Tulsa Real Estate Roundtable: ‘This is Not the Oklahoma River’

By Kirby Lee Davis

Right out of the starting gate, January’s Square Feet Tulsa Roundtable splintered over riverfront development.

“Implementable, realistic plans within a time frame? I don’t see any,” said Steve Walman, the owner of Walman Commercial Real Estate Services and a guiding force behind Tulsa’s two newest commercial projects, popularly seen as reinvigorating Arkansas River progress.

Illustrating just how contentious this issue remains in Oklahoma’s second-largest city, for more than two hours the panelists did little more than define and debate the river’s status – but in doing so, crossed a wide stretch of history while gazing into the sandbar’s potential.

Joining Walman in the roundtable were several Tulsa leaders playing a large role in river policy:

William B. Smith, vice chairman of the Oklahoma Floodplain Managers Association and president of Hydropower International Services International Consultancy. The hydrologist has been involved in state floodplain management and hydrological analyses for more than 30 years.

Gaylon Pinc, who joined Program Management Group in August. Over the prior 31 years, the engineer served the Indian Nations Council of Governments (INCOG), playing a major role in developing the existing Arkansas River policies. When Tulsa County took over that guidance role from INCOG last year, Pinc moved to PMg to continue his participation in the next phases of river studies.

Susan Neal, a former Tulsa city councilor and now the director of community development and education with Mayor Kathy Taylor’s staff, overseeing riverfront development and many other issues.

Bob Parker, vice president of retail leasing and marketing with GBR Properties, served as the panel moderator.

Parker: “How would you characterize the current status of the Tulsa riverfront corridor?”

Walman: “I’m speaking as a businessman who’s been involved in Riverwalk Crossing (in Jenks) – we did the leasing initially in that – and we’re just finishing King’s Landing at 99th and Riverside (just across the river from Riverwalk in Tulsa). So far we’re in excess of 80 percent pre-leased. It’s been positive and both projects have contributed to their communities. But other than that, my opinion of riverfront development is that there isn’t any. I love the planning. Unfortunately I just saw that Tulsa Fantastic Films (a Christmas DVD release of old Tulsa area films) – they were planning riverfront development 50 years ago. Implementable, realistic plans within a time frame? I don’t see any. So my short answer is, there is no riverfront development other than private enterprise at this point and time that I’m aware of.”

Neal: “The current status to me is hopeful, and probably I’m a bit more optimistic than Steve, but I think he paints a fairly realistic history. We have been planning and planning and planning riverfront development for a long, long time. But I would also concur with him that currently, whether it’s Riverwalk, or whether it’s the Landing, or whether it’s anything else that’s taken place on the river, we don’t really have riverfront development. But it’s interesting to me how the community defines riverfront development. If they define it by Riverwalk, which is a wonderful project, acceptable to most people – well, that’s different from what many of us around Tulsa County view as real riverfront development, which actually lets you interact and recreate with the river. And that’s what makes it costly. If you are dining, you are dining on the river. It’s not just a restaurant that you look out and you can see the river. And I think that if it were easy, it would have already been done. But until we can play on it and interact with it, walk alongside it, have a dinner beside it, navigate it on a boat and fish on it, I think we are missing the boat on riverfront development.”

Pinc (to Walman): “From an implementer’s standpoint, you’re right, there is nothing going on now. Riverwalk Crossing is still the poster child of what folks would like to have. In the planning stage we engaged the public and got their opinions, and yes, they want to be able to do just what Susan said. But they also want the natural beauty, they want the environmental enhancements- they want it all – all in this one, 42-mile corridor.”

Smith: “We have been chipping away at this concept since Zink Lake Dam was constructed in 1981. The citizens of Tulsa County have expressed their desire for it and as leaders in the community, the response needs to be answered. There is a Master Corridor Plan that was developed by the citizens of Tulsa County – Tulsa, Sand Springs, Jenks, Bixby, Broken Arrow – and it needs to proceed. There are other specific projects that are proposed – The Channels, The Branson Landing developer, and others yet to be seen. These projects need to be evaluated and considered as part of the Arkansas River Master Corridor Plan, and implemented, for the most part, as private development concepts. If there are components that are for the benefit of the general public, then those portions could be publicly financed, but for the most part they should be primarily privately financed.”

Pinc: “What makes that difficult is that whole river corridor is protected by federal and state law. From an environmental standpoint there’s a buffer required of development to protect those habitats that exist there. It slows the development process to a snail’s pace, to where the general public can’t see much progress unless you boast about the snail. To do what Susan described is fantastic, it is doable, but it takes a lot of study and a lot of time to get the permits to build such a thing. And then also to work with Mother Nature and to preserve that type of development, because it’s risky.”

Smith: “The Federal Emergency Management Agency has minimum criteria for finished floor floodplain development outlined in their National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) – at or above the Base Flood Elevation (1 percent or 100-year) with no rise in the designated floodway. The city of Tulsa has elected to adopt criteria of one foot above the 1-percent floodplain elevation. The city of Jenks has elected to require the finished floor elevation be one foot above the 1986 flood event. Other communities along the river have either adopted the minimum FEMA criteria or more stringent criteria.

“However, projects such as The Channels (an $800 million proposal to build islands in the river for further development) may consider special criteria as an exception to the rules. With a dam (such as Keystone Dam, just west of Tulsa) above a major development area, nontraditional flood events can occur. During the 1986 flood, 301,800 cubic feet per second was released from Keystone Dam, which is only a third of the spillway capacity. Had the Grand River not already been releasing, due to the anticipated track of the storm, the release could have been much greater – 400,000 cfs or 500,000 cfs. When these magnitudes of release are made, the velocity within the confines of the river banks is documented to be between 12 and 20 feet per second. Scouring occurs at 4.5 to 5 feet per second on Arkansas River sand. Significant damage and destruction can occur as low as 8 feet per second. However, the overbank areas, though the overbanks would be flooded, experience general velocities below 1 foot per second. This is the main issue on the opposition to The Channels-type project. The flooding could easily be greater than the 1986 flood plus one foot, and the scouring, damage, loss of life potential is significantly greater when a development is placed within the riverbed, rather than on the overbank areas.”

Pinc: “We are in the first phase of implementation past planning, but because the river is protected, Tulsa County and the Corps of Engineers are doing a study now that is collecting the baseline environmental information that will be able to go into the environmental impact statements that will be necessary to get the permits to build anything in the river that will modify the banks or the channel.

“Riverwalk Crossing had to negotiate through the Corp’s maze of bureaucracy and get that – and once again that was a great service to future river development because we know some of the limits that the Corps has and some of the compromise that we can meaningfully implement that will make river development happen. And that’s encouraging because regulators have a lot of power in terms of protecting the environment. And they have the federal and state law behind them. To buck that even in a metro area is very difficult; you have to be able to mitigate your impacts.

“This is not the Oklahoma River. The Oklahoma River is not protected. This Arkansas River is a highly protected river because of the bald eagle and because of the interior least tern. We have the habitat that they use, and with their being endangered, we have to protect that. We can do that, and we’ve proven that. So the management techniques to do river development are there.

“One of the things that we’re finding in any river development, and it is something we’ll have to tackle, is something as simple as stream bank erosion. You build close to the bank and you have to somehow harden those banks. We’re seeing that kind of erosion in existing development downstream and we’re going to have to deal with that. So, the more we want to do development, we have to do it cautiously, but once again we don’t want to lose the momentum, and we haven’t done a very good job of informing the public on where we are in terms of river development and limitation.

“Everything that’s happening is really in the private sector and thank goodness for that, because it has really inspired people again. We saw that level of energy in the planning process for the corridor master plan. It has waned. And now with The Channels and other projects that are going to be announced in the near future, once again the public excitement is there, but I think the desire is really there and the expectations are very high. Some will be disappointed because we can’t do it for the length of the river and the magnitude that we would like.”

Neal: “I remain optimistic because I believe we have leadership that is absolutely committed to making sure river development gets under way in the immediate future. But even if we undertake a project, and we find funding for a project and it’s identified as public-private partnership or its all private and the public just does some infrastructure, whatever we undertake, I don’t think we’ve done a very good job of communicating to the public that if we undertook a project tomorrow, just the 404 permitting process alone would take, what, 18 months?”

Pinc: “At least.”

Neal: “The environmental agencies, the Corps, have a lot of permitting processes, so even if we had the funding identified, the project identified, we need to do a much better job at identifying to the public the time constraints -”

Walman: “The realities of the process.”

Neal: “Thank you. Because this particular river probably has more regulatory regulations than other communities that they have to deal with. “

Walman: “I think the problem I have right now, and for a lot of Tulsans is, in Vision 2025 I voted for a river and I got an arena. I sat three years ago with a city hydrologist when we were doing Riverwalk and considering King’s Landing and I said, ‘Listen, with $27 million of private money going on this river, it’s imperative to know when this low-water dam’s going in that was the No. 1 priority of Vision 2025 and is so critical to the catalyst that’s going to come.’ And we were never sold the reality of the process. As simplistic as my mind works, I think a lot of people thought that 2025 was going to get a low-water dam. What that did was pay for a plan to get a low-water dam and for the last three years we’ve been told all the reasons why it’s not happening.

“I don’t care for the reasons why we don’t get it done. I voted for it. I won’t vote for another thing before that low-water dam gets built. And I don’t think any Tulsan will. Remember how long it took to get 2025 passed? Nobody had faith that somebody can pull that off. Until we pull that off, I don’t think anybody’s going to have faith that we’re going to do anything else.

“Maybe that’s cynical business, but every week I’ve got $27 million worth of shopping centers on a sandbar. And I was told three years. This is a Tulsa problem, not a personal agenda issue. If in 2025 you’d said this is a 10-year process and you don’t have the money, it’s going to require a lot of these things and there’s federal mandates, I’d put a dollar down 2025 wouldn’t have passed.”

Pinc: “There must be a lot of general misconceptions in the general public, as the three-year timeline for low-water dams was totally unrealistic for the regulatory process you have to go through and the design. It’s really a five-year process. The one down for Jenks/south Tulsa is the No. 1 priority and actually has more environmental hurdles to get over than the one at Sand Springs. But even if it is first, making the boats float at King’s Landing will be another three years from today, if we’re lucky – meaning, if the public votes for that second package that you won’t vote on to get the monies that we probably won’t get from Congress that we anticipated when Vision 2025 was processed.

“There were two low-water dams envisioned in 2025, but a third of the money that was budgeted, if you will, was hoping that the feds would provide the other two-thirds, with our congressional delegation as powerful as they were. The election has turned that upside down. We will no longer have as much power and influence as we would have, and Congress did not act in time to pass the legislation that would have benefited us.

“And then, when the overage went to the arena, that was very disappointing, because early on the overage (referring to Vision 2025 tax revenue rising beyond projections) was really talked about going to the river. And that would have made up the gap. And it’s a severe gap. We don’t have enough money in Vision, if we used all the money to build even that one south low-water dam. So we need more money from the public to do that, and if we don’t get that, it will be much longer than that three-year process that it would take to get it permitted, designed and then start construction.

“I am very hopeful, and I will remain optimistic that we will get that money because the public wants river development. I would hope they would understand enough to know the money was short to begin with and we will need more. And all the things that caused the multimillion-dollar overage on the arena – concrete, steel, electrical, manpower – will plague us on the low-water dam costs, too. But we have a couple of years to get to that point.

“Once again, there are other plans that are going to be coming out, not just The Channels. It’s just the tip of the iceberg, though in this case, with The Channels, I think the iceberg may have been upside down and we may have seen the biggest project on the river that we could ever conceive.”

Walman: “You know, I love vision. I love people thinking about those things. When Riverwalk was started, people said, you’re wasting your time. But I don’t know how you spend $427 a foot creating dirt and ground in the middle of the river before you put a building on it, and economically make that feasible and justify it. But I’m not in that loop. They (proponents of The Channels) probably have all those answers done, and I’m happy for it. But if we can’t build a low-water dam, what are we talking about creating land in the middle of the river? I’ll talk about anything if there’s water in the river. Right now we have a sandbar.

“But I think you’re right, Gaylon. If you involve the city of Tulsa and challenge private citizens with the problem and said, this is a $50 million problem, it can be done in four years if this, this, this and this is done, we don’t need the federal government because there’s enough benefit to the city of Tulsa that we can make an economic decision to figure that problem out. I think Tulsans are capable of that. But if they’re not included in that process, I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t just get more and more cynical as days go by. The community’s not involved in this problem, and they have no conception about how to solve it.”

Neal: “I would say that the mayor has said, since she’s been in office, that what she understands Tulsans want is water in the river. In the 1960s there was a plan to put water in the river with three low-water dams, and Tulsans didn’t buy it. It was pushed back when five low-water dams were proposed by Mayor (now U.S. Sen. Jim) Inhofe, and the only one that was done was Zink Lake. And to his credit he got that done. It will take a lot of leadership to get this done in this community. For all the people who say ‘I want low- water dams,’ and ‘I want water in the river,’ as soon as we get down to talking about what that will take, and what that will mean, there will be a number of people who will push back. Now I can’t explain it -”

Walman: “It’s the nature of demographics.”

Neal: “It’s the nature of the community and when you’ve been down this road before, it helps to know where you’ve been, so that you don’t fall down the same pitfalls when you take off down your next path. All I know is that you have leadership in this city that has said we are going to pursue this. Government shouldn’t build the shopping centers. Government shouldn’t build the recreation areas. Government should provide the infrastructure that lets the private sector do its job.”

Walman: “Absolutely.”

Neal: “So, what we’re really looking to do from the city’s standpoint is work with the Arkansas River Corridor Plan, the master plan that has been invested in by the citizens of Tulsa, and with the Corps of Engineers. You ask what the status is. The status is, you have a mayor, and as far as I know you have three county commissioners, who intend to implement this plan. That’s government’s job, to get the infrastructure paid for. At the end of the Arkansas River Corridor Plan, there is a recommendation that there be a body, some kind of regulatory authority, that will bring all those recommendations together. I don’t know if that’s going to happen; we could possibly take an existing authority, revamp its mission somewhat, and go ahead and get this jump-started. Because you’re right, we have to get a package out there that is what the role governments should pursue, and that is infrastructure. The private sector will jump in as soon as we do that.”

Parker: “Where are we on implementation of the master corridor plan?”

Pinc: “We’ve finished phase two, the master plan was completed, and the funding for these basically came from a government program where the Corps can match local funds 50/50. INCOG raised the monies from the partnership from all the public and private entities along the corridor. Vision 2025 is paying for the implementation. We have to go through four seasons to collect data. In the process we are really coming up with some neat ideas.

“The Tennessee Valley Authority is working with the Corps in finding ways to improve dam safety. Zink Dam is a killer dam; firemen, policemen, rescue folks hate it because it is so inviting. So we have Vision money to improve Zink dam and add safety, actually reface the weir downstream. Along with that we have the opportunity to do a whitewater park launching from Zink Lake, and the plume that would also double as a fish passage.

“So we’re coming up with plans that would really put people in the river, perhaps, on an occasion. But it has to be staged.

“There’s a lot of thought being given as to how we use hydropower releases at an odd time. People say we have a sand river. If you’re around the river on most summer nights around midnight you’d see a raging river, because hydro releases in the afternoon reach us about 11 or 12 o’clock here. The TVA has helped us identify how we could use the Sand Springs low-water dam for temporary storage and release that, meter it out, so that we can actually have a continuous hydro flow downstream during the daylight hours. It is exciting because it is technically feasible and within our budget, if you will, if we had one.

“But at the end of phase three, that we’re in right now, Tulsa County is providing the local match through the next phases because Vision money is being used to produce all the necessary reports that the Corps will need. It may be short if we need a full-blown EIS (environmental impact statement), but we’re planning on a full-bore EIS, and that’s why we’re planning for a full three to five years. If we get federal monies for implementation, the Corps would then contract for a dam designer after we get the 404 permit, and I have no doubt that we will, because we have worked with these regulators to develop a plan that they can work with – unlike some of these other plans, because they didn’t know. If no federal funds are available, whoever that authority is will design and construct that dam.

“The corridor master plan really only has eight potential dam sites, all of which could be feasible. Some have more challenges than others, such as the ones downstream of I-44 and 71st Street and 81st Street have a Tulsa wastewater plant upstream. No way can you build a dam where it’s dominated by wastewater. So, at some point Tulsa might want to think about moving that plant that’s past its day.

“You know, there are major projects that could hinder riverfront development in certain corridors and that 71st corridor is one of those areas. With Helmerich Park (just south of 71st) the public owns a lot of land, there’s a lot of land for development, but the bio-solvents facility across river takes away a lot of developable land for a public use that’s probably no longer appropriate for that type of urban setting. But it takes a couple hundred million dollars though to move those facilities to a less visible public location. So who’s going to put up that money? It’s going to take higher water rates, sewer rates, to do that, but that is going to be an obstacle.”

Walman: “You have areas that are not feasible to develop and are going to be expensive to treat in order to do anything from a walk- through park to eat on the river. What do you do – look at those other development nodes as you said and concentrate those elements there? I don’t envy your job.”

Pinc: “Most of that development implementation is yours. It is the private sector. And it is speculation on the time in when the river would be there. The things that are in the thought process and in the conception process, if they are feasible and can be implemented, it will be hundreds of millions of dollars to do the whole package, and that’s just public monies to do what is envisioned within the river itself to make it more of an attractive river, less of a prairie river – which to some of the regulators is a horrible thought, that we would even mess with this river and change it, because it is the only prairie river we have with this type of habitat. When we get to the point of messing in the river and modifying it in any way, those protectors will come out and they will demand that we do something to mitigate this.”

Walman: “But how many things have been done to that river? I mean, really, the point’s taken, but what else has been thrown into that river? What’s been done to that river? It’s a lot of other things besides a prairie river.”

Neal: “Again, so much depends- I know it has to be coffee table talk, but I think most coffee talk only goes as far as, ‘Why can’t it happen tomorrow?’ I think it could be on the front page of the paper, and on talk radio almost every day, what the obstacles are. And even then I think many of us, because our lives are so busy, would still say, I don’t understand why it can’t happen tomorrow, or today, or this afternoon, or last year. So I think it’s dependent upon the public sector to do a really good job of helping the public determine what they want to have this river look like in 10 or 15 years, because that, quite frankly, is probably a pretty good time frame to look at.

“And the other thing is, if we put water in the river, even that is going to cost this community some dollars. And if we want to do that, what are the outcomes for the tax base? As a city, we look for those development nodes as well, because that is going to contribute to our tax base. But we don’t see ourselves being a developer. What that means is, what do we want to come back to us in the way of services for our tax dollar? And how does river development impact our ability to have a better city and a better quality of life.

“Because Tulsa has, for better or worse, obstacles that other cities who have had successful river development do not have. We have the refinery. We have a lot of privately held interests on our river that our city does not control. And we will have some very costly environmental issues to include with that. But I think the community has said these things: We want water on the river, we want beautification, and we want somehow for this river to become a central gathering place for this community. And I think another thing that gets brought up is, how do we connect the river to our central business district? And that is another hurdle altogether.”

(c) 2007 Journal Record – Oklahoma City. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.