vote a month earlier. (Recorder News coverage)

Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, September 2018 (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel): Village rescinds farmland taking because they don't need the land yet.

Carolina Beach, NC, August 2018 (PortCity Daily): City rescinds eminent domain for purchasing entire properties, opts for easements for beach replenishment.

West Vincent Township, Pennsylvania, January 2012 (Fox Rothschild law firm): Township rescinds taking of 33 acres belonging to Ludwig's Corner Horse Show Association, in response to public outcry. "I have seen governmental entities far too often become entrenched in their actions and irrationally refuse to reconsider their decisions. Fortunately, the Township was an exception."