capital projects inventory

Transcription

SECTION 8:
CAPITAL PROJECTS INVENTORY
Great Oklahomans, Part One
Oklahoma Ballet and The Fabulous Five
they established a precedence
of high artistic standards and
accomplishments that propelled
dance in Oklahoma, and in
particular Tulsa Ballet, to not
only flourish, but achieve
preeminence in the nation’s
cultural landscape.
Oklahoma’s Good Will Renaissance Man
He was an author, a humorist, a syndicated columnist,
an entertainer, a movie star, a radio commentator, a trick
roper cowboy, a common-man philosopher, a humanitarian, a goodwill ambassador, a faithful husband and
devoted father. Part Cherokee Indian, Oklahoma’s Will
Rogers was born in 1879 on a large ranch in the
Cherokee Nation. The roping skills he mastered as a
young cowboy initially won him admirers in the Wild
West shows of the times; but it was his splendid wit and
thoughtful insights into the events of the day and
human nature in general
that won him a worldwide
audience and turned him
into a beloved legend. He
will always be remembered
for his unconditional,
genuine love and respect
for humanity best expressed
in his credo. "I never met a
man I didn’t like."
This section of the document provides information about the capital projects requested by city departments and citizens. The
projects are listed by department and type with cost estimates and an indication of the Council District they would serve.
This section is for information only and is not part of the ordinances adopted by the City Council.
Section 8
In October of 1997 Governor Keating designated five
Native American ballerinas as Oklahoma treasurers.
Yvonne Chouteau, Marjorie Tallchief, Maria Tallchief,
Rosella Hightower, and Moscelyne Larkin were all born in
small Oklahoma towns in the 1920s and went on to
achieve international fame. Their stellar careers span two
decades in which they became ambassadors for the state
and in so doing help dispel the misconception of dust
bowl Oklahoma as a cultural wasteland. But even more
The major programs operated by the City are:
•
•
•
•
•
Public Safety and Protection
Cultural Development and Recreation
Public Works and Development
Transportation
Administrative and Support Services
City departments are assigned to one of the above program categories and operating and capital budget
appropriations are reported at the program category level. The inventory of capital needs is also organized
according to major program categories and departments. Each year elected officials decide which projects in
the inventory should be funded. In many instances, the costs of the high priority projects are great enough to
justify a sales tax or bond proposal.
The following section lists the capital requests, by program and department, currently in the inventory.
Virtually all of the projects have been identified in various long-range plans adopted or approved by a board,
an authority, or elected officials. They also have been reviewed by the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning
Commission and judged to be in accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Since the time-horizons
used in public planning processes can be up to 25 years, not all of the identified projects will be financed in
this plan's five-year time frame.
In addition to the project inventory, this section contains information about the origin of the projects, cost
estimates, and an indication of the City Council Districts they serve. In most cases, the Council District
number(s) correspond to the actual district(s) served, but in instances involving a facility with a citywide
service area, the district served is represented by “Citywide”. Projects listed in bold letters are additions to the
existing inventory since the last adoption of the Capital Improvements Plan by the Council.
Capital Projects Inventory 8-1
READER’S GUIDE TO CAPITAL PROJECTS INVENTORY
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECT
REQUESTS
(IN MILLIONS)
You
Are
Here
PUBLIC SAFETY AND PROTECTION
$119.5
Police Department
Fire Department
Telecommunications/ Information Services
CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND RECREATION
$216.6
Park and Recreation
Gilcrease Museum
Tulsa Convention & Performing Arts Center
River Parks Authority
PUBLIC WORKS AND DEVELOPMENT
Public Works
Streets
Water
Sanitary Sewer
Flood Control
Public Facilities Maintenance
Urban Development
$3,755.4
$134.2
TRANSPORTATION
Airports
Tulsa Transit
ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPPORT SERVICES
Equipment Management
Capital Equipment Replacement
$5.0
POLICE DEPARTMENT
FY 2007 – FY 2011
TOP PRIORITY:
Downtown Headquarters Facility
Digital Imaging and Crime Scene Project
Southeast Tulsa Uniform Division Facility
Animal Shelter Expansion
The Police Department's highest priority projects since the approval of the 2006 Sales Tax Program on
May 9, 2006 include the Digital Imaging System.
The Digital Imaging, Mug Shot/Crime Scene Project is designed to enhance the capabilities of the patrol
car laptop wireless computer system now in service. This software and equipment will allow officers to
remotely access digital images of suspect photos and to download such information while in the field.
The Animal Shelter also needs to be renovated and expanded. Currently, many animals have to be
euthanized due to the lack of space.
Two recent project additions to the inventory include a new Southeast Tulsa Uniform Division Facility to
serve southeast Tulsa and a new downtown headquarters support facility including a policing office for
the Blue Dome, Brady, and East Village areas. The long-term $75 million Headquarters Facility project was
removed from the inventory's five-year time horizon. Two facilities within the Headquarters Facility
project were included in the 2005 Bond program and the two uniform division additions will meet the
near-term needs of the department.
The police unfunded requests are listed below. Existing and proposed police and fire facilities are shown
on Map 2.
Project Title
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
Council
District
Served
1
Animal Shelter Expansion
5,800
Citywide
2
Digital Imaging of Mug Shots and Crime Scenes
1,180
Citywide
3
Garage Facility to Protect Bomb Van
105
Citywide
4
National Crime Information Center (NCIC) 2000
2,940
Citywide
5
New Downtown Support Police Facility and Blue Dome District
Policing Office
5,000
4
6
Police Academy Floor Covering Replacement
265
Citywide
7
Renovation to Police Firing Range
220
Citywide
8
Southeast Substation (UDSE) New Facility
9
TRACIS/JURIS/TAGS Database Server Replacement
POLICE PROJECTS TOTAL
5,000
650
5,6,7,8
Citywide
$21,160
Projects listed in bold are FY 07 additions to the inventory. Projects in the 2006 Sales Tax Program approved May 9, 2006 are not listed. See Approved Programs Section 7. Numbering
is for reference only and does not reflect a priority ranking.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
FY 2007 - FY2011
TOP PRIORITIES:
Apparatus Replacement Program
New Fire Station Construction
Regional Training Facility Props and Equipment
Continued funding for apparatus replacement is the first priority of the Fire Department. The timely
replacement of apparatus is crucial to the Fire Department’s resource allocation and strategic plan. A
scheduled replacement program provides the ability to stay current with the development of new
technology and to conform to applicable laws and standards in regard to firefighter safety. Furthermore,
the standardization of apparatus reduces training time, provides consistency for all operators, and has
been shown to reduce apparatus downtime.
Fire Department capital improvement requests are listed below. Existing and proposed police and fire
facilities are shown on Map 2.
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
Project Title
1
Apparatus Replacement
2
Council
District
Served
45,000
Citywide
Fire Department Headquarters
5,000
Citywide
3
Fire Station Rehabilitation
9,000
Citywide
4
Fire Training Center - Equipment and Props
3,000
Citywide
5
Hazardous Materials Protection Complex
7,000
Citywide
6
Life Pac 1200 Monitoring Equipment
1,100
Citywide
7
Station 11 - New in the Vicinity of 11th and 177 Street
4,200
6
th
FIRE PROJECTS TOTAL
$74,300
Projects listed in bold are FY 07 additions to the inventory. Projects in the 2006 Sales Tax Program approved May 9, 2006 are not listed. See Approved Programs Section 7. Numbering is
for reference only and does not reflect a priority ranking.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS/INFORMATION
SERVICES DEPARTMENT
FY 2007 – FY 2011
TOP PRIORITY:
Digital Telephone System Replacement for E911 System
Public Works 800 MHz Flowline Radio System
Zoo Telephone Recabling
Email Record Retention System
The Telecommunications Department's highest priority projects remaining unfunded, following approval
of the 2006 Sales Tax Extension Program, are recabling for the Zoo, a digital upgrade for the E911
telephone system, a flowline radio system for Public Works and an Email Records Retention system.
Project Title
Cost Estimate
(in $000s)
Council
District
Served
1
Automatic Vehicle Location System
3,000
Citywide
2
Digital Telephone System Replacement for E911 System
1,175
Citywide
3
Email Record Retention System
275
Citywide
4
Financial Systems Replacement
17,400
Citywide
5
Municipal Court Case Management System
1,700
Citywide
6
Public Works 800 MHz Flowline Radio System Upgrade
355
Citywide
7
Zoo Telephone Re-Cabling
140
Citywide
TELECOMMUNICATIONS/IS PROJECTS TOTAL
$24,045
Projects listed in bold are FY 07 additions to the inventory. Projects in the 2006 Sales Tax Program approved May 9, 2006 are not listed. See Approved Programs Section 7. Numbering
is for reference only and does not reflect a priority ranking.
REQUESTS
(IN MILLIONS)
$119.5
Police Department
Fire Department
You
Are
Here
Park and Recreation
Gilcrease Museum
Public Works
Streets
Water
Sanitary Sewer
Flood Control
Urban Development
TRANSPORTATION
$216.6
$3,755.4
$134.2
Airports
Tulsa Transit
$5.0
PARK AND RECREATION
DEPARTMENT
FY 2007 – FY 2011
TOP PRIORITY:
Acquisition of Park Land
Park Capital Maintenance Projects
The Park and Recreation Department's remaining unfunded high priority projects include the acquisition
of additional park land for future expansion and maintenance projects across the system.
The City's Park and Recreation Department operates a park system made up of 140 parks containing
6,000 acres. The largest park is Mohawk with 2,820 acres and the smallest is the one quarter acre
Gunboat Park. The Department maintains 92 playgrounds, 202 sports fields, 116 tennis courts, 22
swimming pools, 29 water playgrounds, 21 community centers, the Garden Center, two golf facilities, a
nature center, a nature preserve, and the Zoo. The locations of the existing parks are shown on Map 3.
Planning Background
The Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission adopted 10-year master development plans for
individual park facilities to serve as a guide for spending programs. Each year, fourteen of these plans are
reviewed and updated. The complete update cycle is accomplished every ten years. Citizens are
instrumental in the planning process and neighborhood meetings are held before individual park capital
projects are implemented.
Capital Project Inventory
The Park and Recreations Department's unfunded capital improvements project inventory is organized
around six (6) functional areas.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Aquatics and Pools
General Park Sites Renovation, Improvements and Maintenance
Mohawk Park, Oxley Nature Center and Redbud Valley
Zoo Development
Woodward Park, Forestry and Horticulture
Park Land Acquisition
Pool renovations provide a more user-friendly environment and makes the area safer and more
comfortable. Renovations at community and neighborhood parks focus on reducing high maintenance
costs and providing more user-oriented amenities.
General Park Sites Renovation, Improvements and Maintenance includes shelter renovations that directly
effect shelter rentals and the scheduling of community events at the parks. Renovation of maintenance
facilities will increase maintenance efficiency and safety.
Renovations at leisure service centers focus on customer service and security. The development of major
facilities in the park system will include elements such as multi-court gymnasiums, fitness centers, and
meeting rooms. Hicks Family Center is the site of the first development of such major facilities and is now
complete. Other parks with proposed major facilities include Hunter, Lacy, Reed, and McClure.
Tulsa has more than 46 miles of walking, running, and nature trails at local parks. Future plans include
development of more trails. The recent addition of water play sites to several Tulsa Parks facilities has
been extremely successful. Support facilities development such as lighting, additional parking, new
shelters, and restroom renovation are proposed throughout the system.
Mohawk Park is the fourth largest municipal park in the country. It is host to Oxley Nature Center, Tulsa
Zoo, Mohawk Golf Course, and the Tulsa Gun Club. Mohawk Park has recently experienced an increase
in events and park usage. With the current special use facilities, and the development of the Air and
Space Center and the Mohawk Water Treatment Educational Visitors Center, the Mohawk Park area has
tremendous tourism potential. The Vision 2025 Program will provide $8.4 million for Mohawk Park and
the newly opened Tulsa Air and Space Center improvements.
Oxley Nature Center and Redbud Valley provide opportunities for education, physical activity, and
positive play. Improvements to observation towers, trails, utilities and drainage systems are planned.
Proposed projects at the Tulsa Zoo include renovation of the special events pavilion and the Zoo's entry
area. In addition to general maintenance and renovation, specific projects include replacing the
rhinoceros and sea lion exhibits (currently planned for public/private funding) and future development of
a gorilla exhibit.
A major renovation of the beautiful Rose Garden at Woodward Park was added to the inventory last year.
Forestry plans to continue the reforestation of Tulsa’s urban environment by planting 300 trees each year.
Reforestation is a critical part of the Park Department's commitment to conservation and management of
our natural resources. The recently completed Woodward Park Master Plan identified over $5 million in
improvements and they have been added to the inventory of needs.
Youth & Adult Sports capital improvement projects include renovation to sports fields and tennis courts
and building new outdoor gyms and tennis courts. Sports fields need irrigation, lighting, and backstop
improvements.
Land acquisition for park facilities in underserved and undeveloped areas of town are proposed so all
residents can experience the health, growth, family development and community connection that having
a community park brings.
Conclusion
The Park Board's highest priority remains the maintenance of the existing system. The needs range from
roof repairs to air conditioning. They also include remodeling existing facilities to more closely match the
needs of today’s users, and adding storage to protect valuable equipment. The following is a listing of the
unfunded needs identified for the park system. The programs are listed by functional category. The parks
where improvements total over $100,000 are shown on Map 4.
Project Title
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
Council
District
Served
Aquatics Facilities and Swimming Pool Development
1
Aquatics Master Plan
100
Citywide
2
General Aquatics Facilities & Swim Pool Development
805
Citywide
3
McClure Park, Second Water Slide
100
3,4,5,6
4
Municipal and Junior Pool Renovations
510
Citywide
General Park Sites Renovation, Improvements and Maintenance
5
Central Park Community Center Expansion
1,350
4
6
Drainage Problem Corrections
1,090
Citywide
7
General Leisure Service Center Projects
4,110
Citywide
Project Title
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
110
Council
District
Served
8
Helmerich Park
Citywide
9
Helmerich Park Community Center
10
Irrigation Installation at 5 Parks
11
Newblock Park Building Expansion
12
Owen Park Irrigation and Turf Renovation
125
1
13
Park Department Pond Dredging and Cleaning
670
Citywide
14
Park System Signage
180
Citywide
15
Park Trails Development
1,440
Citywide
16
Paving Existing Park Trails
1,335
Citywide
17
Plaza of the Americas
195
4
18
Plumbing System Upgrades
200
Citywide
19
Restrooms, Outbuildings, and Bathhouses
300
Citywide
20
Roof System Upgrades
305
Citywide
21
Special Event Utilities
1,050
Citywide
22
Swan Lake Fencing and Irrigation
155
Citywide
23
Swan Lake Fountain Replacement
1,000
Citywide
24
Vining Park Expansion
10,000
2
130
1,250
1,4,5
Citywide
460
1
585
Citywide
1,550
Citywide
380
Citywide
Golf Course Development Projects
25
General Golf Course Improvement and Development
26
Mohawk Woodbine Green Renovation and Irrigation
27
Page Belcher and Mohawk Clubhouse Renovation
Mohawk Park Improvements and Development and Oxley and Redbud Valley Nature Centers
28
Concrete Skate Park at Mohawk Park
440
Citywide
29
Mohawk Park Improvement and Development
2,980
Citywide
30
Oxley Nature Center (Including Utility Line Improvements)
240
Citywide
31
Redbud Valley Nature Center
150
Citywide
Project Title
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
Council
District
Served
Tulsa Zoo Development
32
African Building Renovation
385
Citywide
33
Horticulture Building Replacement
125
Citywide
34
Tulsa Zoo Development and Improvements
14,990
Citywide
Woodward, Forestry and Horticulture Development
35
Forestry - General Park Tree Landscaping
265
Citywide
36
Hicks Park Landscaping Development
215
5,6
37
Woodward Park Improvements
470
9
38
Woodward Park Irrigation (Phase I)
360
9
39
Woodward Park Master Plan Implementation
5,335
Citywide
40
Woodward Park Rose Garden Renovation
3,000
Citywide
2,530
1
Youth and Adult Sports Facilities Development
41
Chamberlain Park Gym Addition and Site Renovation
42
Firecracker Site Facilities Development
140
5,6
43
General Youth & Adult Sports Facilities Development
430
Citywide
44
Hicks Park Gym Addition and Site Renovation
45
Hunter Park Facilities Development
160
8
46
Lacy Park Tennis Court Addition and Restroom
360
Citywide
47
McClure Racquetball Court Renovation
435
3,4,5,6
48
Patrick Park Facilities Development
105
3
49
Tennis Courts Renovation and Improvements
340
Citywide
50
Torchia Oliver Land Acquisition and Improvements
51
Whiteside Gymnastics Facility Expansion
2,530
2,015
5,6
2,8
655
Citywide
6,000
Citywide
Land Acquisition for City Parks
52
Land Acquisition for Parks
PARK AND RECREATION PROJECTS TOTAL
$74,140
GILCREASE MUSEUM
FY 2007 – FY 2011
TOP PRIORITY:
Gilcrease Museum Expansion
Stuart Park Improvements
A number of projects were added last year including the study and development of an expansion for the
museum to meet future demands and space needs. Funding for initial work on the expansion is also
included in the extension proposal. This project is now the Museum's highest unfunded priority.
Project Title
1
Gilcrease Museum Expansion – Design and Construction
2
Stuart Park Improvements – Roadway and Pavilion
GILCREASE MUSEUM PROJECTS TOTAL
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
Council
District
Served
14,200
Citywide
1,450
Citywide
$15,650
TULSA CONVENTION CENTER
FY 2007 – FY 2011
TOP PRIORITY:
Interior Renovation
Expansion of Exhibit Hall and Tradeshow Space
Exhibit Hall Sound System Replacement
Vision 2025 includes funding for a new multi-purpose arena and renovation of the existing Maxwell
Convention Center. An expansion of the current exhibit and tradeshow space still needs to be funded. It
will allow Tulsa to once again compete for larger trade shows. The expansion project is included in the
inventory along with the replacement of the current sound system in the exhibit hall area. The older areas
of the center are in need of immediate renovation to complement the other projects.
Project Title
1
Exhibit Hall Addition
2
Exhibit Hall Sound System Replacement
3
Interior Renovation
TULSA CONVENTION CENTER PROJECTS TOTAL
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
Council
District
Served
86,000
Citywide
280
Citywide
1,905
Citywide
$ 88,185
Projects in the 2006 Sales Tax Program approved May 9, 2006 are not listed. See Approved Programs Section 7. Numbering is for reference only and does not reflect a priority ranking.
PERFORMING
ARTS CENTER
FY 2007 - 2011
TOP PRIORITY:
Mid-Size Theater and Parking
Long term, the Department and PAC Trust are requesting the construction of a 1,200-seat theater on
PAC Trust-owned land immediately east of the PAC. The existing theaters are booked for performances
and rehearsals virtually all the time. The new theater would provide additional performance and rehearsal
slots to the arts community and its patrons. It would also address the gap between the Chapman Music
Hall (capacity 2,367) and the John H. Williams Theatre (capacity 437). They are also requesting a parking
facility with a minimum of 300 spaces as a part of this $27 million project.
Project Title
1
New Mid-Size Theater Including Parking
PERFORMING ARTS CENTER PROJECTS TOTAL
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
26,640
Council
District
Served
Citywide
$26,640
Projects listed in bold are FY 07 additions to the inventory. Projects shown in italics are included in the 2006 Sales Tax Proposal. Numbering is for reference only and does not reflect a
priority ranking.
RIVER PARKS AUTHORITY
FY 2007 – FY 2011
TOP PRIORITY:
East Bank Improvements between 11th and 21st Streets
Trails Resurfacing and Widening
River Parks Facilities Rehabilitation and Replacement
The Authority, City, County and INCOG, along with the Corps of Engineers, recently completed a
$500,000 River Corridor Development Study. The study has identified a number of projects throughout
the River Parks system including the renovation of the River West Festival Park, improvements on the east
th
st
th
bank between 11 and 21 streets including a Route 66 center and commercial facilities at 19 and
Riverside and resurfacing and widening of the trails. These are the highest priorities of the Authority. The
facilities in River Parks are beginning to require substantial rehabilitation, as some are over twenty-five
years old, and in many cases need to be replaced. This is also a priority for the Authority.
Remaining in the River Park's unfunded capital project inventory are improvements identified by the River
Corridor Development Study, including continued trails resurfacing and widening, and facilities
rehabilitation. The acquisition of land for expansion of the park system also remains in the requested, but
not funded category.
Project Title
th
st
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
Council
District
Served
1
East Bank Improvements between 11 and 21 Streets
6,000
Citywide
2
East Bank Acquisition and Development - 101st to 121st
3,450
Citywide
3
East Bank Acquisition and Development - 121st to Sheridan
2,540
Citywide
RIVER PARKS PROJECTS TOTAL
$11,990
REQUESTS
(IN MILLIONS)
$119.5
Police Department
Fire Department
Park and Recreation
Gilcrease Museum
You
Are
Here
Public Works
Streets
Water
Sanitary Sewer
Flood Control
Urban Development
TRANSPORTATION
$216.6
$3,755.4
$134.2
Airports
Tulsa Transit
$5.0
STREETS
FY 2007 – FY 2011
TOP PRIORITY:
Street Resurfacing Programs
The top priority for this area of the City’s Capital Improvements Program continues to be Arterial and
Residential Street resurfacing. Following the approval of $364 million for street projects in the 1996 Sales
Tax Program, 1999 Bond Program, and 2001 Sales Tax Extension, there are still hundreds of millions of
dollars of capital improvement projects listed in this inventory that remain unfunded. The Vision 2025
Program will provide $4 million for the improvement of 36th Street North from Cincinnati to the Osage
County Line and $14 million for the widening of 61st Street from US 169 to 145th East Avenue. The City
of Tulsa completed the work from US-169 to Garnett. Tulsa County will administer the improvements
east of Garnett to 145th East Avenue. The 2005 General Obligation Bond program will provide over $154
million in expressway, street and bridge rehabilitation and replacement funding in the next five years.
Additionally, the newly approved 2006 Sales Tax Extension Program will provide $125 million dollars for
street and expressway projects over the life of the program.
Planning Background
Two transportation-planning instruments are used to determine street and expressway projects in the
Tulsa area. The Tulsa Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (TMATS) is the State-mandated planning
program used to determine regional transportation funding priorities. The other planning tool, the Major
Street and Highway Plan (MSHP), has been in existence for over 50 years and designates the routes and
sizes of expressways and the number of lanes that should be constructed when arterial streets are
improved. All proposed expressway and street improvements are based on these plans.
Expressways and Highways
Since World War II, the federal government has collected and distributed tax revenue for the construction
of highways, expressways and, to a lesser extent, streets in urban areas. The money is generated by taxes
on gasoline and disbursed back to the states and local areas under a variety of programs. The formula
used to determine each state’s annual allocation is based on population, road mileage, and physical size.
The Tulsa area’s share of federal and state highway funds varies from year to year. Most funds are used
for the construction of expressways and other federal and state highways that serve the area, but some of
the money is also used to improve local arterial streets. From FY 82 through FY 05, over $837 million was
used to construct portions of Tulsa’s expressway system and major streets, and make improvements to
the U.S. and state highways that pass through the county.
The local expressway system plan was originally developed in the 1950s. While it was designed as a
regional network, the City later annexed most of the area it served. The plan shows 107 miles of
expressways inside the city limits and/or annexation fence line. To date, 94 miles have been constructed.
Two segments of the expressway system remain incomplete. The Tisdale Parkway from 36th to 66th
Streets North and the Gilcrease expressway extending from Lewis Avenue west and south to I-44
(approximately 51st Street). The Gilcrease project has been defined in segments: Gilcrease North - U.S.
75 west to the Tisdale Parkway, Gilcrease West - Edison Street to I-44, and Gilcrease Northwest - Tisdale
Parkway to Edison Street. Right-of-way acquisition and utility relocation are complete for Gilcrease North
and construction is continuing. Gilcrease West has been approved for funding of engineering and a
portion of the right-of-way acquisition. The environmental clearance has been granted for that segment
extending south of Edison Street to I-44. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued in
October of 2005 for the Gilcrease Northwest segment. The City of Tulsa is working with the Oklahoma
Department of Transportation on the selection of a consultant for the design of this segment.
In addition to the sections proposed for new construction, several of the existing expressways are
overloaded: I-44 west of Sheridan and U.S. 169 between I-244 and I-44. The 2004 traffic counts show the
portion of I-44 at Yale Avenue carries 80,900, down from 91,800 vehicles per day in 2000 due to
construction. U.S. 169 between I-244 and I-44 carries over 95,400 vehicles per day.
The Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) is addressing the congestion problem on the State
highway system. It began widening I-44 from four to six lanes between I-244 and the Arkansas River in
the early 1990s. The segment between I-244 and the Broken Arrow Expressway was completed in 1999.
The contract to widen the portion of I-44 between the Broken Arrow Expressway and Yale (bridges and
roadway) is also complete. Plans for widening the section from Yale to the Arkansas River are being
developed. As part of the I-44 widening project, intersection improvements will be made at Peoria, Lewis,
Harvard and Yale (which is underway). U.S. 169 was widened between 21st and 91st in 1998.
Tulsa County Allocations
State and Federal Highway Money
FY 1987 - FY 2005
(in 000s)
$100,000
$90,000
$80,000
$70,000
20
05
03
20
01
20
19
99
19
97
19
95
19
93
19
91
19
89
19
87
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
Source: Oklahoma Department of Transportation
Local Arterials
While some federal monies are used to improve local arterial streets, most of the existing major streets
were financed with local funds. There are 346 miles of designated arterial streets in the city. Seven miles
are improved to six lanes; twelve miles are five lanes; 146 are four-lanes; and the remaining are two lanes.
TMATS uses the “Level C Service Volume” as the standard to gauge the adequacy of the street system.
Generally, if a two-lane road carries over 11,900 vehicles a day or a four-lane carries more than 23,800
vehicles, it is not meeting this standard and needs to be widened to four, five, or six lanes depending
upon whether it is a secondary or primary arterial. Fourteen miles of these overloaded streets are to be
widened over the next seven years with the Third Penny Sales Tax. As shown on Map 6, the problem
areas at this time are generally located south of 21st Street between 145th East Avenue and the Arkansas
River.
Because urban street projects are complex and time consuming to implement, the City historically
advance funds engineering under one capital financing program and then finances construction from a
following program. For example, the 1994 Bond Issue and 1996 Sales Tax programs financed the
engineering of more than a dozen street projects. Funds for the construction of some of these projects
are contained in the 2001 Sales Tax Extension. Additional funding is contained in the 2006 Sales Tax
program.
Arterial and Residential Street Maintenance and Replacement
The City started using a system for management of street maintenance and replacement programs call
the Pavement Management System (PMS) in 1988. Each street in Tulsa is now examined periodically to
determine its current condition and useful life and its condition is ranked using the PMS. Street
maintenance and replacement schedules are developed based on these rankings. Presently, 18 percent of
the major streets have adequate pavement, 40 percent need to be resurfaced, and 42 percent need to be
completely replaced. Residential streets are somewhat better - 12 percent are adequate, 76 percent need
to be resurfaced, and 12 percent need to be replaced. According to the Public Works and Development
Department, bringing the City's inadequate pavement up to acceptable levels would cost over $500
million.
Conclusion
Transportation related improvements are among the most expensive capital projects. They also require a
comparatively long time to design and construct. Following is the current list of street and expressway
capital improvements needs. Map 7 indicates the sites of the projects.
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
Project Title
Council
District
Served
Expressways and Parkways
1
Cherokee Expressway/Independence Interchange
5,460
2
Expressway Lighting Matching Funds
3
Gilcrease Expressway NW and L.L. Tisdale Parkway Interchange
211,500
1
4
Gilcrease Expressway West and Keystone Expressway
Interchange
232,000
1,2
5
Port Road Extension
19,900
3
6
Riverside Parkway Engineering & ROW – 11 to 56th St. (Ph. 1)
15,000
4,9
7
Riverside Parkway / River Road – Creek Turnpike to Sheridan
47,360
2,8
8
Tisdale Parkway - Apache to 36th Street North (Phase 2)
2,000
1
9
Tisdale Parkway ROW & Utility - Gilcrease to 56th Street North
12,000
1
180
th
1
Citywide
Arterial Streets
10
4th Place & Sheridan Intersection
4,000
3,4
11
4th Place & Yale Intersection
4,000
4
12
8th and Utica Cul-de-Sac and Median
130
4
13
11th and Denver Intersection
4,000
4
14
11th and Elgin Intersection
5,000
4
15
11th and Lewis Intersection
5,500
4
16
11th and Peoria Intersection
5,500
4
17
11th Street - 129th East Avenue to 193rd East Avenue and Bridge
48,000
6
Project Title
18
21st – 101st East Avenue to Garnett (Six Lane)
19
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
Council
District
Served
14,000
5
31st - Memorial to Mingo (Five Lane)
7,000
5
20
36th Street North and North Cincinnati Avenue Intersection
including Widening 36th to Tisdale Expressway
5,500
1
21
36th Street North - Lewis to Harvard
10,000
1,3
22
41st – Darlington to I-44
5,000
5,7
23
41st - Garnett to 129th E. Ave.
8,500
6
24
41st - I-44 to Sheridan
6,000
5,7
25
41st – Mingo to U.S. 169
2,250
5,6
26
41st - Sheridan to Memorial
11,000
5
27
49th West Avenue - Keystone Expressway to Newton
5,000
1
28
51st and Harvard Intersection
6,500
7,9
29
51st and Lewis Intersection
5,500
9
30
51st - Garnett to Broken Arrow Exp.
6,450
6
31
51st - Lewis to Harvard (Five Lane)
9,000
9
32
51st - Wheeling to Lewis (Five Lane)
4,500
9
33
51st - Yale to Memorial (Five Lane)
19,000
5,7
34
61st - Peoria to Lewis
8,000
2,9
35
81st - Harvard to Yale
11,000
7,8
36
81st - Yale to Memorial
18,000
8
37
91st – Harvard to Yale
15,000
2,8
38
91st - Yale to Memorial
23,500
8
39
91st – Memorial to Mingo
10,000
8
40
101st – Delaware to Yale
13,000
8
41
101st – Yale to Memorial
39,700
8
42
101st and Louisville Intersection
8,500
8
43
101st and Mingo Intersection
5,500
8
44
101st and Sheridan Intersection
5,500
8
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
Project Title
st
45
101st and Yale Intersection / Yale –101 to Creek Turnpike
46
Council
District
Served
10,000
8
129th East Avenue - 51st to 61st
9,000
6
47
145th East Avenue – 11th to 21st
10,850
6
48
145th East Avenue – 21st to 31st
14,000
6
49
145th East Avenue - 31st to 41
10,000
6
50
Admiral Place - 145th to 165th East Avenue
27,500
6
51
Admiral Place – Garnett to 129th East Avenue
15,500
6
52
Admiral Place – Sheridan to Mingo (Curbs, Sidewalks & Drainage)
20,000
3,5
53
Cincinnati - 46th to 56th Street North
9,000
1
54
Cincinnati - Realign between I-244 & Haskell
7,500
1
55
Davenport Street Construction
250
1
56
Delaware - 81st to 91
7,500
2
57
Garnett - I-244 to 11
11,000
6
58
Gilcrease Museum Road - Edison to Apache
23,500
1
59
Harvard – I-244 to 11th (Five Lane)
9,000
4
60
Harvard - 61st to 81
st
30,000
2,7
61
st
10,000
2,8
62
20,500
2,8
63
Hudson - 51st to 61
5,000
7
64
Lansing Avenue Paving
650
1
65
Lewis - 51st to 61
9,750
9
66
Lewis - BA Expressway to I-44 (Five Lane)
44,615
4,9
67
Memorial - 11th to 21st (Six Lane)
15,500
5
68
Memorial - 21st to 71st (Six Lane)
68,250
5,7
69
Memorial - 71st to 101st (Six Lane)
24,000
7,8
70
Mingo - 31st to 41st
10,000
5
71
Mingo – 71 to 81
9,500
7
st
st
th
st
st
st
st
st
Project Title
st
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
Council
District
Served
72
Mingo - Creek Turnpike to 101
6,000
8
73
Peoria - 51st to 61st (Five Lane)
9,600
9
74
Peoria - 61st to Riverside
14,000
2
75
Peoria and 46th Street North Intersection
4,250
1
76
Peoria and 56th Street North Intersection
4,750
1
77
Pine and Yale Intersection
7,115
3
78
Pine - Memorial to Mingo
7,500
3
79
Pine - Mingo to U.S. 169
6,500
6
80
Pine – U.S. 169 to 129th East Avenue
17,000
6
81
Sheridan - 15th to 21st (Five Lane)
5,000
4,5
82
Sheridan - 21st to 31st (Five Lane)
9,000
4,5
83
Sheridan - 81st to 91
11,000
8
84
Sheridan - 91st to 101
12,250
8
85
Sheridan – Gilcrease Expressway to 36th Street North
7,100
3
86
Yale - 21st to 31st (Six Lane)
10,000
4
87
16,000
5,9
88
Yale - 41st to I-44 (Six Lane)
15,500
7,9
89
16,000
7
90
Yale - 81st to 91st
26,700
8
91
Yale - Pine to Apache
10,000
3
146,300
Citywide
st
st
Rehabilitation Programs
92
Arterial Streets – Major Rehabilitation
93
Arterial Streets - Preventative Rehabilitation
13,000
Citywide
94
Arterial Streets – Sidewalk Improvements
10,800
Citywide
95
Non-Arterial Streets – Major Rehabilitation
335,200
Citywide
96
Non-Arterial Streets - Preventative Rehabilitation
29,500
Citywide
97
Non-Arterial Streets – Sidewalk Improvements
10,750
Citywide
Project Title
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
Council
District
Served
Other Projects
98
23rd Street South Bridge Lighting Project
99
Boulder Avenue Downtown Bridge Replacement
100 Bridge Repair, Citywide
101 Bridge Replacement, Citywide
102 East Lynn and Parkdale Neighborhoods Cul-de-sacs
250
2,4
4,700
Citywide
5,000
Citywide
19,220
Citywide
285
4
103 Landscape/Upgrade IDL Entrances and Exits
3,300
4
104 Matching Funds for ODOT Traffic Projects
1,000
Citywide
500
Citywide
106 Traffic Signal Installation and Modification
1,700
Citywide
107 Traffic Signal Pole Replacements
4,500
Citywide
108 Trail System Improvements, Citywide
7,500
Citywide
105 Traffic Signal Head Upgrades
STREET AND EXPRESSWAY PROJECTS TOTAL
$2,145,565
for reference only and does not reflect a priority ranking. Where number of lanes are indicated streets are already four-laned and are at or near capacity.
.
WATER
FY 2007 – FY 2011
TOP PRIORITIES:
Protecting the Spavinaw Creek Watershed from Pollution and
Maintenance of the Existing System
The goal of the water system is to provide clean water at adequate pressures for the health and safety of
the citizens in accordance with all State and Federal regulations. The system has three components: (1)
supply, (2) treatment, and (3) distribution. All must be capable of providing adequate amounts of water
to prevent low pressure and/or rationing. The Tulsa Metropolitan Utility Authority and a national water
system engineering firm completed the Tulsa Comprehensive Water System Study (TCWSS) in 2001. The
City of Tulsa updated the TCWSS and prepared an addendum to the plan. The TCWSS 2005 Addendum
reviews the current conditions and reevaluates the City’s future water needs based on the goals and
objectives established in the 2001 TWCSS. The results of the TCWSS 2005 Addendum are summarized
below.
Historic and Projected Demand
The TCWSS documented the historic demand (see following graph) for water in Tulsa and used the
historic trend to develop three future growth scenarios. The TMUA chose Scenario Two, which can be
characterized as a trend line projection with the addition of a small number of large industrial users and
aggressive service extension to surrounding communities and rural water districts, as the basis to model
future demand.
City of Tulsa
Average Daily Water Demand 1965-2005
(in Millions of Gallons)
120
100
80
60
40
20
Source: Public Works and Development Department’s Records
20
05
19
65
19
69
19
73
19
77
19
81
19
85
19
89
19
93
19
97
20
01
0
2000 to 2025 Projected Water Demand
Based on “Current Growth – 2005”
TCWSS 2005 Addendum
(In Millions of Gallons per Day)
Average
Maximum Day
2005
2010
101
108
171
183
Maximum Day
with Drought
192
205
2015
115
194
217
2020
121
204
229
2025
127
215
240
Year
Source: TCWSS Addendum 2005
Maximum Day (MGD) equals 1.69 times the Average Day (MGD)
12 percent increase in Maximum Day (MGD) for drought conditions
(Average Day * 1.89)
Since 2000, the Average Day water demand for the City of Tulsa has ranged from 98 to 109 MGD. The
ratio between the average day and the maximum day over the last ten years ranged from 1.5 to 1.9. The
variations in the average day and maximum day demands are primarily dependent on summer weather
conditions, which ranged from hot and dry during the summer of 2001 to cool and wet during the
summer of 2004.
Scenario 2 was a moderate growth scenario that assumed an increase in industrial demand and wholesale
water sales. Since the 2000 census, the population of the City of Tulsa has declined slightly and the inside
City water demand has remained flat. During the same period however, the population of the
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) has outpaced the projected Scenario 2 growth rates, indicating that
demand by wholesale customers will continue to increase. The TCWSS 2005 Addendum developed two
updated scenarios based on the original Scenario 2. The Current Growth-2005 scenario updates Scenario
2 using current population estimates and growth rates for each statistical area and incorporates the
projected growth of the City of Tulsa five largest wholesale customers.
Supply
Tulsa has two sources of raw water: Spavinaw Creek (Spavinaw and Eucha Lakes) and the Verdigris River
(Oologah Lake). They are supplemented by an emergency connection to Lake Hudson. Spavinaw and
Eucha Lakes can provide an average annual yield of 59 million gallons per day (mgd) of untreated water
under drought conditions; the City has water rights to 128 mgd from Oologah Lake; and Lake Hudson
can provide 31 mgd in emergencies. In addition, a third permanent supply source has been obtained
from the Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA). At the present time there are no facilities to transport this
water to the treatment plants. The TCWSS Addendum confirmed that the projected average daily water
use would not exceed the dependable yield of the Spavinaw and Oologah sources until after 2035. Other
factors beyond demand must be considered when determining when the Grand River flowline should be
constructed.
Over the last 10 years there has been a steady decline in the quality of water drawn from the Spavinaw
Creek watershed. Increasing levels of phosphorus have caused algae blooms in the lakes. The algae
blooms have led to taste and odor problems in the water. While some tastes and odors can be removed
at the plant, some remain. The sources of the phosphorus pollution are dozens of large-scale chicken
farms that have been constructed in this watershed. Intensive efforts are continuing to preserve water
quality in Spavinaw and Eucha Lakes and they should alleviate the need for the Grand River source for
many years.
But, water rights to the Grand River also have to be considered. Currently the City’s rights are obtained
by a contract with the Grand River Dam Authority. While there are no immediate threats to the rights,
the construction of a portion of the pipeline would solidify the city’s rights under the beneficial use
provisions of pertinent case law. The TCWSS recommended the situation be closely monitored to ensure
the rights are not threatened.
Water System Capacities
Supply Storage
Allocation
in Billions of Gallons
Eucha
Oologah
Spavinaw
TOTAL
25.9
67.3
9.0
102.2
Annual Supply
Dry Weather Yield
Mgd
Lake Hudson
Oologah
Spavinaw/Eucha
Flowline Capacity
mgd
31
128
59
218
Oologah #1
Oologah #2
Spavinaw #1
Spavinaw #2
40
80
38
56
214
Treatment
Capacity
mgd
A. B. Jewell
Mohawk
120
100
220
Source: City of Tulsa Public Works and Development Department
Treatment
Water from the Spavinaw system is treated at the Mohawk Water Treatment Plant. The A. B. Jewell plant
normally treats water from Lake Oologah.
The Mohawk WTP was put in service in 1999 and has a daily treatment capacity of 100 mgd. The original
A. B. Jewell Plant was completed in 1972. It has been expanded twice and is now capable of treating a
maximum volume of 120 mgd. Based on “Current Growth - 2005” demand, the TCWSS 2005
Addendum recommended the treatment capacity of the A. B. Jewell Plant be increased to 150 mgd by
2015 to allow the plants to meet projected maximum daily demand with drought. Options to provide
increased capacity at A.B. Jewell in the most cost effective and efficient manner will be evaluated prior to
plant expansion. Maintenance and upgrades are also needed at A.B. Jewell to replace equipment and
infrastructure that has exceeded its service life.
Distribution
The distribution system is made up of water lines, pumps, hydrants, meters, and storage facilities. By the
end of June 2005 there were 2,174 miles of water lines, 15,126 fire hydrants, and 143,941 service
meters. The system is designed to provide water to customers in accordance with Oklahoma Department
of Environmental Quality standards.
The TCWSS indicated that one of the biggest problems in the distribution system is delivering enough
water to the southwest side of the city. The Turkey Mountain tank does not fully refill on a regular basis
during periods of high demand. The report recommended a pump station and large mains near 51st and
Riverside be built to solve the problem. Design of the Arkansas River pump station is underway. The
TCWSS Addendum addresses expansion of the distribution system into future growth areas.
While current pipe size and construction standards are adequate, numerous parts of the distribution
system are old and/or were built in areas previously outside the city limits and do not meet today’s
standards. An ongoing replacement program is underway to upgrade undersized waterlines and replace
aging infrastructure. The major lines in the distribution system and the location of plants are shown on
Map 8.
Conclusion
The City's water system has improved over the last twenty years but there are still major improvements
needed. Protecting the Spavinaw Creek watershed from further pollution, replacing and rehabilitating
aging infrastructure, system expansion, and protecting the City’s other raw water sources will be ongoing
priorities. The TCWSS has identified some major distribution system deficiencies and caused a major shift
in the emphasis of the capital project inventory in this area. The TCWSS Addendum identifies system
maintenance, upgrades, and additions that are needed to continue to meet the goals and objectives set
for the City’s water system. The current water system capital project requests are listed in the following
table. Those that can be shown on a city map are on Map 9.
Project Title
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
Council
District
Served
Supply
1
Chlorination Facilities - Oologah Flowline
365
Citywide
2
Demolish Abandoned Spavinaw Line Booster Pump Stations
435
Citywide
3
Eucha Potable Water Supply and Storage Tank
300
Citywide
4
Flowline Land Management
750
Citywide
5
Grand River Flowline - Phase I (Salina Pumpback to Spavinaw
Flowline)
83,000
Citywide
6
Grand River Flowline - Phase II (U.S. 69 to AB Jewell)
87,330
Citywide
7
Lynn Lane and Yahola Terminal Storage Repairs and Improvements
750
Citywide
8
Pig Launching & Retrieval Stations – Oologah Flowline
2,110
Citywide
9
Raw Water Flowline Repairs Spavinaw/Oologah
2,800
Citywide
10
Spavinaw WTP Rehabilitation
300
Citywide
11
Water Quality Plan - All Basins
3,500
Citywide
12
Water Quality Court Master – Spavinaw, Eucha
1,750
Citywide
13
Watershed Land Management
1,550
Citywide
14
Yahola Water Quality
1,000
Citywide
250
Citywide
Treatment
15
A.B. Jewell Maintenance and Improvements
16
A.B. Jewell Clarifier No. 2 Rehabilitation
4,000
Citywide
17
A.B. Jewell Chemical Feed Facilities Improvement
1,650
Citywide
18
A. B. Jewell Plant 15 mgd Expansion
21,565
Citywide
19
A. B. Jewell Plant 30 mgd Expansion
43,125
Citywide
20
A. B. Jewell Plant Sludge Landfill
2,220
Citywide
21
A. B. Jewell and Mohawk Plants Disinfection Byproducts
300
Citywide
22
A.B. Jewell and Mohawk Plants Security Improvements
250
Citywide
Distribution
23
16" Main - Edison - Elwood to 65th West Avenue
3,950
1
24
48" Main - 51st and Memorial to Sheridan Tank System
6,060
7,8
Project Title
25
60" Line - 21st Street from A. B. Jewell (Clean & Line)
26
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
Council
District
Served
1,090
4,5,6
72" Main Transmission Main from A. B. Jewell – Phase 1
28,860
6,7,8
27
72" Main Transmission Main from A. B. Jewell – Phase 2
16,190
2,7,8,9
28
Arkansas River Distribution System Improvements – Phase 2
3,100
2,8
29
Central Business District Water Main Replacement
1,900
Citywide
30
Cherokee Water Line
1,000
3
31
Dead End 12" Distribution Main Connections
4,950
Citywide
32
East Tulsa Water Line Loop
4,100
6
33
Instrumentation and Control System Phase II
34
Lookout Mountain Secondary Service Area
1,915
2
35
North Tulsa County Water Line – Phase 2
10,300
1
36
Northwest Tulsa Secondary Service Area
3,000
Citywide
37
Relocation, Citywide Water Lines
3,250
Citywide
38
Water Tanks Repaint/Rehabilitation
13,500
Citywide
39
Replacement, Citywide Water Lines
44,750
Citywide
40
Second Tank - Southside Secondary System
700
41
Unserved Areas and Economic Development
12,800
Citywide
42
Utility Bridges Repaint/Rehabilitation
500
Citywide
43
Water Distribution Security Enhancements
900
Citywide
44
Water Vault and Meter Upgrades
500
Citywide
500
Citywide
500
Citywide
8
Miscellaneous
45
23rd and Jackson Facilities Renovation
46
Automated Meter Reading
2,800
Citywide
47
Meter Shop Crew Room and Office Improvements
1,780
Citywide
WATER PROJECTS TOTAL
Projects listed in bold are FY 07 additions to the inventory. Numbering is for reference only and does not reflect a priority ranking.
$428,195
SANITARY SEWER
FY 2007 - FY 2011
TOP PRIORITY:
Unserved Areas
Citywide Collection System Improvements
Between 1992 and 2001, over $154 million in General Obligation (GO) Bond proceeds and Sales Tax
funds were allocated for sewer system improvements. The 2005 General Obligation (GO) Bond program
will provide $33 million for sewer system improvements and the 2006 Sales Tax Extension Program will
have $28 million in funding dedicated to improving the sewer system. These programs, along with state
revolving loans, provide funding for critical projects. Even with this high level of funding, the inventory of
sanitary sewer projects still exceeds $110 million in the next five years alone. A comprehensive study of
the system was adopted in February 2003. It identified the capital needs for the next 20 years. These
have been added to the inventory in all areas of the Tulsa Metropolitan Utility Authority (TMUA) service
area, including the annexed Fair Oaks area in the east side of the city and the provision of services to the
Cherokee Industrial Park area north of the city.
The City’s sanitary sewer system is designed to collect and treat sewage and return clean water to area
streams and rivers in accordance with State and Federal standards. The sewer system can be divided into
two components: the collection system and treatment plants. The collection system consists of collector
sewers, larger diameter “interceptors,” along with lift stations and force (pressurized) mains. Tulsa is
divided into four basins each served by a treatment plant: Northside, Southside, Haikey Creek, and
Spunky Creek. Map 10 shows the locations of the large interceptors in the collection system and the
plants.
Average Daily Flows
Tulsa Sanitary Sewer Plants
FY 1988 – FY 2005
(in Thousands of Gallons)
Fiscal Year
Northside
Southside
Haikey
Lower Bird
1987/88
1990/91
1995/96
2000/01
31,540
25,320
24,800
30,710
30,050
22,350
23,150
30,680
5,720
5,910
7,180
10,180
Not in Service
458
195
2001/02
26,030
28,510
9,750
171
2002/03
26,375
26,835
9,890
250
2003/04
29,400
30,200
10,200
300
2004/05
29,500
29,000
10,600
300
Source: Public Works and Development Department
Because of different land uses and stream classifications in the basins, each plant must meet different
treatment requirements and standards established by the Federal Clean Water Act. At this time, the City is
meeting all of these standards, but continues to improve the system to meet future standards. The
projects needed to meet state and federal requirements, as well as other facilities needed to improve
service, are documented in various inflow and infiltration studies conducted over the last fifteen years.
Northside Service Area
The Northside Wastewater Treatment Plant is located at the confluence of Bird and Mingo Creeks. This
plant can treat 42 mgd to advanced secondary treatment levels.
Many of the previously identified repairs in the Northside Service Area are complete including excess flow
facilities near the abandoned Coal and Flatrock Sewage Treatment plant sites.
Southside Service Area
The Southside Wastewater Treatment Plant, located at West 51st Street and the Arkansas River, also has a
treatment capacity of 42 mgd. The plant is undergoing a $12 million improvement program.
Like the Northside Basin, the City has identified and fixed numerous overflow problems in this basin.
Haikey Creek Service Area
The Haikey Creek Treatment Plant serves south Tulsa and the western portion of Broken Arrow, a highgrowth area in the MSA. For this reason the plant was doubled in size and is now capable of treating 16
mgd per day. Tulsa and Broken Arrow jointly funded the plant expansion.
Spunky Creek/Port of Catoosa Service Area
The 2.0 mgd Lower Bird Creek Treatment Plant and attendant pump stations were built to serve the Port
of Catoosa. The construction of this plant allowed the closing of the lagoons that previously served the
Port. This was particularly important to the future development of the Port, as the lagoons were at
capacity and additional industrial development could not occur until this plant was in service.
Other than the Port, most of this basin is being served by septic tanks. There are two subdivisions (Rose
Dew and Rolling Hills) whose sewage is pumped out of this basin and treated at the Northside Treatment
Plant, however, completed and planned improvements will allow provision of service to this entire basin.
Conclusion
The City’s sewage treatment plants now have sufficient capacity to serve the city well into the future. In
previous years, stringent federal and state regulations forced the City to allocate significant resources to
collection system problems. Almost $433 million of sales tax and debt have been allocated since 1990 to
build projects required by administrative orders and consent decrees and to improve critical parts of the
system. However, the City has recently completed the requirements stipulated by the administrative
orders and consent decrees and is now shifting its focus to expanding sewer service into unserved areas
and into economic development initiatives. Debt used to finance these improvements has been or will
be repaid with a combination of enterprise funds and property taxes. The Sanitary Sewer needs are listed
below and shown on Map 11.
Project Title
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
Council
District
Served
Northside Collection
1
Airport Lift Station and Force Main
1,760
6
2
Apache East Interceptor – South Extension Phase 1 & 2
1,620
6
3
Cherokee Industrial Park Lift Station and Force Main
3,500
3
4
Cherokee Industrial Park Relief
6,470
3
5
Coal Creek, 16-N Relief & 17-N Relief
1,210
3
6
Coal Creek, 30-N / 94-N Relief
3,720
3
7
Douglas Creek Relief
6,815
3,5,6
Project Title
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
Council
District
Served
8
Flatrock 10-N Relief
1,125
1
9
Flatrock Creek West Extensions
3,900
1
10
Flatrock Creek, 15-N Relief
2,095
1
11
Flatrock Creek, 27-N Relief
970
1
12
Lower Cherokee Industrial Park Relief
2,895
3
13
Lower Cooley Relief
2,215
6
14
Lower Flatrock Relief
6,420
3
15
Lower Mingo Relief Phase 1
7,110
5
16
Lower Mingo Relief Phase 2
4,170
1,5,6
17
Mingo, Coal and Flat Rock Creek Flow Equalization Basin Facility
360
3
18
North Cherokee Extension Interceptor
540
3
19
North Cherokee Extension Lift Station and Force Main
1,580
3
20
North Cherokee Interceptor – Phase I
2,780
3
21
North Cherokee Interceptor – Phase II
3,300
3
22
North Cherokee West Interceptor
15,955
3
23
North Cherokee West Lift Station and Force Main
6,145
3
24
North Cherokee West, East Branch Interceptor
4,610
3
25
North Cherokee West, North Branch Extension
1,020
3
26
North Cherokee West, North Branch Interceptor
1,640
3
27
Northside Interceptor Lift Station and Force Main Upgrade
6,595
3
28
Northside Interceptor Relief
9,650
3
29
Upper Cooley Relief
500
6
30
Upper Mingo, 84-N Relief
370
5
31
Upper Mingo/ Broken Arrow Expressway North
3,660
5
32
Upper Mingo/ Broken Arrow Expressway South
6,810
5
33
Upper Mingo/Fulton Relief
1,500
5
34
Upper Mingo/Jones Relief
2,450
5,7
Project Title
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
Council
District
Served
35
Upper Mingo/Lower Bell Relief
9,520
5,7
36
Upper Mingo/Upper Brookhollow Relief
1,680
5,7
37
Upper Mingo/Upper & Lower Tupelo Relief
3,740
5,7
38
Upper Turley Relief
1,550
1
5,800
1,3,4,5,6
5,800
1,3,4,5,6
16,230
1,3,4,5,6
510
1,3,4,5,6
Northside Treatment
39
40
41
Northside WWTP Anaerobic Digester No. 1 and No. 2
Improvements
Northside WWTP Anaerobic Digester No. 3 and No. 4
Improvements
Northside WWTP Effluent Filtration Addition and Low Head
Pumping Station
42
Northside WWTP Equipment Maintenance Improvements
43
Northside WWTP Headworks Improvements
3,670
1,3,4,5,6
44
Northside WWTP No. 5 Digester and Pasteurization
8,700
1,3,4,5,6
45
Northside Nitrification Improvements
7,800
1,3,4,5,6
46
Northside WWTP Nonpotable Water, Chlorine Basin
Improvements
880
1,3,4,5,6
47
Northside WWTP Odor Control Addition
7,620
1,3,4,5,6
48
Northside WWTP Primary Gravity Sludge Thickener Rehab.
540
1,3,4,5,6
49
Northside WWTP SCADA Improvements
2,650
1,3,4,5,6
50
Northside WWTP Security and Safety Improvements to
Disinfection
2,150
1,3,4,5,6
51
Northside WWTP Sludge Handling Facilities
8,150
1,3,4,5,6
52
Northside WWTP Sludge Lagoon Improvements
1,980
1,3,4,5,6
Southside Collection
53
53rd & Riverside Relief
1,800
9
54
Berryhill East Interceptor
1,260
2
55
Berryhill East Lift Station & Force Main
510
2
56
Berryhill Interceptor
3,460
2
57
Berryhill Lift Station & Force Main
2,090
2
58
Bigheart Creek Interceptor
4,480
1
59
Cherry Creek Flow Equalization Facility Basin Imp (Phase 1 & 2)
1,480
2
Project Title
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
300
Council
District
Served
60
Downtown Relief
4
61
Fred Creek Relief
3,650
2,9
62
Harlow Creek Interceptor
5,170
1
63
Joe LaFortune/Lakewood Relief
285
7
64
Lower Joe Creek Relief
3,460
7
65
Newblock Relief Line, Force Main, and Lift Station
710
2
66
Nickel Creek Interceptor Extension
1,610
2
67
Nickel Creek Lift Station & Force Main
1,760
2
68
Nickel Creek N. Lift Station & Force Main
400
2
69
Perryman Ditch Relief
2,250
9
70
Red Fork Relief
1,380
2
71
Riverside Lift Station Improvements
1,010
2
72
R.L. Jones Lift Station Relief
860
2
73
Torchia Oliver Sewer Interceptor
520
2,8
74
Turkey Mountain Extension
780
2
75
Upper Central Park Relief
860
2,4
76
Upper Mooser Creek Relief
610
2
Southside Treatment
77
Southside WWTP Activated Sludge Improvements Train 1 & 2
3,450
1,2,4,7,8,9
78
Southside WWTP Activated Sludge Improvements Train 3 & 4
3,890
1,2,4,7,8,9
79
Southside WWTP Anaerobic Digester Boiler Replacement
430
1,2,4,7,8,9
80
Southside WWTP Concrete Protective Coatings
220
1,2,4,7,8,9
81
Southside WWTP Dewatering Facility Sludge Drying Bed Cover
10,140
1,2,4,7,8,9
82
Southside WWTP Improvements
450
1,2,4,7,8,9
83
Southside WWTP Odor Control Study and Improvements
12,600
1,2,4,7,8,9
84
Southside WWTP Security and Safety Improvements to
Disinfection
1,240
1,2,4,7,8,9
85
Southside WWTP Sludge Management Facility
560
1,2,4,7,8,9
Project Title
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
Council
District
Served
Spunky/Bird Creek Collection
86
Catoosa Interceptor Relief
5,610
6
87
Lower Bird Creek N. Interceptor
1,150
6
88
Lower Bird Creek N. Lift Station & Force Main
850
6
89
Lower Bird Creek S. Interceptor
4,480
6
90
N. Adams Creek Extension
1,890
6
91
N. Adams Creek Lift Station & Force Main
3,720
6
92
N. Fair Oaks Extension
2,460
6
93
N. Fair Oaks Lift Station & Force Main
3,330
6
94
Rolling Hills Lift Station Relief
1,330
6
95
Salt Creek Extension
2,580
6
96
Salt Creek Lift Station & Force Main
6,190
6
97
Spunky Creek Interceptor - East Branch
1,390
6
98
Spunky Creek Interceptor - MS North/South
2,120
6
99
Spunky - East Tulsa Lift Station & Force Main
4,895
6
31,060
6
600
6
102 East Haikey Creek Relief
2,830
8
103 Haikey Creek Basin SSES
2,000
8
104 Haikey Creek Lift Station Improvements
2,180
8
340
2
106 S. Yale Ave. Relief
1,210
8
107 Southeast Lift Station Improvements (Pump, Generator)
1,650
8
108 Vensel Creek Lift Station & Force Main
1,170
2
109 Woodfield Relief
1,660
8
Spunky/Bird Creek Treatment
100 Lower Bird Creek 2nd Major Expansion
101
Lower Bird Creek WWTP Safety Improvements and Sampling
Improvement
Haikey Creek Collection
105 S. Vensel Creek Relief
Project Title
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
Council
District
Served
Haikey Creek Treatment
110 Haikey Creek WWTP Anaerobic Digester Addition
14,650
2,8
111 Haikey Creek WWTP Flow Equalization Basin Improvements
2,220
2,8
112 Haikey Creek WWTP Improvements Project
2,590
2,8
113 Haikey Creek WWTP Odor Control Addition
1,940
2,8
114 Haikey Creek WWTP Plant Expansion (16 to 19 mgd)
7,270
2,8
1,845
2,8
8,750
Citywide
117 Economic Development Wastewater Infrastructure
735
Citywide
118 Electronic Operation & Maintenance Manuals (Areawide)
470
Citywide
119 Flow Monitoring (Annual)
500
Citywide
1,025
Citywide
121 General Metering Flow Equalization Facility Basin Improvements
900
Citywide
122 I-44 Relocations
685
Citywide
101,700
Citywide
320
Citywide
2,000
Citywide
100
Citywide
6,950
Citywide
115
Haikey Creek WWTP Security and Safety Improvements to
Disinfection
Areawide Collection
116 City Wide Lift Stations Structural and Mechanical Modifications
120 Flow Monitoring Data Collection and Analysis
123 Sewer Rehab/Relief Lines Area Wide
124 Siphon Access Roads
125 Unsewered Areas and Offsite Lines – Areawide
126 Wastewater Plant Security
Areawide Treatment
127 Annual System Wide WWTP Rehabilitation
SEWER PROJECTS TOTAL
$529,450
FLOOD CONTROL
FY 2007 – FY 2011
TOP PRIORITIES:
Channel Erosion Control and Rehabilitation
Urgent Small Drainage Projects
Based on citizen and neighborhood input the top priority projects are “small drainage projects” and
"channel erosion control" throughout the city. While immediate priorities in the area of flood control may
change slightly from year to year, the overall direction of the program was established more than 20
years ago. Since 1970, Tulsa County has been declared a federal flood disaster area nine times. During
that period floods resulted in the loss of life and caused more than $300 million in damage to homes and
businesses. As a result, elected officials passed watershed-development ordinances, established
development fees dedicated to the construction of flood-control facilities, approved a monthly charge for
maintenance of the drainage system, and allocated millions of capital plan dollars to new flood-control
projects.
Basin drainage plans (BDPs) were also funded for each creek basin in the city, the boundaries of which
are shown on Map 12. These plans analyze the unique hydrological characteristics of each creek basin
and recommend solutions to correct existing problems and prevent future trouble. The approximate
boundaries of existing flood plains are shown on Map 13. Official maps in the Public Works and
Development Department should be used to judge the status of any individual piece of property.
The Public Works and Development Department, working in conjunction with the Stormwater Drainage
Advisory Board and numerous citizen groups, developed the “Flood and Stormwater Management Plan
1999-2014,” a phased implementation program for the projects identified in the basin drainage plans.
The plan was adopted by TMAPC and the City Council and became part of the City's official
Comprehensive Plan. It serves as the basis for the requests listed in this report as shown on Map 14. An
update to the Citywide Master Drainage Plan is currently being finalized for approval. The Plan prioritizes
the projects based on selected criteria including project cost, reducing flooding of buildings, reducing
economic flood damages, reducing overtopping of streets, reducing erosion and nuisance flooding,
rehabilitating existing structures, and providing regional detention in-lieu of on-site detention.
Project Title
1
2
Arkansas River Lower Basin - Storm Sewer & Detention Basin
Improvements
Brookhollow Creek - Eastland Mall Relief Drainage System
(Adjacent Areas)
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
50,620
Council
District
Served
1,4
430
6
1,670
6
430
6
3
Brookhollow Creek - Mayo Plaza Drainage Relief System
4
Center Creek – Regional Detention Facility
5
Cherry Creek/Red Fork Creek – Detention Basin
3,360
2
6
Citywide - Bridge and Culvert Replacements
6,965
Citywide
7
Citywide - Channel Erosion & Stabilization
10,375
Citywide
8
Citywide – Comprehensive Study of Storm Sewer Collection
System
2,000
Citywide
Project Title
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
Council
District
Served
9
Citywide - Concrete Channel Rehabilitation
10,000
Citywide
10
Citywide - Floodplain Acquisition
11,000
Citywide
11
Citywide - Master Plan & Master Drainage Plans Updates
600
Citywide
12
Citywide – Secondary Power Source for Pump Stations
440
Citywide
13
Citywide - Stormwater Facility Repair and Construction
3,000
Citywide
14
Citywide - Urban Lake Maintenance
2,500
Citywide
15
Citywide - Urgent Small Drainage Projects
5,000
Citywide
16
Coal Creek - Burlington Detention & Crossing Improvements
3,700
3
17
Coal Creek - Celia Clinton Detention & Storm Sewer
2,200
3
18
Coal Creek - Maxwell Park Storm Sewer
18,360
3
19
Coal Creek - Pine and Fulton Drainage Improvements
140
3
20
Coal Creek – Urbana Storage
1,820
4
21
Crow Creek - 15th St. and BA Expressway Detention Basin &
Storm Sewer Improvements
4,210
4,5
22
Crow Creek - Cascia Hall Storm Sewer
23
Crow Creek - Channel Rehabilitation and Culvert Replacement
24
710
9
14,220
9
Crow Creek - Eight Acres Bank Restoration
520
9
25
Crow Creek – Lewis Avenue Bridge Replacement & Channel
Restoration
830
9
26
Crow Creek - Rockbridge Storm Sewer
420
9
27
Crow, Swan Creek and Travis Park - Storm Sewer, Inlets &
Valves
4,800
9
28
Crow Creek - Yorktown Apartments Channel & Berm
690
4,9
29
Dirty Butter Creek – Channel and Railroad Crossing
850
1
30
Dirty Butter Creek – Wheeling Latimer Detention, Crossing &
Channel
3,880
3
31
Downtown Storm Drainage System Reconstruction
15,780
4
32
Elm Creek – 7th Street Canal Conveyance System
5,680
4
33
Elm Creek – 15th Street Storm Sewer Connector
110
4
34
Elm Creek – Central Park Detention Pond
500
4
35
Elm Creek - Central Park South Detention Facility
7,120
4
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
Project Title
Council
District
Served
36
Elm Creek – NBR Detention Pond
4,420
4
37
Elm Creek – Rockford Storm Sewer
1,490
4
38
Flat Rock Creek - 3900 N. Lansing Pl. Channel
1,200
1
3,030
1
1,410
1
th
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Flat Rock Creek – 48 Place N. and Hartford Channel &
Culvert Improvements
th
Flat Rock Creek – McLain Detention, 46 Street N. Crossing
& Channel
Flat Rock Creek Tributary – 32nd Street N. and Harvard Ave.
Drainage Improvements
Fred Creek - Channel, Culverts, Rehab, and Maintenance
(Phase 2)
Fred Creek - Richmond Tributary Drainage Channel
Improvements
Fry Ditch #2 - Bank Stabilization & Erosion Control
Fry Ditch #2 - Bridge No. 318A on 101st St. South and Channel
Improvements
Fulton Creek - 37th & Memorial Storm Sewer & Channel
Improvements
660
1,3
2,120
8
450
8
11,000
8
4,200
8
1,500
5,7
7,300
2
600
7
260
8
2,760
1
13,760
1
47
Garden City - Drainage Improvements (Phase 2)
48
Haikey Creek - Shadow Mountain Detention Enlargement
49
Haikey Creek – 91 Street S. Bridge Culvert
50
Harlow Creek – Levees and Culvert Improvements
51
Harlow Creek - Culverts and Detention
52
Harlow Creek - Stormwater Storage Facilities
1,700
2
53
Joe Creek - Channel Rehabilitation (Phase 2)
6,000
9
54
Joe Creek – Erosion Control and Bank Stabilization
900
9
55
Joe Creek - Mockingbird Lake Dredging
335
7,9
st
th
Joe Creek – South Fork, 3900 E. 60 Place Drainage
Improvements
Jones Creek - Storm Sewer, Channel & Bridge Replacement at
68th E. Pl. and 71st E. Avenue
Little Joe Creek – Crescent Park Channel Improvements
(Phase 2)
100
7
3,210
5
300
7
59
Little Joe Creek - Mainstem and Bridge Improvements
1,170
7
60
Little Joe Creek - Sheridan and 54th Detention
1,200
7
61
Little Joe Creek - Storm Sewer (72nd East and 55th St.)
2,040
7
62
Little Joe Creek - Storm Sewer (73rd East and 58th St.)
4,220
7
56
57
58
Project Title
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
Council
District
Served
63
Little Joe Creek - Thornton YMCA Detention
2,270
7
64
Little Joe Creek - Woodland View Detention
3,100
7
65
Mill Creek - 11th & Sheridan Storm Sewer Rehabilitation
15,500
3
66
Mill Creek - 15th & Fulton Storm Sewer and Drainage Channel
5,000
4
67
Mill Creek - Storm Sewer and Bridges (west of McClure Park)
11,000
4
68
Mooser Creek - Channel & I-44 Culvert
3,200
2
69
Mooser Creek - South Haven Floodwall & Culvert Improvements
1,610
2
70
Mooser Creek - Steel Companies Channel Improvements
4,470
2
71
North Fork Little Joe Creek - Storm Sewer Improvements
(S. Irvington Ave. and S. Hudson Pl.)
4,610
7
72
Oak Creek - Union Avenue Storm Sewers and Channel
370
1
73
Oak Creek - Roosevelt and Edison St. Detention
74
Parkview Creek - Central High School Channel
280
1
75
Parkview Creek - Edison Street Culvert
140
2
76
Parkview Creek - Expressway Storage
930
1,4
77
Parkview Creek – Fairway Concrete Channel
480
1
78
Perryman Ditch - I-44 Storm Sewer
61,620
9
79
Spunky/Adams Creek – Master Drainage Plan
250
6
80
Rolling Hills - Rolling Hills Channel and Detention
2,850
6
81
Tupelo Creek - 21st Street Detention Basin
1,730
6
82
Tupelo Creek - Cherokee Village Relief Drainage System Ph 1.
5,130
6
83
Tupelo Creek - Stacy Lynn 4 Addition Culvert (Phase 2)
th
1,430
6
84
Tupelo Creek – Stacy Lynn 3 Addition Culvert (Phase 3)
rd
2,380
6
85
Upper Brookhollow Creek - Detention Sites
4,740
6
86
Upper Joe Creek - 26th and Louisville Detention
1,500
4
3,000
7,9
6,830
7
87
88
Upper Joe Creek - Langenheim Park Channel Improvements
(Phase 1)
Upper Joe Creek - Langenheim Park Detention & Storm Sewer
(Phase 2)
6,220
1,4
89
Valley View Creek – Erosion Control and Access
2,510
1
90
Vensel Creek – Erosion Control and Bank Stabilization
2,550
8
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS TOTAL
$427,965
PUBLIC FACILITIES
MAINTENANCE
FY 2007 – FY 2011
TOP PRIORITY:
Maintenance of Buildings and Facilities
Security Improvements for Public Facilities
Citywide Roofing Program
Public Facilities Maintenance's highest priority projects are continuing the maintenance program on an
even, annual basis, a scheduled repair and replacement program for roofs on City buildings and
security improvements for these public facilities.
The Public Facilities Maintenance Division of the Public Works and Development Department is
responsible for the maintenance of nearly 100 City buildings including Fire stations and Police uniform
divisions, Equipment Management and Public Works facilities, and the Civic Center Complex. It
maintains and updates a comprehensive list of building repairs and modifications needed over the next
five years. The list includes repair or replacement of worn-out heating and cooling systems, roofs,
driveways and parking lots, and upgrades to building operational systems to be more energy efficient,
as well as other needed improvements. The 2006 Sales Tax will provide $11 million to continue the
maintenance program. The 2006 program will fund the HVAC replacement in the City Council
building, elevator and carpeting replacement throughout the system. Renovation of the Police Courts
Building is funded. The replacement of the Traffic Engineering Maintenance facility is long overdue and
funding was approved as well.
In 2001 the Public Works Department implemented a citywide maintenance management program for
roofing systems. This program entails inspections to identify deficiencies, engineering to correct
deficiencies, and repairs and/or replacement of roofs on City owned or operated facilities. It also
includes an element for scheduling routine and preventive maintenance. The 2006 Sales Tax will
provide some funding for this program.
The Mayor’s Performance Review Team, in 2003, issued a list of recommendations that included review
and inclusion of energy efficient components in the design of major renovations to existing facilities
and the construction of new buildings. Other energy saving strategies can be implemented in existing
building operational systems. The 2006 Sales Tax will fund $2.1 million for these improvements.
The Civic Center Plaza received funding in the 1991 and 2001 Sales Tax Programs for phase one of the
redesign study completed in 1988. Phase two of the redesign plan is estimated at $15 million. The
2005 General Obligation Bond program will provide funding for over $5 million in improvements to
roofs, Gilcrease Museum, the PAC, and security systems.
Project Title
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
Council
District
Served
1
Citywide Facilities Maintenance
19,200
Citywide
2
Civic Center Street Level Renovation Phase II
15,000
Citywide
Project Title
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
Council
District
Served
3
Energy Efficiency Facility Improvements
7,900
Citywide
4
Facilities Maintenance Shop/Office
1,470
Citywide
5
Roofing Program, Citywide
5,300
Citywide
6
Security System Improvements for Public Facilities
9,520
Citywide
FACILITY MAINTENANCE PROJECTS TOTAL
$58,390
Projects listed in bold are FY 07 additions to the inventory. Projects in the 2006 Sales Tax Program approved May 9, 2006 are not listed. See Approved Programs Section 7. Numbering is for
reference only and does not reflect a priority ranking.
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
FY 2007 – FY 2011
TOP PRIORITIES:
Downtown and Neighborhood Redevelopment
Urban redevelopment in Tulsa began in the early 1960’s. While the administrative structure has changed over
the years, the mission of physical redevelopment of the downtown and low-to-moderate-income
neighborhoods has remained constant. Evidence of success includes:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Brady Heights
Downtown Home Depot
Heritage Hills housing redevelopment (Pine and Cincinnati)
Village at Central Park
Philtower Residential Development
Lacy Park housing redevelopment
Tribune Lofts historic residential redevelopment
Renaissance/Uptown residential development
OSU -Tulsa Campus land development
Kendall-Whittier Park and School
Greenwood Center
Lansing Industrial Park
Urban Development’s current priorities are acquisition and clearance of selected properties for
redevelopment, stabilizing neighborhoods through housing rehabilitation programs, spot clearance and
neighborhood improvements, and residential and support development in the core downtown area. The
Brady Village, Brookside, Kendall-Whittier, Charles Page, Heritage Hills, Springdale, and Central Park areas
continue to be priorities for redevelopment and continue to represent a large percentage of the projects in
the inventory. The Vision 2025 Program will provide almost $20 million for downtown improvements and
housing as well as over $2 million for neighborhood improvements like signage and entryways. A number of
projects were added last year to support the area in the downtown core adjacent to the 18,000 seat arena
funded by the Vision 2025 Program. The 2006 Sales Tax Extension Program will fund $24 million in
improvements to Downtown, Kendall Whittier, and infrastructure for economic development. The currently
unfunded projects are shown on Map 15.
Project Title
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
Council
District Served
1
6th Street Redevelopment
9,000
4
2
Acquisition and Clearance In Dunbar Sector
5,875
1
3
Acquisition and Clearance In Lincoln Sector
3,765
1
4
Arena Support Site Development – Handicapped Access/Street
Improvements, Parking Garage, Pedestrian Links/Trails and
Sky Bridges, Urban Green Spaces, Utility Relocations
5
Bicycle Trailhead in Downtown
6
7
8
350
Brookside Plan Implementation - Eliot School Intersection
Improvements, Entry Improvements Phase I and 2, Parking
Facilities, Peoria Intersection Improvements Phase 2
Charles Page Area Plan Implementation - Gilcrease Museum
Road to 41st West Avenue Improvements, IDL to Gilcrease
Museum Road Improvements, Oak Creek Basin Improvements
(Quanah – Rosedale Collector)
Citywide Neighborhood and Community Improvements in
Urban Renewal and Special In-Fill Area Plans
9
Dawson – Coal Creek Hydraulics Concept Design
10
Downtown Residential Development
11
Fairview/Haskell Perimeter Road
12
Festival Park Site Near Downtown
13
Greenwood - Pine to Virgin Floodplain Reclamation
14
Kendall Whittier Plan Implementation – 21st Century
Comprehensive Education Park, Lewis Ave. - 2nd to 3rd Street,
Admiral Blvd. to Pine St., 6th St. to 11th, 6th St. - Peoria
Avenue to Columbia Ave. Improvements, I-244 Overpass
Enhancements (3), Whittier Square Perimeter Landscaping
Improvements, Whittier School Area Redevelopment and Spot
Acquisition
15
Kendall Whittier – Early Childhood Development Center
16
North Tulsa Infill Utility Assistance
17
18
45,000
Osage/Emerson Spot Acquisition (Inside OSU Expansion Area
including Salvation Army)
Osage/Emerson Spot Acquisition (Outside OSU - Tulsa
Campus)
4
Citywide
11,590
9
4,060
1
7,000
Citywide
250
3
8,000
4
655
Citywide
4,100
Citywide
500
3,4
9,770
3,4
15,290
4
220
1,3,4
10,000
1
4,000
1,3
19
Public Art – Acquisition, Repair, and Maintenance
1,400
Citywide
20
Springdale/Crutchfield Neighborhood and Community
Development
4,850
1,3
21
Streetscaping and Sidewalk Improvements
17,780
3,4,9
22
Tracy Park Expansion/Neighborhood Stabilization and Park
Trail
2,420
4
URBAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS TOTAL
$165,875
REQUESTS
(IN MILLIONS)
$119.5
Police Department
Fire Department
$216.6
Park and Recreation
Gilcrease Museum
Performing Arts Center
Tulsa Convention Center
Public Works
Streets
Water
Sanitary Sewer
Flood Control
Urban Development
You
Are
Here
$3,755.4
$134.2
TRANSPORTATION
Airports
Tulsa Transit
$5.0
AIRPORTS
FY 2007 - FY 2011
TOP PRIORITY:
Noise Mitigation/Terminal Building Improvements
Tulsa International Airport is the primary air transportation center for Northeast Oklahoma and parts of
Arkansas, Kansas, and Missouri. The airport served 3.1 million revenue passengers in 2005, up from 2.9
million in 2004. In addition, Tulsa International is a major employment center with over 15,000 workers
earning their living on the 4,000-acre complex. Over 100 businesses and agencies are located in the
complex, generating an economic impact of approximately $3.2 billion annually. The City, through the Tulsa
Airport Authority, also operates R. L. Jones Airport, located at 91st and Elwood. This airport relieves Tulsa
International of general-aviation traffic and heavy flight school activity.
The Tulsa Airport Improvements Trust has developed a five-year capital plan for airport improvements. It will
be implemented with federal funds and fees generated by airport users. In some instances, revenue bonds are
sold and repaid with airport user fees. Additionally, the 2006 Sales Tax Extension Program will provide over
$4 million for two Relocatable Aircraft Maintenance Hangers. The projects contained in the Airport's currently
approved capital plan are listed below.
Project Title
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
Council
District
Served
1
RVS - Access and Perimeter Road Reconstruction
1,500
Citywide
2
RVS - Airfield Drainage Phase 2 and Phase 3
3,000
Citywide
3
RVS - Airfield Signage
1,000
Citywide
4
RVS - Bituminous Pavement Seal Coating Phase 2
1,500
Citywide
5
RVS – Incursion Prevention
100
Citywide
6
RVS – Master Plan Recommendations
8,000
Citywide
7
TUL – Upgrade Airfield Access Control System
1,500
Citywide
8
TUL – Update Airfield Pavement Management Systems
100
Citywide
9
TUL - ARFF Upgrade
150
Citywide
10
TUL – Replace Cargo Building Roofs
600
Citywide
11
TUL – Upgrade Fueling System
100
Citywide
12
TUL - Mingo School, H4 and Misc. Building Demolition
600
Citywide
13
TUL - Noise Mitigation
36,300
Citywide
14
TUL – Perimeter Road Rehabilitation
600
Citywide
15
TUL - RPZ Runway 8 Clearance and Acquisition
2,500
Citywide
Project Title
16
TUL – Runway 18L/36R Reconstruction
17
TUL - Runway 8/26 Reconstruction
18
TUL - Taxiway Charlie Extension
19
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
Council
District
Served
8,700
Citywide
750
Citywide
10,900
Citywide
TUL - Taxiways Charlie and Lima Rehabilitation
4,000
Citywide
20
TUL - Terminal Access Roadway Rehabilitation
1,200
Citywide
21
TUL – Repair Terminal and Cargo Apron
1,500
Citywide
22
TUL – Terminal Building Parking Garage Expansion
12,200
Citywide
23
TUL - Terminal Building Improvements
24,800
Citywide
24
TUL - Terminal/Airfield Electrical Improvements
1,700
Citywide
TOTAL TULSA AIRPORTS PROJECTS
$123,300
Note: Airport projects are funded through the Tulsa Airports Improvement Trust (TAIT) and are not part of the
City's budget approval process.
TULSA TRANSIT
FY 2007 - 2011
TOP PRIORITIES:
Transit Coaches
Lift Busses
In-Ground Floor Bus Lifts Replacement
Tulsa Transit is beginning the process of increasing fixed route services to the level when the Memorial
Midtown Station opened in June 2001. Since then, service has been reduced nearly fifty percent due to
budget constraints. As a result, many buses were disposed of to meet the twenty percent spare ratio required
by the Federal Transportation Administration. These vehicles had exceeded their useful life. Tulsa Transit is
positioning itself to increase service so citizens will have a public transit system consistent with the
population, size, and demand of Tulsa.
Project Title
1
Alternate Power Generator and Air Compressor
2
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
Council
District
Served
250
Citywide
Automatic Vehicle Locator System and Radio System and
Passenger Information Display Terminals
1,000
Citywide
3
Lift Buses
2,000
Citywide
4
Memorial Midtown Station Building
1,200
Citywide
5
Transit Coaches
6,240
Citywide
6
Utility Vehicles
200
Citywide
TULSA TRANSIT PROJECTS TOTAL
$10,890
REQUESTS
(IN MILLIONS)
$119.5
Police Department
Fire Department
Park and Recreation
Gilcrease Museum
Performing Arts Center
Tulsa Convention Center
Public Works
Streets
Water
Sanitary Sewer
Flood Control
Urban Development
$216.6
$3,755.4
TRANSPORTATION
Airports
Tulsa Transit
You
Are
Here
$133.8
$5.0
EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT
FY 2007 – FY 2011
TOP PRIORITY:
Newblock Maintenance Facilities Renovation
The Equipment Management Department (EMD) is responsible for the maintenance of the City’s fleet of
vehicles and equipment and providing operational services that includes fuel, vehicle wash facilities, motor
pool and fleet management. The current requests address needs for facilities maintenance, expansion,
enhancements and security as well as replacing fuel storage tanks that will soon no longer be serviceable. The
2006 Sales Tax Extension Program will provide $2 million for the upgrading and improvement of Equipment
Management facilities taking care of many of the backlogged needs.
Project Title
1
1720 Newblock Expansion Phase II
EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT PROJECTS TOTAL
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
1,500
Council
District Served
Citywide
$1,500
SHORT - TERM CAPITAL
CAPITAL PROJECTS-INVENTORY
FY 2007-2011
TOP PRIORITIES:
Replace Vehicles, Communications Equipment,
and Personal Computers
Short-term capital equipment is defined as any asset with a minimum value of $1,000 and a useful life of
more than one year but less than ten. The last five third-penny sales tax capital improvements programs
have financed short-term capital needs. A Task Force, comprised of representatives from the departments
with the largest inventories of short-term capital equipment and the Finance Department, developed the
Equipment Study methodology. The study used 26 categories to reflect the diversity of equipment used by
the City. A new study was completed in mid-2005 and serves as the basis for the Short-Term Capital
Equipment Replacement funding identified in the 2006 Sales Tax Extension Program. Additionally, the
update of the City’s Comprehensive Plan has been deemed a high priority as it relates to emerging
Arkansas River Development, and downtown revitalization efforts and funding to start this update was
approved as well.
The 2006 Sales Tax Program includes over $79 million for these needs over the next six (6) years. Additional
funding, in accordance with the 2005 Study will be needed at that time, as this is a continuing need that
enables the City's departments, agencies and personnel to effectively serve the citizen's of Tulsa.
Project Title
1
Comprehensive Plan Update
Cost
Estimate
(in $000s)
Council
District
Served
3,500
SHORT-TERM CAPITAL PROJECTS TOTAL
$3,500

capital projects inventory

Transcription

Similar documents

Slotomania Big Win - Bingo Card Game For Ipad

U.S.A. - Raisin-South Nation Source Protection

Welcome To 7460 Bathrust St #614, Thornhill, L4J7K9 Batya Mishan

G tsinBarbo le G tsinBarbo le - The Herald

THE SECRET BEHIND SUSHI DEN`S SUCCESS l^H[[i

Summer Edition - Birmingham

day 4 racing - SRCA Dragstrip

Lower Pen. - Great Mall 9-1-11.indd

hypomyces image

Brochure - Canyon Cruise