Theres been some great discussion on the blog. The hike and bike trail has come up.
I have a story in todays -saturdays - paper about it.
Here is the real deal.
The cost is $1.2 million.
A grant from KDOT will pay for a lot of it.
The city still has to come up with about $600,000.
Creekstone pays $300,000 per year in lieu of taxes. That lasts until 2011. At that time Creekstone is to start paying regular taxes.
10 percent is to go to the schools, and 10 percent to the police dept. That leaves 80 percent for the city - that money is earmarked for parks and recreation.
The feeling is that money could be used to pay the city's part.
The decision was made years ago, and a lot of progress has been made.
They have bought up property and rights of way they will need for the project. The design work - architects etc., which are not cheap - is nearly done. Design work is to be done by the end of March and that is submitted to KDOT.
The trail could be completed by late this year - late fall.
As I said, it has been in the works for years.
If the city does nothing at all from this point, it will be completed because the wheels are in motion.
It would take an ordinance, or a vote, to undo it. That would likely take the for of a vote to return the grant to KDOT, and then to do something else with the Creekstone money.
Ive talked with the commissioners. I believe it will survive.
McDonald, Hockenbury and Smith are for it.
Margolius said he is "not opposed" to it anymore, but he said he did not know how he would vote if it were to come to a vote.
Kuhn still seems somewhat opposed, but he wants to build softball fields instead with the Creekstone money.
Mayor Dotty Smith is going to bring it up Monday night at the work session.
Nothing has to be done though, to keep it rolling.
Also, as I have said, the path is not the point. The point is utilizing the rivers and developing them.
Here is an example.
For the past three years I have gone to Scottsdale Arizona for the Cowley Volleyball team at the national tournament.
Through the middle of town is a drainage ditch. I saw it the first two years. It wasn't particularly ugly, but was just a concrete ditch with water flowing.
This year i was surprised to find it is now the "Arizona Canal."
It has (fake) grass on each side with flowers and small trees that are real. There are restaurants alreeady, several park benches and it looks really nice.
Getting a hike and bike trail on the levee is the first step in getting us to that point, of making use of the rivers.
I wrote in the paper today, the trail is not the point. If it were anywhere else in town id say save the money. The point is developing the river.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
44 comments:
I do not want my tax dollars wasted on a path for idiots that can find nothing better to do than walk around, we have already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on walking areas, let another intrest use the money , build some parking areas by the river so us people who cant walk so far can go fishing, and do not talk about walnut park, you cant get close enough to the river to thow a rock in it let alone fish,, I am fed up with all this negativity,do not be so negitive about useing these funds for river acess, forget your pro idolistic self serveing walking trails and do something for the other guy, quit being so self centered
i think the pot's calling the kettle black. you go into a negative diatribe then say dont be negative.
but, i said a couple times that the trail isnt the point.
if they wanted to build a parking lot, a dock and a small park on the river that could be developed instead, that would be fine with me.
the argument then is that we have too many parks.
so just an area that could be utilized on the river would be fine.
again, the trail isnt the point.
Go ahead with it, but let's commemorate the big deals and how the money was spent.
One at the site of where Lowes was to be saying:
"This was the site of a proposed shopping center which was rejected because some of the taxes from the business would go toward paying for utility service connections and construction costs."
List the Commissioners and the date of 2007.
"The tax revenue for this property this year is:"
(and have a blank that lists the actual revenues received by the city for each year from that land. engrave each year into the plaque)
And another one at the hike bike trail that says:
This trail was built in (2008) at a cost of 1.2 million dollars. $600,000 was provided by city funds. then list the Commissioners.
Another at the jogging trail:
This trail was built in (maybe 2001) for a cost to Ark City of $250,000, then list the commissioners of the date it was done.
It is an old saying that many years after the purchase, only the product is remembered, not the price.
It's funny, but if you look at the AC office building (built in the 20's), the owners chiseled and ground off the names of the people on their cornerstone plaque. I wonder why?
I wonder if the commissioners would want to have their names on the plaques? Probably not.
What will people only 5 years from now see when they read the plaques?
Is this really the best use of the funds at this time? They should firmly answer that question and make sure the use of this money is one where they could put up a plaque and be proud of putting their names on it.
Some are saying that industrial development is speculative. They should also recognized the 2 thirds of all the talk on the hike bike trail is about non-existent restaurants, river rafting, 200 person races and, it too, is all very speculative and much of it of questionable probability.
It could simply be that the joggers who use the jogging trail move to the river because it is nicer.
What does that cost?
The walking trail was the first stage of a planned sports complex. Was it really $250,000? The one around Veteran's Lake was only like $15,000 wan't it?
If the Lowe's deal was being worked for 3 years like they said, then there were 3 differnt commissions involved or by my reckoning about 11 different commissioners. Only the three newest ones killed it. Let's keep history straght. Other commissioners might have been against it, but only the last 3 made sure it couldn't happen.
The same commissions that brought in the Lowe's deal are the ones that started the hike/bike trail, or possibly even before that. It's been in the works for that long or longer. Maybe they have something else in the works we don't know about.
You're right. The good things and the mistakes need to be noted for history. Let's just make sure to give credit where it is due, and not until after we've seen the results.
James- thanks for digging around to find the good news.
I think this project is great and a great step toward a better Arkansas City, KS.
Go Ark City!
"It takes but one positive thought when given a chance to survive and thrive to overpower an entire army of negative thoughts." - Robert Schuller.
Mr. Fisherman from the first post,
Go up to the city council meeting on Tuesday and tell them you would like to see a fishing area [maybe a dock and boat ramp too??] put into the plans.
The city needs to hear from people such as yourself on ways to develop the river area other than just a trail.
"Only the three newest ones killed it."
If they approved it we should remember them for that.
Nobody else really counts as much.
"Never confuse action with motion." -Ben Franklin
"Maybe they have something else in the works we don't know about."
OK, I'll start it. There are 2 commissioners (at least) on this blog. They can just complete the sentence and put the end to the 'great things in the works' speculation:
"The other projects we have in the works that we haven't told anybody about are :______________________and__________________and_____________."
OK, ready.
"The same commissions that brought in the Lowe's deal..."
I thought it was AC Industries that brought in the deal.
People talk about throwing money away on this project, but aren't they already doing that by just the upkeep on land that can't be used by anyone right now?
If they don't want to use the Creekstone money for this, then fine, but please don't send the grant money back.
Vote yes and open it up for private donation to match the grant.
I would gladly donate time and money to help the city develop this into something that can be used and judging by the responses on this project, I don't think I am the only one out there who feels this way.
Give the citizens a chance to be a part of this instead of killing the whole deal because you might not want to spend the money.
I suspect they are probably past commissioners. But you may be right.
Since my posts are signed another commissioner could be a problem with the Kansas Open Meeting Act. Besides, I don't think the other present commissioners care much what goes on the blogs. At least that was the impression I received at the last work session. I think it is because there seem to be so few people here. I could be wrong though...
Patrick McDonald
Can't imagine KOMA applies to this blog any more than it applies to the possibility that one commissioner would read a press release or interview of another.
You are not meeting other commissioners to conduct city business. You are just stating opinion and information in the public arena, an area accessible to everyone, commissioners included.
Now the duck joke is simply wrong in soooo many ways! ;)
Maybe those fellow posters who want to see the river area developed should be a squeaky wheel at the council meetings that way if they do nix the project, it wouldn't be for lack of interest:}
Since my posts are signed another commissioner could be a problem with the Kansas Open Meeting Act. Besides, I don't think the other present commissioners care much what goes on the blogs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Only if you are posting at exactly the same time :)
Ive said it before. The city does a decent job of being open.
I do agree that KOMA is a bit screwed up, It could be better.
The problem is that there are not enough people at meetings to take in what is said.
At least one other commissioner reads all the posts, and one other one reads it sometimes.
ANOTHER poster suggested people show up and be a squeaky wheel at the meetings about the trail.
Good idea !
jj
Change the wording to 'river development project' and it opens the mind to other possibilities.
Saying 'a trail' limits it to just that for some people. Another trail we don't need when in fact its has more to do with opening up river access.
And wording seems to be an issue [think of how many times the TIF stuff was explained but couldn't change the minds of folks who thought Lowe's would be getting all the breaks. Or the school bond issue where some still think its all about a sports complex.]
Not trying to tell people what to say, just offering up a suggestion on how to get more support and awareness.
Change the wording to 'river development project' and it opens the mind to other possibilities.
>>>>
Good point.
Perception is reality more than reality is reality at times.
Maybe i should start caling it that in the paper.
What do you think?
I like it and agreed that sometimes the hurdle is getting over the perception of a project, which sometimes has nothing to do with reality.
Maybe change the name of 700 thousand dollars where it is not 700 thousand dollars, too.
How about calling it the Riverfront Park project?
How about calling it the Riverfront Park project?
sounds good to me
maybe we could have a music festival there in the fall :) :)
On my blog of Feb. 1st., I had assumed that the city was planning on developing the river area. If it was just a hike /bike trail I think it would be like the one on the East side of town.
By looking and thinking outside the box, why does everybody think the town has to grow to the North? Develop the west river project.
Think long term and try to get a developer that would install a fishing dock and other things such as a canoe rental, barge rides, and the rest that I stated on the blog. A resturant on the bank of the river would bring people to the area. The possibilities are endless for retail development.
Get an architect to draw up long term plans and so retail stores and such and maybe the people will get more behind it if they can see the future.
Thanks and good luck.
Agreed. I never understood why we couldn't develop the south end of town instead of sprawling North. It would make the town so much nicer and use the land we have in a much more efficient way. There are already ball fields and other recreation areas down there.
Imagine being able to walk from a baseball game to a nice restaurant/bar and then take a leisurely stroll along the river. That would be great!
Am I missing something or are people proposing restaurants on the bank of the river?
What is the purpose of the levee berm?
What if I said there is a beautiful, recently built restaurant in Ark City where you look out of the windows and it has a gorgeous view of a scenic vista, has a private driveway and covered porte cochere with landscape lighting and sufficient parking lot and facilities to accommodate hundreds of diners?
The last time I ate there I had a new york strip seasoned with rosemary and a cold beer in a clean glass.
Where is the restaurant located?
Also, here is an answer to the levee question from an earlier blog thread.
"Yes, the levee will protect up to a "500 year flood". All of that area has been removed from the flood zone.
And yes, I agree completely. The opportunities are great. The city now owns much of the land along the inside of the levee and along the proposed trail. It could be given away (or sold very cheaply) to people that would take advantage of those opportunities just like we do with land now (example: the meat market going in on S Summit)."
If anyone's thinking about the bank of the river, let's clarify. Development would be on the City side of the levee or on the top.
Anything built on the riverside (ie.: docks, etc) would need to be temporary or disposable because the river floods frequently.
Most stuff would have to be built on the city side.
On the other side you could build docks or piers that could easily go up an down with the water levels.
I used to live on the coast where they had to do that with tides that went in and out every day.
The logistics would be fairly easy to work out for an engineer. It would have to be considered, but it wouldn't be a major obstacle.
but it is a good point.
Someone would have to correct me if I am wrong, but we pulled up the flood plan and it says no construction in what looks like the riverbank side.
If so, so much for the ideas I had.
Maybe I should have taken the drive around town first before I opened my mouth on here:{
On second thought, can you imagine a casino or restaurant literally on the Ark River? :}
Tulsa has an amphitheater right on the river. The stage itself is floating and the seating is grass with concrete levels. I imagine it was built that way to mitigate flood damage.
In Jenks, they have restaurants and shops built up farther back from the river it is also the site of an aquarium.
So, you do have the possibility of building along the river not necessarily right on the bank.
Look at a the river during normal conditions. Look where it would be if they put in the flood protection bars on the bridge. If you can figure a way to deal with the level differences there, then you may have a plan. Otherwise, there is a problem building on the riverside.
With the Port of Catoosa, the Army Corp of Engineers provide very extensive flood control protections in Jenks/Tulsa at the Oklahoma Aquarium. Ark City doesn't have this advantage on its section of the Walnut and Arkansas Rivers.
It is a pretty impressive place if you haven't gone there, I recommend it. Salt water, freshwater, etc. Biggest darned catfish I've ever seen.
But it's not Ark City.
Situation is different.
"I used to live on the coast where they had to do that with tides that went in and out every day."
Typical tides in the Gulf are +/- a foot, more or less.
The river has flooded to 21 feet, Hurricane Katrina storm surge was 24 feet. It would better to compare it to that.
thats still just a matter of logistics.
wouldnt be that big of a deal.
of course, you might not want to put fancy restaurants there ..
or houses .
but a small dock or pier wouldnt be a problem at all.
we need to pursue the ideas, not just say why they wont work when you hear them.
:)
After viewing the Ark River from the top of the levee today all I can say is that I truly hope that the city is very picky about what type of industry it would allow here.
It only took less than 20 years to destroy the town we lived in. [a very similar town in many ways I might add]
What you have here is beautiful and I hope it stays that way [as far as industry is concerned].
I'm just...
outside looking in
The chestnut bridge area had some possibilities. Theres already a boat ramp and a couple of metal picnic tables.
Is there a way to convert the bridge itself into something usable or does the city have plans to ever open that up again?
seems pretty strange how the Air Boat association can maintain a boat ramp and picnick area right on the river with parking and private access,,,,,and the River dose not damage it,,, design is the secret,, you must wash away your negativity and quit running something down just because you do not agree
"Air Boat association can maintain a boat ramp and picnic area right on the river with parking and private access"
I'm not saying you can't put something by the riverside. That's easy to do. Just expect it to be under water when the river floods.
A boat dock, fishing piers or something like that should survive, paved parking areas might or might not, but a restaurant or pavilion won't.
Keep in mind when it floods, the water is fairly fast.
"Perception is reality more than reality is reality at times."
If the concept is sold to Ark City based on it being primarily a Riverside Project rather than a top of the levee project, then there is a sense that perception is presented in a manner other than reality. We know what that is called.
Before calling it something catchy and new just to bring the project home, maybe check with the City Engineer or someone who can give a definitive answer on what the possibilities really can be.
It is not negative to be realistic and do homework before pumping up expectations for something that might not match the presentation.
It is responsible reporting.
You got a point there and I apologize sincerely for not looking first before I spoke up here.
I still say however that something else needs to be added to set it apart from other walking areas.
If the hike up there today was against any city rules, then I do hope they go ahead with this because it was truly beautiful up there [at least the section next to the Ark River that we were at:}]
As for the other parts of this discussion, I still would like to see better river access and more development on the city side.
I confused all this with the Veteran's lake area.
Again I apologize for my part in building it up too far.
Actually talking to jj. I think going up and scouting out on the levee IS in the category of homework. ;)
The $700,000 question is: will it be different from the other walking trails, and how so? Is it worth it and is it a best use of the money?
If all people want is a boat ramp and fishing pier, then gosh, that could be done next weekend, almost by volunteers.
If they're expecting concert pavilions and restaurants at the riverside, then it is only honest to say that it won't happen.
It's important to dream and that is to everybody's credit. Ark City won't grow without visionaries and neither will it grow without realists.
The discussion helps the decision, but only if it is about reality not hyperbole.
Just inside the levee is completely safe, and a simple 2 story building would look over the levee.
A stairway or ramp over the levee would make it easy to get to the other side for picnic or service.
I guess you can just say no, but will a little imagination we could have something different.
It's important to dream and that is to everybody's credit. Ark City won't grow without visionaries and neither will it grow without realists.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is a good point.
I think we are too much in an either-or mindset.
We cant have it all, so we cant have anything, the thinking goes.
Note, you can talk about best use of money all day long, but bottom line, if we throw a half million dollar grant back to the state, it will be a long long time before we get another one.
And when the creekstone money is gone, it is gone, and then we wont be able to afford the match either.
Throwing away this opportunity would be 10 times worse than the big box thing, in my opinion. Not to mention the money already spent.
But, what really wanted to say is that we cant really expect several restaurants on the river bank, casinos, dancing girls or whatever.
The trail is the first step.
That can open up more things.
So what if we had a couple small restaurants on the south end near the place.
Maybe a bait shop and canoe rental place.
Maybe a stage for musical performances (hint, wink)
And a small dock actually on the river for access.
Maybe a seasonal park of some sort.
This is very doable and very reasonable... Thats my realistic vision.
That could happen in 2-3 years. Then after the dust settles, we can look ahead from there.
Funny about dreams. It seems a newspaper editor had a dream last year of having a christian rock music festival.
A little work and it happened.
Maybe he just got lucky, or maybe he put out the effort and made it happen. If he said he couldn't get it done it never would have happened.
If we want it, we can make it happen. But it will all depend on whether or not we want it.
Doesn't always work that way. Ask Wheatland or Roundup guys.
Doesn't always work that way. Ask Wheatland or Roundup guys.
>>>>>
If someone gave you a $100 bill would you say .... well, it isnt crisp, and it could have been 200?
some people just insist on being negative. The Edsel didnt work out too well either. Did Mr. Ford quit?
Wheatland had a decent little run, and Roundup is still young, too early to tell on that one.
You can keep saying things wont work ... ill keep doing things, and lets compare where we are in a year or two from now ::) ?
Maybe he just got lucky, or maybe he put out the effort and made it happen. If he said he couldn't get it done it never would have happened.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As someone has said.
"The harder I work the luckier I get."
Many people helped and made it happen. But if I had not asked for help ....
Post a Comment