# OKCpedia > General Real Estate Topics >  Maps 3

## Doug Loudenback

Just days after the vote, some city leaders diverge over whether the oversight board should have veto power: Kirk Humphreys, Yes; Mick Cornett, Pete White, Brian Davis, No. See the article. NewsOK




> Humphreys said three things are needed to make such a group work.
> 
> "It needs to be knowledgeable enough to do the work, he said. "It needs to be diverse enough to represent the community, and it needs to be empowered enough to make a difference.
> 
> The original MAPS oversight board made recommendations to the council but had no power to make decisions.
> 
> The MAPS for Kids Trust, however, must approve all projects before any money can be spent.
> 
> "The critical difference was: They could say no, Humphreys said. "Is it really oversight or is it just window dressing? If its really oversight, give them the right to say no.
> ...


I'm going to watch Flashpoint right now and see what Kirk Humphreys has to say about this topic.

On edit, darn, Humphreys isn't there this morning. Might get interesting.

----------


## betts

I can see both sides of this argument.  I would think that it would almost be imperative to know who is on the panel before making that sort of decision.  If the panel has a lot of expertise, then it might be good if they have veto power.  On the other hand, if it's just interested citizens, then they may not be any better at making sensible decisions than the council, and it is true they have no accountability to the public.

----------


## Steve

I was there for the first oversight board, and have gotten to observe enough of the MAPS trust group to see how it operates.
The first board was frustrated by its lack of any power, and acted out accordingly to get its point across. There were times when members of the original oversight board would spend hours and hours studying an issue, only to find their voice muted by an influential person who only needed 30 minutes of time with a council member to get them to ignore the urgings of the oversight board.
With such problems commonplace during the early days of MAPS, oversight board members resorted to holding press conferences and theatrics to get their message heard.
No such situation has taken place with the MAPS for Kids Trust, which has veto power. And interestingly enough, Mayor Mick Cornett hasn't identified a single instance where the MAPS for Kids Trust model hasn't served this city well.

----------


## Doug Loudenback

I can see both sides of the argument, as well. But big points lending favor to a Maps for Kids approach are what many of us have squawked about ... (1) the vague ballot, (2) lack of specifics even in the council resolution, and (3) holding council accountable for the projects identified in the original resolution. On the other hand, decision making does reside in the council and I'm not even sure that it would be legal for council to delegate power like was done in Maps for Kids ... which I assume was not legally challenged.

Steve, do you recall instances in which the oversight board wanted to go one way and council another, or something along those lines?

Interesting, it is.

----------


## Steve

With the first one that had no power? You bet. Numerous cases. And they had to throw virtual tempertantrums to get their voices heard. I also observed at least one case where a council member got dangerously close to illegal activity when it came to a property selection and purchase involving MAPS money.

----------


## OUGrad05

I think they should have veto power, why else have the board if they have no power?  Defeats the purpose.

----------


## Doug Loudenback

> With the first one that had no power? You bet. Numerous cases. And they had to throw virtual tempertantrums to get their voices heard. I also observed at least one case where a council member got dangerously close to illegal activity when it came to a property selection and purchase involving MAPS money.


No, I meant examples from Maps for Kids.

----------


## Steve

It was city staff that insisted all was well with the library when board members were suspicious early on that things had gone wrong with the contractor and the materials used for the exterior. Council initially sided with staff...
The oversight board also went against staff and council in regards to design issues with the state fair arena, location of the library, design of the canal and on and on...

----------


## Steve

MAPS for Kids? I'm aware of no disagreements...

----------


## Steve

One board went badly, the other has been a dream. And Mayor Mick Cornett is advocating the one that went badly. Fact, not opinion.

----------


## Doug Loudenback

Amplifying what Steve has already said, above, he has posted the following at OkcCentral:




> _Which Model of Oversight Worked Best?_
> Posted by slackmeyer
> on December 13, 2009 at 12:51 pm
> 
> Now that the campaign is over, lets delve a bit into promises and whats to follow. MAPS 3 has the power to turn downtown into something spectacular. But to quote one acquaintance, were at a crossroads  we can either make a good downtown great or a good downtown bigger.
> 
> Last spring Mayor Mick Cornett promised a public discussion and forums would take place over the summer to determine what would be on the MAPS 3 ballot. That never happened. And that matter is over. During the campaign he promised an oversight board would provide a proper check over how the projects would be implemented, similar to the groups that oversaw the original MAPS and MAPS for Kids.
> 
> And now were reading this.
> ...

----------


## Steve

Second Member Quits MAPS Panel In Frustration

By Steve Lackmeyer, Jack Money
Staff Writers


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, May 23, 1997
Edition: CITY, Section: NEWS, Page 12   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIOG:
NAME:

UPD: 19970523 -TEXT-


Another member of Oklahoma City's MAPS Citizens Oversight Board has quit because of frustration about the way the program is run.


Byron Gambulos, appointed by Mayor Ron Norick to the 21-member group in January 1994, said he quit because he believes the city's $300 million Metropolitan Area Projects program "isn't going anywhere."


"I still believe in MAPS. It is the best thing to help Oklahoma City redevelop its downtown," Gambulos said Thursday. "It is just our execution that has been the problem."


The citizens oversight board was promoted as a safeguard against problems that arose during construction of the Oklahoma County Jail.


Several board members have complained, however, since City Manager Don Bown released a report critical of the group because he believes it has not provided helpful advice to the Oklahoma City Council.


The city manager also blamed the group for the public's negative perception of MAPS.


Gambulos said a lack of effective city leadership caused much of the program's problems.


He also said that Bown's recommendation to hire a construction manager now is not a good idea.


"Right now, we have six tiers of review, and we are getting ready to add a seventh," he said. "Does this make good sense?"


Gambulos' resignation marks the second departure in the past week. The board's vice chairman, Bert Cooper, stepped down Friday after saying he was offended by Bown's criticism.


At Thursday's Citizens Oversight Board meeting, group Chairman J. Edward Barth defended the group.


"The independence of this board has perhaps caused some people to conclude that our members have been critical, but I believe ... this shows the system is working," Barth said.


He credited the board with several improvements in MAPS policies and for a council decision to include air conditioning in the renovation of the Jim Norick Arena at the fairgrounds.


Barth praised board members for donating their time to attend monthly board and committee meetings, where MAPS matters were reviewed in greater detail.


As for Gambulos, he said he wants MAPS to succeed so badly, "it hurts."


"I think it (MAPS) needs leadership - people working together. I would rather all of us swim rather than sink."

----------


## Steve

Transcripts Reveal MAPS Conflicts, Worries

By Steve Lackmeyer
Staff Writer


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, March 3, 1997
Edition: CITY, Section: NEWS, Page 11   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIOG:
NAME:

UPD: 19970303 -TEXT-


On almost any Monday morning, a meeting transpires among the people who oversee the direction of Oklahoma City's Metropolitan Area Projects plan.


The recently released transcripts for those meetings reveal worries in November 1994 that all nine of the MAPS projects were running behind schedule. That was less than a year after the $300 million improvements plan was approved by voters.


Discussions concerning strained budgets, turf battles between city officials and architects and handling of the MAPS projects' public image remained private until Friday. That's when city officials released about 400 pages of documents concerning the meetings.


City administrators fought requests to release the records until the Oklahoma City Council voted to open the documents to the public last week.


The Monday morning meetings usually have involved Assistant City Manager Jim Thompson, the head of the city's MAPS office, and representatives of Frankfurt-Short-Bruza - the architects and engineers overseeing the plan.


The documents show others attending the meetings have included city attorneys, the city's spokeswoman Karen Farney and public works director Paul Brum.


The documents show often heated discussions between city officials and Frankfurt-Short-Bruza . The firm's principals and city officials debated several times about the company's responsibilities overseeing the project.


At an Aug. 7, 1995, meeting, a city staff member accused the architectural and engineering firm of having "a god complex."


Frankfurt-Short-Bruza on several occasions criticized the city for delaying payments for services.


Public perception, apparently, also has been a constant worry for the projects' directors.


At a Feb. 14, 1995, meeting, Frankfurt-Short-Bruza was asked to conduct a "dog and pony show" before the Oklahoma City Council describing progress on the projects.


At a Feb. 12, 1996, meeting, following budget-busting bids to build the Bricktown ballpark, city officials discussed claims by Boldt Construction Co. that an extra $2 million was added to contractors' bids because they would have to work "in a fishbowl."


Memos also show continuing concerns and indecision over the past two years about whether to retain heating and cooling services from Trigen Energy or whether to build a central plant for the Myriad Convention Center.


Funding problems and alternative budgeting ideas were discussed numerous times.


*Friction with the MAPS Citizens Oversight Board also is described in the notes.


On April 3, 1995, Thompson told meeting participants that land acquisition costs would no longer be discussed with board members due to leaks.


"Thompson says that the (oversight) board's role is a problem," a Sept. 26, 1995, memo said. "More and more they do not understand their role in life. The board is going around the MAPS office, asking FSB (Frankfurt-Short-Bruza) and others to do what could be substantial amounts of work.


"There is no way Thompson can stifle this, but FSB needs to understand that we do not work for the board. They are going to get us all in a lot of trouble."*

----------


## soonerguru

A little off topic, but it is somewhat fascinating that we would have built an arena at the fairgrounds without air conditioning at one time. That indicates how desperate things were in this city at one time.

----------


## Steve

Member of MAPS Board Quits, Cites Conflict Allegations

By Steve Lackmeyer
Staff Writer


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, May 17, 1997
Edition: CITY, Section: NEWS, Page 03   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIOG:
NAME:

UPD: 19970519 -TEXT-


Citing conflict of interest accusations, local steel executive Bert Cooper quit his job Friday as the vice chairman of the watchdog group that oversees Oklahoma City's Metropolitan Area Projects.


The outspoken and sometimes controversial member of the MAPS Citizens Oversight Board promised, however, that he will continue to make his voice heard by the city's leaders.


"I believe there are serious problems facing Oklahoma City as it relates to MAPS and I can no longer in good conscience serve on the board," Cooper announced during a news conference at his home.


Cooper was appointed to the 21-member board as an "at large" member in January 1994 - one month after voters approved the $300 million package. The watchdog group was promoted as a way to guard against problems that arose during construction of the Oklahoma County Jail in 1991.


Cooper is president of W&W Steel Co. of Oklahoma City, which is providing materials for construction of the $26.6 million MAPS-funded Bricktown ballpark. Cooper said Friday his firm also is set to work on renovations of the Myriad Convention Center, another MAPS job.


"I have been accused by city staff on more than one occasion of a conflict of interest, and I am here today to remove any perceived conflict," Cooper said.


"My firm and its 400 employees around the country are too important for me to allow misguided city staff to take potshots at them - or me."


Cooper provided reporters with copies of a March 24, 1994, memo from city attorneys Diane Lewis and Marsha Harrod that addressed whether he could serve on the MAPS citizens board.


The city attorneys suggested Cooper abstain from making any recommendations as a board member where an appearance of a conflict of interest existed.


Cooper would not name which city staffers had questioned his role as a board member, but he called the conflict of interest accusations "patently offensive."


Cooper said his resignation is immediate. He tried to resign in December, but Cooper said, Mayor Ron Norick persuaded him to stay on the board.


Norick was out of town Friday and could not be reached for comment.


Cooper also blamed his resignation on a report released by City Manager Don Bown. The city manager said the board was not providing recommendations that could help the city council and was largely responsible for negative opinions about MAPS.


"The MAPS board has spent thousands of hours studying and reviewing these projects and have spent countless hours warning that MAPS was in trouble," Cooper said. "All to no avail."


Cooper said he does not plan to give up his fight to persuade the city council to reconsider its decision to build a new central cooling and heating plant for the Myriad Convention Center.


Cooper said Friday he is willing to pay "whatever it takes" to pay for an independent study of the issue. "The numbers and studies put together by Oklahoma City have been unfair, inaccurate and in a word, cooked," Cooper said.


Cooper warned that the relationship is breaking down between the citizens board and the council it was created to advise.


Several city council members have privately said the MAPS board is too large and is no longer serving its original purpose.


Ed Barth, chairman of the board, said he regretted Cooper's resignation and expects the board will address the current problems Monday.


"He was a valuable member of the board, and we will miss him very much," Barth said.


"I want everyone to understand I believe in MAPS and am still a supporter of the projects," Cooper said.

----------


## Laramie

*As my grandmother use to say, "Ain't nothing jumping but the peas in the pot and they wouldn't be jumping if the water wasn't hot!"

Let not make an issue of this oversight board.  

There haven't been any problems with the oversight board lets not create any.

Surely they will look at the fact that we need to build the projects that are going to be more revenue and job producing for the City.

I know the Park & Convention Center will probably be built first since this will help the  construction of a few more downtown hotels  that will be needed to attact tier two type conventions.*

----------


## kevinpate

> One board went badly, the other has been a dream. And Mayor Mick Cornett is advocating the one that went badly. Fact, not opinion.


The OKC mayor touted in the YES'ers commericials for MAPs3:
   Same type ballot as MAPs4Kids
   Same opportunity to work with an oversight board
   Looking forward to doing that again in MAPs3.

Sheeesh, go with what ya know works.  This really ought to be a no brainer, but of course, politics gets injected so it likely won't be that simple.

----------


## gmwise

Am I wrong to be both suspicious and concern?!!

----------


## rcjunkie

> am i wrong to be both suspicious and concern?!!


yes

----------


## Spartan

> I can see both sides of this argument.  I would think that it would almost be imperative to know who is on the panel before making that sort of decision.  If the panel has a lot of expertise, then it might be good if they have veto power.  On the other hand, if it's just interested citizens, then they may not be any better at making sensible decisions than the council, and it is true they have no accountability to the public.


They should have accountability to the council, though. If they're given veto power then there should be an easy way they can be removed from the committee if they are out of line.

----------


## gmwise

I thought the Citizens Board would have the MAPS for kids formulation.
I thought the word of our city Council is to be trusted.
Where's the oversight promised, the accountability?

----------


## Spartan

> I thought the Citizens Board would have the MAPS for kids formulation.
> I thought the word of our city Council is to be trusted.
> Where's the oversight promised, the accountability?


Where's the oversight? Well we know we can count on you to speak in buzz words and slogans. There's a start.

----------


## gmwise

*Spartan::*
Which Model of Oversight Worked Best?
Posted by slackmeyer
on December 13, 2009 at 12:51 pm

Now that the campaign is over, let’s delve a bit into promises and what’s to follow. MAPS 3 has the power to turn downtown into something spectacular. But to quote one acquaintance, we’re at a crossroads – we can either make a good downtown great or a good downtown bigger.

*Last spring Mayor Mick Cornett promised a public discussion and forums would take place over the summer to determine what would be on the MAPS 3 ballot. That never happened. And that matter is over. During the campaign he promised an oversight board would provide a proper check over how the projects would be implemented, similar to the groups that oversaw the original MAPS and MAPS for Kids.*

And now we’re reading this.

I was there for the first oversight board, and have gotten to observe enough of the MAPS trust group to see how it operates.

The first board was frustrated by its lack of any power, and acted out accordingly to get its point across. There were times when members of the original oversight board would spend hours and hours studying an issue, only to find their voice muted by an influential person who only needed 30 minutes of time with a council member to get them to ignore the urgings of the oversight board.

With such problems commonplace during the early days of MAPS, oversight board members resorted to holding press conferences and theatrics to get their message heard.

No such situation has taken place with the MAPS for Kids Trust, which has veto power. And interestingly enough, Mayor Mick Cornett hasn’t identified a single instance where the MAPS for Kids Trust model hasn’t served this city well.

Will any of this matter with MAPS 3? That depends on your perspective. Does it matter where a convention center will be built? Will it matter where the streetcar routes are located? Will council members, including the mayor, recuse themselves from votes where any of their campaign contributors have a vested interest (the city’s most notable residents own land in the Core to Shore area).
*Mayor Micky provided the Buzz words and Slogans...*

----------


## Spartan

You're still only speaking in buzz words and slogans when you're *coloring and bolding* large chunks of your post and referring to him as Mayor Micky.

I agree with you that oversight is important for MAPS 3 to be successful, but I would encourage you to come up with complete thoughts and tactfully present them. When people speak in buzz words and slogans it tells me that they're not capable of an original thought and they are just rehashing whatever they hear from other people. 

Talk radio listeners are the worst at that, which always makes me wonder if there is actually some brainwashing going on..

----------


## gmwise

Mayor Micky is what he is.
He desperately needs and wants a legacy.
The buzz words and slogans, I wanted to make it easy on you to follow since most the time the lack of common sense seems to escape those who blindly follow who ever is jingling the shiney things.
There is not a large "chucks" color and bolding, count how many is so, compare to the whole of what is cited.
I know I am asking honest questions about what is promised and not delivered thus far.

So explain to me why I shouldnt ask questions of elected local officials.

----------


## BoulderSooner

> A little off topic, but it is somewhat fascinating that we would have built an arena at the fairgrounds without air conditioning at one time. That indicates how desperate things were in this city at one time.


i agree ...

----------


## bdhumphreys

How does this statement:

"No such situation has taken place with the MAPS for Kids Trust, which has veto power."

...mesh with those challenging the constitutionality of a veto.  Wouldn't the existence of a board with veto power, prove that such a board can exist?

Further, it is important to clearly layout what is being argued here.  It is not a question of whether or not the MAPS3 Citizen Oversight Board should have the same authority to make decisions vested in the elected council, but whether they should have an structural authority at all.   Nobody is arguing that the MAPS3 Citizen's Board should be able to autonomously make spending decisions, rather the argument is that the MAPS3 Citizen's Board should be asked to approve, by a majority vote, decisions made by the council.  This is especially important, in the case of MAPS3, where the legal language of the ballot creates an opportunity for major expenditures not in keeping with the original promises made in the revocable council resolution.

At the end of the day, if the Mayor and Council cannot convince 5 out of 9 citizens - that they appointed - to approve their decisions relating to MAPS3, then it is clearly a decision that should be reconsidered.

--

Note: I originally posted most of this comment at OKCCentral.com, so it may not flow perfectly with this dialogue.

----------


## krisb

I say Yes to veto power for the oversight board, on the principle that more transparency and accountability is better than less.

----------


## Doug Loudenback

> How does this statement:
> 
> "No such situation has taken place with the MAPS for Kids Trust, which has veto power."
> 
> ...mesh with those challenging the constitutionality of a veto.  Wouldn't the existence of a board with veto power, prove that such a board can exist?
> 
> Further, it is important to clearly layout what is being argued here.  It is not a question of whether or not the MAPS3 Citizen Oversight Board should have the same authority to make decisions vested in the elected council, but whether they should have an structural authority at all.   Nobody is arguing that the MAPS3 Citizen's Board should be able to autonomously make spending decisions, rather the argument is that the MAPS3 Citizen's Board should be asked to approve, by a majority vote, decisions made by the council.  This is especially important, in the case of MAPS3, where the legal language of the ballot creates an opportunity for major expenditures not in keeping with the original promises made in the revocable council resolution.
> 
> At the end of the day, if the Mayor and Council cannot convince 5 out of 9 citizens - that they appointed - to approve their decisions relating to MAPS3, then it is clearly a decision that should be reconsidered.
> ...


Blair, in an earlier post in this thread, I said, 




> I can see both sides of the argument, as well. But big points lending favor to a Maps for Kids approach are what many of us have squawked about ... (1) the vague ballot, (2) lack of specifics even in the council resolution, and (3) holding council accountable for the projects identified in the original resolution. *On the other hand, decision making does reside in the council and I'm not even sure that it would be legal for council to delegate power like was done in Maps for Kids ...* *which I assume was not legally challenged.*


I'm not saying that the delegation of power would be unlawful, just that the question is raised and that I doubt that it was legally challenged by anyone in Maps for Kids.

The historical vignettes which Steve has mentioned here are pretty persuasive that such a system (board with power) has been workable and even comparatively desirable.

----------


## Midtowner

> I'm not saying that the delegation of power would be unlawful, just that the question is raised and that I doubt that it was legally challenged by anyone in Maps for Kids.


_Delegata potestas non potest delegari_.  

-- and when there's a latin maxim in support of the proposition, you can believe there's case law.

----------


## gmwise

> How does this statement:
> 
> "No such situation has taken place with the MAPS for Kids Trust, which has veto power."
> 
> ...mesh with those challenging the constitutionality of a veto.  Wouldn't the existence of a board with veto power, prove that such a board can exist?
> 
> Further, it is important to clearly layout what is being argued here.  It is not a question of whether or not the MAPS3 Citizen Oversight Board should have the same authority to make decisions vested in the elected council, but whether they should have an structural authority at all.   Nobody is arguing that the MAPS3 Citizen's Board should be able to autonomously make spending decisions, rather the argument is that the MAPS3 Citizen's Board should be asked to approve, by a majority vote, decisions made by the council.  This is especially important, in the case of MAPS3, where the legal language of the ballot creates an opportunity for major expenditures not in keeping with the original promises made in the revocable council resolution.
> 
> At the end of the day, if the Mayor and Council cannot convince 5 out of 9 citizens - that they appointed - to approve their decisions relating to MAPS3, then it is clearly a decision that should be reconsidered.
> ...


Thank you!!!

----------


## SoonerDave

> Just days after the vote, some city leaders diverge over whether the oversight board should have veto power: Kirk Humphreys, Yes; Mick Cornett, Pete White, Brian Davis, No. See the article. NewsOK
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to watch Flashpoint right now and see what Kirk Humphreys has to say about this topic.
> 
> On edit, darn, Humphreys isn't there this morning. Might get interesting.


Oversight board should have veto power. As weak as it is, it is the only mechanism of "enforcement" (and I use the term lightly) that can remotely hoped to be used as a means to get even some of these projects accomplished.

----------


## gmwise

AMEN!!!

checks and balances help..

----------


## gmwise

> So who do I lobby then? The advisory members or my councilman? 
> 
> 
> Hope they don't mind getting my calls and letters.


screw them if they do

----------


## fuzzytoad

> So who do I lobby then? The advisory members or my councilman? 
> 
> 
> Hope they don't mind getting my calls and letters.


Isn't it a little too late, by like 7 days?

----------


## fuzzytoad

> Our system of government has its' weaknesses, but I submit there are reasons we don't create bodies of people more powerful than our elected officials.


don't we, as a whole, consist of a body of people more powerful than our elected officials?

I guess I'm trying to make a point as well.  All of this was brought up before and dismissed as a non-issue.  Which, suddenly, seems to be an issue, albeit a not so important one, for now..

----------


## Spartan

> screw them if they do


For once I agree with an out-of-the-box idea you have.  :Smile:

----------


## JIMBO

Perhaps if the oversight commitee were given 2 votes on the city council, they would hold some power, but not veto power. It would take a supermajority to over rule them.
This may be a good alternative politicaly.

----------


## jbrown84

I'm torn.  I would prefer the accountability of veto power for the Advisory Board, but who watches the Watchmen?

----------


## betts

> I'm torn.  I would prefer the accountability of veto power for the Advisory Board, but who watches the Watchmen?


My thoughts exactly.  Who knows why kind of insight, taste, knowledge the people on the advisory committee might have?  Actually, it frightens me to give this kind of decision making power to just about anyone.  I was horrified when I read on Steve's blog that the City and Assistant Manager were ruling out streetlights for Project 180.  What makes a City Manager an arbiter of taste?  I've seen enough houses done badly by people with money to know that money doesn't necessarily guarantee taste either.  What does a citizens advisory board know about siting the convention center or a potential route for a streetcar?  Or, for that matter, do I want my city council people making those kinds of decision instead?  Do I seriously think they've got the ability to make such huge decisions?

Then I thought, how about hiring a Jeff Speck type of person to tell us where things need to go.  But, do we really even know if people like him know what they're talking about?  A long-time walker, I wasn't so sure about some of his suggestions for Broadway.  I ended up being paralyzed by indecision.  I trust myself to make those decisions, but I'm not sure about the rest of you.  :Wink:

----------


## gmwise

I want information, then I decide and it stands.
I hate indecisiveness, or flip flopping.
Dont be confused that with a lack of adaptability.
It comes down what questions you asked and the grade of information you're given.
The integrity of the people giving you the information and the questions being answered.

----------


## jbrown84

> My thoughts exactly.  Who knows why kind of insight, taste, knowledge the people on the advisory committee might have?  Actually, it frightens me to give this kind of decision making power to just about anyone.


I think this is why I lean towards advising only. I would hope that it would be a good mix of people who know what they are talking about and some intelligent laymen citizens.  But the actual decisions I think should come down to people that have the accountability of being elected by the people.

But I think a good compromise could be that the Board could veto the council's decisions with a supermajority--perhaps 7+ votes.  This would keep them from pulling any major stunts like nixing an entire MAPS 3 project.

----------


## HOT ROD

while I agree that the Citizens Oversight Board should have veto power, I do not think they should have ABSOLUTE veto power.

the COB could veto certain things, such as design or timing or aesthetics or the like, but they should NOT have the power to veto projects or who builds them (that should be the city leaders).

Also, I think the city should develop a formula to override the COB's veto. Because ultimately, the city leaders are accountable and responsible to the city (through voting) and we might just end up with COB people who are not for the best interest of OKC.

how could the taxpayers of this city hold COB members accountable? ??? This is why I don't think they should have absolute veto power (but instead limited and specifically defined veto authority with majority vote).

----------


## Larry OKC

Random thoughts...

Supposedly the COB is going to be appointed by the Council (1 person from each ward and 1 "at large"), similar to the Ford setup. Not sure what the make-up of the MAPS for Kids COB was/is. Know that the original MAPS COB was rather large (one article said they had a hard time minding meeting space large enough).  

The COB essentially serves at the will of the Council, if someone raise too much stink, whomever appointed them can probably dismiss them and replace them with someone more to their liking. 

The COB should have veto (as it does for MAPS 4 Kids) but should be subject to the Council's over ride. Since each council member makes an appointment, SHOULD be a fair mix BUT with so few people on the board, think it needs to be 3 or 4 each. Also presents a dilemma for 2 of the Council people as their wards voted against MAPS 3, yet they were for it...which type person do they appoint?  One that supports their views or their constituents?

Also, a recent _Oklahoman_ article mentioned a MAPS 3 TRUST(?)  don't know if this was a misprint, but in one of these threads, someone suggested a trust be set up (as an answer to the vague ballot/ordinance language), the answer he got back from the City Manager was that a trust would be illegal (does that mean the MAPS 4 Kids trust is illegal too?)

----------


## gmwise

Imagine that..we get 2 different answers from a City Official...imagine that

----------


## urbanity

Function of MAPS 3 citizen advisory board yet to be determined | OKG Scene.com

----------


## CaseyCornett

"Nominees Announced for MAPS 3 Citizens Advisory Board" Press Release link - TwitDoc.com - the EASY way to share your documents on Twitter

----------


## Midtowner

I recognize a lot of names on there.. some I don't.  A lot of older folks on the Board.  That seems to be a pretty shortsighted play considering how long MAPS III is supposed to take.  I knew a lot of young and excited folks who had supported the MAPS initiatives who applied and I'm sorry to see the board comprised of the same 'ol names as usual.

Bummer.

----------


## the hip

What are the general backgrounds of the members?  Does anyone know? Will that info be released to the public?

----------


## betts

I don't recognize the name of the person from my ward.  Who is Wayne Williams?

----------


## Steve

Ummmmmm...... 
Let's see: the first board had powerful community leaders: Bert Cooper, Eric Groves, Jim Bowers Jr., Ed Barth and more... this group has Tom McDaniel and ...
The first board had members appointed by the mayor and council and the mayor could not remove at will. This board has members appointed the by the mayor, who he can remove at will.
Not doing any commentary here, just making notes....

----------


## krisb

I'm hearing contradictory claims...this board is made up of the same 'ol names as usual, but no big names like the first board?

I'm not sure we need the powerful community leaders to have even more power...as that tends to corrupt. The fact that we have not heard of most of these people could be a good thing. How arrogant of us to assume competence from only a select group of leaders. Plus, I want the oversight board to be in touch with the real people of Oklahoma City. The established leaders already serve on enough committees and boards as it is. Their influence is not going away by not being on this advisory board.

----------


## Steve

Not assuming competence at all. But competence and influence are two different things, especially on a committee where members can be removed by the mayor at will. Again, just asking questions - how will this work?

----------


## possumfritter

Mayor Cornett,

I think you should have the County Election Board verify that each nominee did in fact partipate in the voting process on Dec 8, 2009. If any of the nominees did not cast a vote, then they are automatically disqualified.

----------


## ljbab728

> Mayor Cornett,
> 
> I think you should have the County Election Board verify that each nominee did in fact partipate in the voting process on Dec 8, 2009. If any of the nominees did not cast a vote, then they are automatically disqualified.


Possum, I'm not disagreeing with you, but do have any reason for suspecting that any of these people didn't vote?  If not, why do you suggest that?

----------


## possumfritter

> Possum, I'm not disagreeing with you, but do have any reason for suspecting that any of these people didn't vote?  If not, why do you suggest that?


ljbab728...I do not know any of these folks, and I promise ya, my suggestions was not based on any suspicions. Personally, I just wouldn't want anyone on this committee that didn't take the time to vote on this initiative. Kinda along the same lines that I hope that the nominees actually live in the Wards they are representing. 

Shoot, maybe they better check to see if the City Council members voted too? I couldn't tell ya if my councilman did (Ward 8, Pat Ryan), because he never answers an e-mail, at least none of mine.

On the positive side, at least there will be an oversight committee in place, no matter if it's truly representative of the "voting" public or not.

----------


## Midtowner

Tom McDaniel as chair is kind of intriguing.  Former Dean of the OCU Law School, former President of the University.  I'm guessing OCU Law's interests will be well looked after.

----------


## possumfritter

Midtowner...are you thinking the OCU Law Center's PCDC is going to benefit in some way, or that there will be some "new" construction going on in and around the Law School?

What does McDaniel do now?

----------


## Midtowner

> Midtowner...are you thinking the OCU Law Center's PCDC is going to benefit in some way, or that there will be some "new" construction going on in and around the Law School?
> 
> What does McDaniel do now?


I think OCU Law in general is going to benefit hugely from MAPS in an indirect manner.  Having McDaniel as Chair virtually assures that the school's needs will be addressed.  As far as the PCDC, I think having proximity to the courthouses/jail/biglaw firms will probably be a bit of a boon.  Will probably raise its profile.

----------


## Popsy

> Not assuming competence at all. But competence and influence are two different things, especially on a committee where members can be removed by the mayor at will. Again, just asking questions - how will this work?


Are you asking the questions to the forum or do you plan to question those that might be in the know - like the mayor, city council members or Metro?

----------


## Steve

Just Metro.

----------


## kevinpate

The removal at will power can be a come back and bitecha matter, but hopefully not.

Even if the current mayor doesn't remove anyone, assume he is not reelected (for whatever reason)
A new mayor could choose to remove all at will appointments

FF 4 yrs, and if the new mayor be a dud, presto, nuther new mayor
That new mayor II could remove all appointees by new mayor I

Seems a somewhat messy way to address a long term plan like M3

Oh well, hope for the best.

----------


## Midtowner

Well, the board has no coercive power anyhow, so they're only as relevant as any given majority of the Council wants them to be.  There's still PLENTY of opportunity to hijack this program the way it was set up.

----------


## Larry OKC

> Midtowner...are you thinking the OCU Law Center's PCDC is going to benefit in some way, or that there will be some "new" construction going on in and around the Law School?
> 
> What does McDaniel do now?


Wasn't OCU going to relocate the law school into the Fred Jones building but ONLY if MAPS 3 passed (to be on one of the Streetcar routes which supposedly hadn't even been determined)?  Maybe him being the Chair will expedite the Streetcars further along than the last City staff quoted 10 year time frame. 

If not mistaken McDaniel is President of the University...stepping down in June(?)

----------


## Larry OKC

> ...Even if the current mayor doesn't remove anyone, assume he is not reelected (for whatever reason)
> A new mayor could choose to remove all at will appointments...


All true but we are "safe" for another 4 years since Cornett just got re-elected.

----------


## jbrown84

Tom McDaniel is the only name even remotely familiar to me.

Someone (midtowner?) want to fill us in on who some of these people are?  I think their nomination makes their background/personal info fair game.

----------


## Larry OKC

NewsOK

*Cornett nominates 11 to MAPS 3 board* (_Oklahoman_, 3/27/10)




> "I wanted a collection of people that were passionate about these projects and passionate about the city, but I was not looking for a list of city hall insiders, Cornett said.
> 
> ...
> 
> Board members will serve staggered terms, meaning the groups makeup will change throughout the process, which will include the seven years and nine months the tax is collected and whatever additional time is needed to complete all the projects.
> 
> The group will review all aspects of the $777 million MAPS 3 program, including site selection, contracts, construction updates and expenditures.
> 
> However, the group does not have veto power over spending decisions like the MAPS for Kids trust. Additionally, Cornett can remove the at-large members for any reason and can remove representatives from the eight wards with a recommendation from the wards council member.


On the surface not seeing the connection between the nominees and the specific projects, but we can hope the Mayor meant what he said.

From the "More Info" sidebar




> *The nominees*
>  Tom McDaniel, chairman, president of Oklahoma City University
>  Dee Morales, at-large, self-employed freelance television producer
>  Susan Hooper, Ward 1, self-employed education consultant
>  Michael Dover, Ward 2, chief executive officer of Variety Care
>  Kimberly Lowe, Ward 3, self-employed public relations and advertising professional
>  Zane Boatright, Ward 4, director of strategic planning for Tinker Air Force Base Command, Control, Communications and Computers
>  Michael Adams, Ward 5, vice president and corporate controller for LSB Industries
>  Nathaniel Harding, Ward 6, manager of operations for Harding & Shelton
> ...

----------


## LordGerald

> NewsOK
> 
> *Cornett nominates 11 to MAPS 3 board* (_Oklahoman_, 3/27/10)
> 
> 
> 
> On the surface not seeing the connection between the nominees and the specific projects, but we can hope the Mayor meant what he said.
> 
> From the "More Info" sidebar


I'm of the understanding that each project in MAPS 3 will also have a subcommittee that will provide input to the CAB.  I know this because I was asked to sit on one.  Whether it happens or not, that's what my councilmember told me.  For what it's worth.

----------


## possumfritter

With 1,500 or so homeless folks in and around OKC, I would like to see 2 more "at-large" appointments...one each from the "Coalition for the Needy" and one from the "Homeless Alliance."

----------


## Midtowner

> With 1,500 or so homeless folks in and around OKC, I would like to see 2 more "at-large" appointments...one each from the "Coalition for the Needy" and one from the "Homeless Alliance."


With 1.2 million or so non-homeless in the OKC area, why do the homeless get so much more representation than the rest of us?

----------


## metro

> With 1,500 or so homeless folks in and around OKC, I would like to see 2 more "at-large" appointments...one each from the "Coalition for the Needy" and one from the "Homeless Alliance."


Actually there are almost 5,000 homeless in OKC, but not sure how that relates to MAPS 3 oversight board.

----------


## possumfritter

I'm not really concerned about the 1.2 million in the wider metropolitan area (31 out of 100 of them have already been heard).

BBL...looking for the figures on exactly how many people actually live in the "downtown" area (not counting the Homeless).

----------


## urbanity

The MAPS 3 Advisory Board has been announced; some didn?t make the cut | OKG Scene.com

----------


## Larry OKC

Am surprised there hasn't been hardly any mention of the first meeting of the MAPS 3 oversight Board that was held this week. Think Steve alluded to it in a thread or his blog about anyone doubting the Mayor's new convention center preference. 

I will say this, I don't recall seeing anything about it in the paper (before/after) or on these threads. Am sure there had to be public posting of the meeting, agenda etc. I am in the middle of watching it so not ready to comment otherwise yet but did any one else catch it (was right before the morning Lets Talk Transit meeting). Thoughts?

----------


## Midtowner

Larry, I don't imagine that any of those appointees would have the gall to take on the mayor and council if they started to deviate from the MAPS vision.

----------


## Spartan

> Am surprised there hasn't been hardly any mention of the first meeting of the MAPS 3 oversight Board that was held this week. Think Steve alluded to it in a thread or his blog about anyone doubting the Mayor's new convention center preference. 
> 
> I will say this, I don't recall seeing anything about it in the paper (before/after) or on these threads. Am sure there had to be public posting of the meeting, agenda etc. I am in the middle of watching it so not ready to comment otherwise yet but did any one else catch it (was right before the morning Lets Talk Transit meeting). Thoughts?


Well what he said was basically, "Come hell or high water, $30 million is going to OG&E for that land (between the park and Shields Blvd)."

----------


## betts

If we can't get the cotton gin land for a reasonable amount close to that then I'm not sure I think that's wrong. If we can get that land for $30 million and the cotton gin land is truly $125 million, then I don't think the location is worth the extra expenditure. But if we end up with the convention center by the park we HAVE do do something like residential on the west side of the building to avoid the big box. And we must have streetcar access to Bricktown.

----------


## Larry OKC

> Well what he said was basically, "Come hell or high water, $30 million is going to OG&E for that land (between the park and Shields Blvd)."


Interesting take..just rewatched that part and this is what I got from it:

The budget for the C.C. is $250M. As MAPS 3 approached the City discovered the cost to move the OG&E substation could be significant, so another $30M was added in the campaign numbers to cover that. It was not put into the budget to make the C.C. bigger etc  (they can't pick the other site and think they have an extra $30M to play with). 

From the Mayor's remarks, it sounded like what you said, that the $30M is going to OG&E no matter what. But if the C.C. doesn't go along the Park is there any need to move the substation or are they going to do that no matter where the C.C. goes?

It may be later in the meeting but I didn't get from the Mayor's presentation that the park site is IT. He is still saying that the site hasn't been selected but it is basically down to two (he didn't specifically identify it).

Midtowner: I agree (at least in the 1st meeting, probably wouldn't be a good idea to run contrary to the Mayor). The Mayor's presentation was ok but certainly not worthy of the enthusiastic, "that is the best presentation ever made" type of remark and applause from the board president.

----------


## Doug Loudenback

Is this meeting's video on-line somewhere?

----------


## Spartan

Larry, I would think that the substation needs to be moved no matter what, and soon..so that may be what Mayor Mick is getting at. Either way you crack it we can tell he has certainly struck some $30 mil deal with them that we're just now finding out about, but it may not mean much about the convention center because we all know the best use of that land is mixed-use development and retaining the normal street grid and not consolidating it into a huge superblock that constricts city flow.

If that makes sense. Sounds like a Kelo v. New Haven thing to me, so perhaps Mayor Mick's deal we're now finding out about is a GREAT thing--especially if they budgeted it into MAPS as an additional cost to the convention center. I was wondering why 500,000 sf would cost $280 mil..




> If we can't get the cotton gin land for a reasonable amount close to that then I'm not sure I think that's wrong. If we can get that land for $30 million and the cotton gin land is truly $125 million, then I don't think the location is worth the extra expenditure. But if we end up with the convention center by the park we HAVE do do something like residential on the west side of the building to avoid the big box. And we must have streetcar access to Bricktown.


Well, if the asking price on the cotton gin land is really $125 million..it's called eminent domain. LOL

As for $30 million to OG&E, keep in mind that I don't think OG&E is even half of the land they will need for the convention center, just for some reason the most expensive chunk. The substation is one block between Robinson and Broadway, and there's another block between Broadway and Shields.

Truthfully I would think the land is worthless without C2S, so as far as public opinion may be swayed by eminent domain, anything the city gives those landowners is a gift--granted OG&E does have significant infrastructure there (not $30 mil worth).

----------


## Larry OKC

> Is this meeting's video on-line somewhere?


Would guess it might be available on the City's website (but I haven't been very successful when I have looked for stuff there)

Will most likely be replayed on Cox but the problem with that is I don't know if they have a schedule of what replays when...I was fortunate and caught most of it live (was able to hit record and go back to bed...LOL)

I do have it on DVD and could make a copy and somehow get it to you if online or Cox doesn't work out.

----------


## Midtowner

Spartan, in Oklahoma, absent a blight declaration, which is what clearly could and should happen here, so this is an academic point, the Supreme Court's holding in _Kelo_ has been specifically overruled on state Constitutional grounds.  I believe I've given you the citation before.

At any rate, that doesn't apply here because the cotton plant and the OG&E substation can both fall under the expansive definition of blight.  When I see these land deals for $30MM, for example, I immediately jump to the conclusion that someone's fix is in.  These property owners should get not a penny more than fair market value and relocation costs if those apply.  To give $30MM to OG&E if the land isn't worth that much is just inviting a _qui tam_ action as such a move would very arguably be unconstitutional (state monies are not supposed to be spent for private benefit, at least not this directly, tax credits which can be bought and sold through shell corporations are okay, I guess, but I parenthetically digress).

----------


## Spartan

Blight goes without saying. If C2S isn't blighted, I don't know what. By my mention of Kelo v. New Haven I mostly meant the court of public opinion. Eminent domain is a very controversial issue that everybody seems to have an opinion on. Not everyone has an opinion on downtown development unfortunately, so that last thing we want, is downtown development's positive progress to be overshadowed by a contentious eminent domain controversy. Avoiding that may be the purpose of the $30 mil deal to OG&E, rather than what we may all sort of jump to. Granted, if it smells bad, it usually is. I'm just offering a reasonable positive explanation.

Yes, you read that right. I'm offering a positive explanation and suggesting something may not be as corrupt as it may sound. Shocking, I know--but don't worry, I'll be back to bitching and moaning about everything in short order. LOL

----------


## Larry OKC

Just let me know if I can be of assistance...LOL

----------


## Midtowner

I don't think public opinion is as big a deal if we're using ED to take out the small landowners and paying ransoms to the big political donors.  I don't think that's a hard sell to get public opinion on the side of ED.  A court battle with OG&E might be costly, but not $30MM costly.

----------


## Larry OKC

Wasn't in the middle of it after all, there was only a couple of minutes left (rest was the Lets Talk Transit).

I certainly don't doubt Steve's info on the Mayor's instance of the Convention Center alongside the Park in the Core to Shore planning. But after watching the Oversight meeting, everyone seemed committed to the current City line that the site hasn't been chosen and that would be up to the recommendation of the Oversight committee (but decided by the Council of course). But on the surface, I am just not seeing the "this is where it is going to be. Period"  Russel Claus in his C2S presentation at 1st indicated (seemingly matter of fact) that the C.C. was going to be along the Park, but moments later corrected himself and stressed it was just a placeholder. A slip? Maybe.  Mr. Eric Wenger also stressed to the Committee that the C2S info was just a "concept". He used the Park as an example. While the boundaries of the Park are defined/set, what the design and programming of the Park was in their hands (subject again to the final decision by the Council).

----------


## urbanity

MAPS 3 Citizens Advisory Board plans second meeting to help $777-million project come to life | OKG Scene.com

----------


## Doug Loudenback

See http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2010/07/30/4387/ ... I'll give it up to Mayor Cornett on these appointments:




> Those who have watched the convention center selection process with a skeptical eye may be intrigued with the names being submitted by Mayor Mick Cornett for a subcommittee of the MAPS 3 Citizens Advisory Board tasked to determine the best location.
> 
> The chair and vice chair are both from the board itself – Tom McDaniel and Susan Hooper. Also on the committee are Kirk Humphreys, Avis Scaramucci, Russell Perry, Larry Nichols, Roy Williams, Mike Carrier and John D. Williams.
> 
> The committee picks certainly assure a diversity of views going into the site discussion. John D. Williams is general manager of the Skirvin. Nichols is executive chairman of Devon Energy. Carrier is president of the Convention and Visitors Bureau. Roy Williams (Carrier’s boss) is president of the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber. Humphreys preceded Cornett as mayor. Scaramucci is chairwoman of the Bricktown Association. McDaniel is the retired president of Oklahoma City University. Hooper is a self-employed education consultant.
> 
> This committee includes voices very critical of and fiercely committed to Cornett’s favored site south of Ford Center. The appointments follow months of behind-the-scenes efforts to persuade Cornett to create a process that ensures the site selection would be open and not just fixed to favor the south of Ford Center site, which critics argue is too far away from downtown hotels and Bricktown.

----------


## Larry OKC

I agree Doug, it should make for some interesting discussion when they get into it.

----------


## betts

I'll definitely be interested in the final recommendation of the committee.  I'm not that concerned about the location, but think the process will be interesting.

----------


## jbrown84

I couldn't find a thread dedicated the convention center.  Maybe it was lost in the upgrade.  I'll just put this here.

Heres my idea for the main street site:

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...137b26f436980d

ADVANTAGES:
-immediately adjacent to Bricktown and could help jumpstart the northern edge that hasnt gone anywhere really.
-Skirvin would be immediately adjacent (via the Transit Center) and no longer have an ugly 70s-era garage looming over it
-significant infill of empty lots
-one or two blocks from all downtown hotels except the Courtyard, which benefits from Ford Center
-new Aloft would be adjacent as well
-ideal location for combination w/ Transit Center
-could serve to link Bricktown and Deep Deuce better

DISADVANTAGES:
-or it could become too much of a barrier between the two districts
-definitely would block some/all views
-too small?

----------


## bdhumphreys

> I couldn't find a thread dedicated the convention center.  Maybe it was lost in the upgrade.  I'll just put this here.
> 
> Heres my idea for the main street site:
> 
> http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...137b26f436980d
> 
> ADVANTAGES:
> -immediately adjacent to Bricktown and could help jumpstart the northern edge that hasnt gone anywhere really.
> -Skirvin would be immediately adjacent (via the Transit Center) and no longer have an ugly 70s-era garage looming over it
> ...


Nice ideas Jason!  Certainly the best location if you go by criteria that prioritizes proximity to Bricktown and existing hotels.  And the potential to expand the Skirvin to serve as the convention hotel, while enhancing the visual presence of the Santa Fe garage on Park Place, makes it a strong contender in my opinion.

Of course, we still need to answer a number of questions concerning size, design, etc, in order to make an informed decision.  I hope the Main Street site gets adequate consideration based on objective criteria; I think it will.

----------


## jbrown84

Thanks Blair!  Perhaps we could have the Skirvin Tower all over again.

----------


## stdennis

> I couldn't find a thread dedicated the convention center.  Maybe it was lost in the upgrade.  I'll just put this here.
> 
> Here’s my idea for the main street site:
> 
> http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...137b26f436980d
> 
> ADVANTAGES:
> -immediately adjacent to Bricktown and could help jumpstart the northern edge that hasn’t gone anywhere really.
> -Skirvin would be immediately adjacent (via the Transit Center) and no longer have an ugly 70s-era garage looming over it
> ...


Yeah at first i thought this seemed like a bad idea but the more i thought about it the better it became. I dont think the barrier between the two districts would be a big deal seeing how the current parking lot is already a huge barrier.  One problem i see is the current tracks especially if we want to do light rail on existing tracks up to edmond or even expanding the heartland flyer north... would these run through the convention center? under? how would this work? The other would be parking.  The under ground parking would have to be multiple levels covering most of the site or that parking garage very high to replace the parking that is lost in that parking garage and with that surface parking.  I dont know the amount of use those lots get but they seem to have a decent amount of cars in them when i see them plus they are expanding so i assume quite a bit.

----------


## stdennis

Also if you switch the grand opening and the hotel and put another entrance on the other side where Oklahoma dead ends at 2nd with with an open breeze way and some smaller shops or something in there it would be covered connected walking between the two districts.  You could have convention space above maybe? This would tie the areas together better than anything else i can think of especially if you give it a decent enough slope so that it can be walked easier than the walnut bridge it would help with ped traffic alot.

----------


## jbrown84

That's a good idea on the Oklahoma Ave connection.  And yes the idea was that the tracks go through/under the building.

----------


## stdennis

That would make it a very interesting/Unique building. Especially if you built it to go under the walnut bridge. With the rail, bridge and pedestrian walkway through it.  That would mean auto traffic, rail traffic, and pedestrian traffic would all go over or through the convention center.  And I'm sure we could think of a few ways to make the loss of parking minimal/ non-existent.

----------


## betts

Mine might be one of the views it would block, so perhaps my thoughts should be taken with a grain of salt.  However, my biggest concern would be that the convention center architecturally fit into Bricktown, just as we've tried to require other buildings to do, and somewhat succeeded.  Since it would be construction funded by the city, there would be no need to be out of compliance at all.  Can we afford a building that fits in with Bricktown aesthetically and visually?  To my way of thinking, it would need to have many windows, just as buildings in Bricktown do, and be completely faced in brick.  I guess, to comply, you could simply board all of the windows over (tongue in cheek here), but I think it would be very difficult to combine the requirements of a convention center with aesthetic requirements.  That's why, as on okccentral, I suggest that if we want it as close to Bricktown as possible, we look at the lumber yard.  It is immediately adjacent to north-south railroad tracks, if we're wanting rail, would be close to the streetcar lines that have been outlined, and would be near the Co-op, which would then be a desirable location for developers.  Also, short of the location south of the Ford Center, it would be closest to Core to Shore, and would therefore help jumpstart that area for development.

I

----------


## SkyWestOKC

I am with one of the above posters, at first this suggestion was a no. But honestly, I am in favor of it and it makes great sense.

----------


## jbrown84

Good point betts, about the aesthetics.

----------


## urbanity

http://www.okgazette.com/article/09-...s_centers.aspx

----------


## betts

I certainly don't mind the wellness centers having some attention focused on them.  I know there were a lot of people who felt the city wasn't really committed to them and just threw them onto the ballot to get senior citizens to vote for MAPS.  But, I would hate for them to receive the focus and early money collected for MAPS just to prove a point.  If we are going to get started on them early, I think it would be a mistake to build more than one.  Don't build the first on the north side simply because that's where the pro-MAPS voters are.  Build one on the south side to show the voters there that they are getting some benefit from MAPS, and see what kind of utilization patterns there are.  See which parts of the facility are more popular and which ones sit empty.  That way, further centers could potentially be modified, if we find they're not used as the planners planned.

----------


## kevinpate

> I couldn't find a thread dedicated the convention center.  Maybe it was lost in the upgrade.  I'll just put this here.
> 
> Heres my idea for the main street site:
> 
> http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UT...137b26f436980d
> 
> ADVANTAGES:
> -immediately adjacent to Bricktown and could help jumpstart the northern edge that hasnt gone anywhere really.
> -Skirvin would be immediately adjacent (via the Transit Center) and no longer have an ugly 70s-era garage looming over it
> ...


A real shame this is not a front burner idea for the city.  Guess maybe it makes too much sense.

----------


## betts

Too expensive and difficult from a design standpoint to make it fit into Bricktown is my guess.  It would require A LOT of brick and windows.

----------


## ljbab728

> I certainly don't mind the wellness centers having some attention focused on them.  I know there were a lot of people who felt the city wasn't really committed to them and just threw them onto the ballot to get senior citizens to vote for MAPS.  But, I would hate for them to receive the focus and early money collected for MAPS just to prove a point.


I don't see anything in that article indicating that they would receive focus or early funding.  It was mearly stating that nothing at all had been done on that proposal compared to other aspects of MAPS 3 and that was a glaring oversight and shouldn't be overlooked.

----------


## urbanity

http://www.okgazette.com/article/11-...onsultant.aspx

----------


## urbanity

http://www.okgazette.com/article/11-..._Movement.aspx

----------


## Watson410

I'm glad to hear the park will be OPENING in 2012 and not just beginning constuction.. (The northern section of it anyways)

----------


## G.Walker

Based on timeline, it will be a while before we see the big projects completed:

http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-city-...rticle/3553618

AT A GLANCE

Proposed timeline for MAPS 3 projects

Architectural Design Group's Mike Mize presented Oklahoma City Council members with a preliminary timeline for completion of the eight MAPS 3 projects. The proposal is a draft and likely will change. Budget figures include construction costs plus items such as land acquisition, planning and consulting fees.

Convention center
Budget: $280 million
Construction: From late 2018 to mid-2021

Downtown park
Budget: $130 million
Construction: Upper park (near downtown) from beginning 2013 to late 2014; Lower park (near Oklahoma River) from early 2018 to early 2019

Modern streetcar/transit hub
Budget: $130 million
Construction: Procurement and construction of phase 1 from mid-2013 to early 2016; Construction of hub and phase 2 from mid-2016 to mid-2018

Oklahoma River improvements
Budget: $60 million
Construction: Windscreen and lighting from beginning to end 2012; Scoreboard and grandstand from late 2014 to early 2016; Terrace, landscaping and white-water park from late 2017 to end 2018

State fairgrounds improvements
Budget: $60 million
Construction: From beginning 2015 to early 2017

Wellness centers
Budget: $50 million
Construction: Center 1 from early 2013 to mid-2014; Center 2 from mid-2015 to late 2016; Center 3 from late 2016 to end 2017; Center 4 from early 2018 to mid-2019

Trails improvements
Budget: $40 million
Construction: In four phases from mid-2012 to late 2015

Sidewalks
Budget: $10 million
Construction: In four phases from mid-2012 to early 2016

----------


## okclee

This list and timeline is a little depressing. I would almost rather not know this info.

I had been looking forward to me doing some Okc white water rafting, but it seems I should be looking more toward me using the senior aquatics.

----------


## Rover

> This list and timeline is a little depressing. I would almost rather not know this info.
> 
> I had been looking forward to me doing some Okc white water rafting, but it seems I should be looking more toward me using the senior aquatics.


LOL.  Maybe they will have a "Not So Rapid" whitewater rafting area for us geezers then.

----------


## mcca7596

I wonder if there are priority corridors as to where the sidewalks will go? I know there is a trails master plan...

Sid, what could you tell us?

----------


## G.Walker

My daughter is in the 3rd grade, when the new CC is completed, she will have graduated high school, gosh thats a long time!

----------


## G.Walker

Based on the info, its seems like they are starting the least expensive projects first, which in my opinion, it should be vice versa:

1. Convention Center
2. Street Car
3. Park.....

as this implementation plan was just a draft, the order can change, lets hope so!

----------


## Snowman

> Based on the info, its seems like they are starting the least expensive projects first, which in my opinion, it should be vice versa:
> 
> 1. Convention Center
> 2. Street Car
> 3. Park.....
> 
> as this implementation plan was just a draft, the order can change, lets hope so!


Even if the convention center is first then nothing will happen till 2016 /2017 anyway due to how long it will take to collect the money.

----------


## Larry OKC

> My daughter is in the 3rd grade, when the new CC is completed, she will have graduated high school, gosh thats a long time!


True, but not unusual. MAPS & MAPS for Kids had similar long term completion cycles (10 to 12 years). Even pointed out a time or 2 in the campaign. We are seeing slightly earlier progress since some projects (or more accurately sub-projects) are closer to being 'shovel ready" than previous ones. But still odd that Sidewalks, the least expensive (6 weeks of the MAPS 3 tax) is going to be done over such a long, phased approach. Understand they have to identify and not duplicate sidewalks that are already funded through bond issues and Project 180 type things...

----------


## workman45

> True, but not unusual. MAPS & MAPS for Kids had similar long term completion cycles (10 to 12 years). Even pointed out a time or 2 in the campaign. We are seeing slightly earlier progress since some projects (or more accurately sub-projects) are closer to being 'shovel ready" than previous ones. But still odd that Sidewalks, the least expensive (6 weeks of the MAPS 3 tax) is going to be done over such a long, phased approach. Understand they have to identify and not duplicate sidewalks that are already funded through bond issues and Project 180 type things...


They said breaking it into 4 phases will allow the use of local contractors. It's really difficult to expand your workforce fourfold that quickly and who would want to do that for just one contract? If the locals don't, that will necessitate using outside contractors, which raises the cost.

----------


## Larry OKC

^^^
I am all for using local contractors and using keeping as much of the MAPS 3 money "in house", but the timeline on the sidewalks seems overly stretched out. And it appears some on the Council are thinking the same thing.

----------


## Larry OKC

duplicate posting

----------


## workman45

> ^^^
> I am all for using local contractors and using keeping as much of the MAPS 3 money "in house", but the timeline on the sidewalks seems overly stretched out. And it appears some on the Council are thinking the same thing.


If we're going to shift a project forward this would be the one, but remember, you have to move something back to make this shift.

My concern is the possibility of slowing the work on an enginering study for the streetcar that may adversely affect our chances at federal matching grants.

----------


## Larry OKC

True, but even if all the other projects get shifted back (if the sidewalks get moved forward) you are only talking about 6 WEEKS of MAPS 3 money TOTAL. Theoretically, we already have the money collected and in hand to start/finish this project (and understand they haven't even identified where they are going, avoiding duplication of work done thru bond issue, Project 180 etc). I do understand that the slippery slope factor exists and if they get moved up, another project wants to be moved, and another and another...

Hard to believe that 6 weeks could be that critical to another project but not sure what deadlines are for federal funding etc.

----------


## betts

I can be corrected if I'm wrong, but I don't believe our engineering study is required for federal funding. Rather it is the environmental study AA needs to obtain that is required.

----------


## workman45

> I can be corrected if I'm wrong, but I don't believe our engineering study is required for federal funding. Rather it is the environmental study AA needs to obtain that is required.


Only the AA is required to apply for federal funding, but we're only one of many cities applying for this. The fact that we have matching funds available will be a large factor in helping our application, but in anything involving politics, logically following the rules doesn't insure success. That's why I worry that an untimely wait on an engineering study could impact our chances.

----------


## king183

The Oklahoman reported another improvement in sales tax collections--about 9% above last year's collections.  

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-gets...rticle/3555792

What does this mean for MAPS 3? 

Specifically, does the city issue public, detailed reports of the amount collected from the M3 tax?  I'd like to see the monthly progress versus estimates, too.

Several months ago I suggested the city post something online similar to those thermometer boards United Way uses to show how close they are to their goal.  I think it would be fun, helpful, and informative if we could see how close we are getting to $777 million over the next few years.

Either way, the improvement in sales tax collection bodes well for M3. Let's hope it continues.

----------


## Larry OKC

It can only be good news for MAPS 3. Even with the bottom of the barrel starting point, presuming the City's avg growth rate, worked out to almost exactly the $777M projection. The 9% over last years collections is about double what their projection numbers had (IIRC). Granted, that is 1 months worth and not for the whole year, but again, think collections have exceeded previous year by roughly the same percentages. One thing the Mayor mentioned is the City is excellent at long range tax collections. He mentioned that MAPS for Kids, was within $2M of the projections (didn't say if it was over or under), but it was an incredibly close percentage wise. Would be absolutely thrilled if they could get their cost projections at the same percentage. The original MAPS exceeded by 47.75%. The City's average with bond issue projects is 8% over. Yet with MAPS 3 we are only budgeting 2.2% for cost over runs ($17M). We are already behind with the $40M "mistake" made with the Trails element.

----------


## betts

Has anyone said we're going to spend the extra $40 million to complete the trails? If not, we're not behind, just incorrect.

----------


## Larry OKC

> Has anyone said we're going to spend the extra $40 million to complete the trails? If not, we're not behind, just incorrect.


If they complete the Trails Master Plan as promised, then yes, we are behind. May be like the Canal, where eventually we will get all of it as promised (just years or decades later at even larger additional cost). But remember the Mayor stated one of the reasons the Trails were included in MAPS 3 because it was going to take decades to complete the Master Plan. With MAPS 3, it would complete/all but complete/virtually complete the plan. We find out about the "mistake" and guess what, we are still years and possibly decade(s) away from completing the Master Plan. Good news is, instead of it taking 3 or 4 decades, they have cut it down to 1 or 2!

Partially completed promise if we get the 57 promised miles as it leaves us with 60 miles that are unfinished (the other half of the promise). Same thing happened with MAPS. Yes, all of the main projects were built BUT 1) not on time, 2) not on budget and 3) not as promised. When this "mistake" came to light during the Council meeting, the idea was floated to redefine the Master Plan to fit within the 57 mile promise.

By Mayor's Norick, Humphreys & Cornett own definition MAPS was a "disaster" as the criteria they put forth were not met.

http://www.kansas.com/2010/06/06/134...ls-turned.html




> The City Council must develop and maintain credibility with the public: Get quality projects done on time and on budget.
> 
> "It's vital. Just vital," Norick said. "If you don't have credibility with the public, you won't get anything done.
> 
> "As long as the city and your leadership does and says what it's going to do, the voters will keep voting for what we want to do.
> 
> "But if you trip up, you lose credibility, you lose the faith of your voters and it's over."
> 
> Any project that veers off-track, coming in late, over-budget or less than advertised, is disaster, the mayors said.


How many of the original MAPS projects, singularly or some combination of all 4:
1) veered off track?
2) were behind schedule?
3) over budget?
4) less than advertised?

Yet voters have a notoriously short memory and when told by their esteemed leaders "promises made, promises kept" or that the City has an excellent track record of building things on time and on budget (as Mayor Cornett erroneously stated without objection by the Ogle, Turpin or Humphreys on FlashPoint).

----------


## Rover

Yeah, Maps programs have all been failure and our leaders were liars and crooks.  They stole from us and we got nothing of value.  If done right we could have reinvigorated OKC and made it an economic leader in this miserable economy.  I hope we go back to where we were 25 years ago when things were great in OKC and we had dynamic leadership.


(EXTREME sarcasm intended)

----------


## CaseyCornett

> Yeah, Maps programs have all been failure and our leaders were liars and crooks.  They stole from us and we got nothing of value.  If done right we could have reinvigorated OKC and made it an economic leader in this miserable economy.  I hope we go back to where we were 25 years ago when things were great in OKC and we had dynamic leadership.
> 
> 
> (EXTREME sarcasm intended)


Haha

----------


## grandshoemaster

Rover - I totally agree!!  Maps has and is completely transforming our city.  I can handle any bad that comes with Maps 3, because the good outweighs it by far.

----------


## Larry OKC

> Yeah, Maps programs have all been failure and our leaders were liars and crooks.  They stole from us and we got nothing of value.  If done right we could have reinvigorated OKC and made it an economic leader in this miserable economy.  I hope we go back to where we were 25 years ago when things were great in OKC and we had dynamic leadership.
> 
> 
> (EXTREME sarcasm intended)


Rover, it is THEIR definition of the term, not mine.

----------


## Pete

I've deleted a ton of posts that are way off topic.

If you want to talk about public safety do it in one of the numerous other threads on that subject.

Thanks.

----------


## okclee

Interesting that every part of the MAPS3 is being downgraded because of less tax revenue or poor budgeting, but the OG&E substation removal stays the same at $30 Million. 

Example; 
Convention center being downsized 
Trails being downsized 
Central park being downsized

Other recent projects that weren't MAPS but also were downsized;
Skydance Bridge,
Ford Center Upgrades,
Thunder practice facility. 

All because either the a poor budget or the tax revenues are less than estimated. 

I get that, economy is unpredictable, but why is the OG&E $30 Million not being affected? Shouldn't it now be $20 Million or less?

----------


## BoulderSooner

> Interesting that every part of the MAPS3 is being downgraded because of less tax revenue or poor budgeting, but the OG&E substation removal stays the same at $30 Million. 
> 
> Example; 
> Convention center being downsized 
> Trails being downsized 
> Central park being downsized
> 
> Other recent projects that weren't MAPS but also were downsized;
> Skydance Bridge,
> ...


using your logic .. is actually shoud cost more now not less .. the 30 mil was to buy the lot from OG&E and relocate the substation ... so if cost are going up that number the 30 mil would also go up

----------


## okclee

The point is all tax related projects have made or will be made to change. 

OG&E seems to be locked in with the $30 Million. 

Glad that the city was able to get substation budget right. Could be the first time that an estimated Maps project was right on the money. 

Again this is all very interesting with the MAPS3 substation removal.

----------


## BoulderSooner

> The point is all tax related projects have made or will be made to change. 
> 
> OG&E seems to be locked in with the $30 Million. 
> 
> Glad that the city was able to get substation budget right. Could be the first time that an estimated Maps project was right on the money. 
> 
> Again this is all very interesting with the MAPS3 substation removal.


the 30 mil is just and est.... this has been said many times by eric wenger the maps manager .. the actually cost of the land and moving the substation they suspect will be lower ..

----------


## betts

I don't believe a poor budget is responsible, but rather that construction costs have increased beyond what was anticipated. For instance, as noted in the article, asphalt prices have apparently been increasing significantly.  When you've got a 7 year project, and planning for that project begins years before it is implemented, you're never going to be able to accurately assess costs.  If we want the city to stay within budget, then we have to accept that items will cost what they cost, and the scope of projects will have to be adjusted accordingly.  If we're fine with spending extra money to achieve what was "promised", then we'll have to suck it up and vote for an add-on tax.  No one can wave a magic wand and make costs absolutely line up with estimates.

----------


## okclee

Ah, but the Mayor's magic wand has been waved and the $30 Million for the OG&E substation will be spot on.

----------


## king183

> I don't believe a poor budget is responsible, but rather that construction costs have increased beyond what was anticipated. For instance, as noted in the article, asphalt prices have apparently been increasing significantly.  When you've got a 7 year project, and planning for that project begins years before it is implemented, you're never going to be able to accurately assess costs.  If we want the city to stay within budget, then we have to accept that items will cost what they cost, and the scope of projects will have to be adjusted accordingly.  If we're fine with spending extra money to achieve what was "promised", then we'll have to suck it up and vote for an add-on tax.  No one can wave a magic wand and make costs absolutely line up with estimates.


Betts, I'm not expecting a magic wand, but I do believe a competent economist or budget officer could have predicted, foreseen, or at least took into account rising prices, given that's what happens 90% of the time (we rarely have deflation).  In fact, most cost-projections I've reviewed have, at the very least, included such a scenario in their projections. It seems as if the city was caught completely off guard that the price of materials could possibly go up.

----------


## BoulderSooner

> Betts, I'm not expecting a magic wand, but I do believe a competent economist or budget officer could have predicted, foreseen, or at least took into account rising prices, given that's what happens 90% of the time (we rarely have deflation).  In fact, most cost-projections I've reviewed have, at the very least, included such a scenario in their projections. It seems as if the city was caught completely off guard that the price of materials could possibly go up.


a huge factor in the rising prices of raw materials has been the tsumani in japan .. please tell us which "compentent economist or budget officer"  could have predicted that?

----------


## king183

> a huge factor in the rising prices of raw materials has been the tsumani in japan .. please tell us which "compentent economist or budget officer"  could have predicted that?


Wow! Give me a break!

That causes a *temporary* price spike in very specific products--and it's certainly not a "HUGE" factor.  We haven't even begun building yet.  By the time the CC construction is started any price effects from the tsunami will be gone.

----------


## betts

And if the price spikes are temporary, I'm sure we'll get more for our money.  We're going to spend the entire $770 million, you can be sure.  No one is going to lie about costs and funnel the money into some private slush fund.  So, if prices drop before construction begins, then we'll probably get more miles of sidewalks, or more amenities in the park.  What I don't understand is the apparent anger when we're all armchair quarterbacks here.  Let s/he who can perfectly budget expenditures and projects like that over a ten year period cast the first stone.  Or at least provide examples of multiple other cities who seem to be able to do so.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

*TODAY'S OKLAHOMAN ARTICLE RECAP FROM THE MEETING*

"Moving up the suggested date for building the MAPS 3-funded convention center would likely mean delaying work on the downtown park or streetcar system, city officials learned Tuesday."

Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-offi...#ixzz1K5GWrRys

----------


## Patrick

Something to realize....when these MAPS projects are first proposed, the plans and costs are only estimates.  The real costs and what the city is able to build for the money changes based on economic factors, the real costs of the development, etc.  Sometimes, what's estimated isn't close to what the cost ends up being.  

Take the Bricktown ballpark for example.  Original plans were for a 15,000 seat stadium.  But, plans had to be scaled back to 13,000 because of the actual costs. Also, all of the plans always include optional additional items, which, if the money is available, can be included in the final bid.  But, sometimes it goes the other way. For example, costs to build the OKC Arena came in much lower than expected.  

Really, you can't nail down how much a project is actually going to costs until the project is put out there for bids, and the bids come in.   It's all estimating.

----------


## king183

> And if the price spikes are temporary, I'm sure we'll get more for our money.  We're going to spend the entire $770 million, you can be sure.  No one is going to lie about costs and funnel the money into some private slush fund.  So, if prices drop before construction begins, then we'll probably get more miles of sidewalks, or more amenities in the park.  What I don't understand is the apparent anger when we're all armchair quarterbacks here.  Let s/he who can perfectly budget expenditures and projects like that over a ten year period cast the first stone.  Or at least provide examples of multiple other cities who seem to be able to do so.


You're mixing the two.  Temporary price spikes related to the affects of the tsunami, which are actually quite small and on very specific products, most of which wouldn't affect construction costs in the U.S. anyway. 

Mize indicated scaled down projects due to long-term, permanent price inflation, which should have been accounted for by competent budget officers and economists in the projections since it is entirely predictable, especially over the long-term outlook.

And, please, stop with the strawmen.  I'm not asking for a perfect budget projection--no one is. I'm asking for a competent one that properly forecasts inflationary pressures And I'm not claiming money is being funneled into a private slush fund. I don't even know where that came from.

----------


## BOBTHEBUILDER

> a huge factor in the rising prices of raw materials has been the tsumani in japan .. please tell us which "compentent economist or budget officer"  could have predicted that?


The same cost estimators and/or budget analyst that predict cost everyday in the private industry.  Yearly we have disasters in this city, state, country as well as globally.  We have events that drive up cost everyday, and those costs rarely if ever come down once the disaster has been cleaned up.  Look at the local level, hailstorms, tornadoes, flooding, wild fires, ice storms, drought, etc.  Then look at the national level, hurricanes, tornadoes, wild fires, many of the same catastrophes.  These things are inevidable and are taken into account daily by private industry.  You cannot lowball a price to the citizens and then be suprised when you cannot complete a project on time or within budget 5 or so years away.

----------


## BOBTHEBUILDER

> You're mixing the two.  Temporary price spikes related to the affects of the tsunami, which are actually quite small and on very specific products, most of which wouldn't affect construction costs in the U.S. anyway. 
> 
> Mize indicated scaled down projects due to long-term, permanent price inflation, which should have been accounted for by competent budget officers and economists in the projections since it is entirely predictable, especially over the long-term outlook.
> 
> And, please, stop with the strawmen.  I'm not asking for a perfect budget projection--no one is. I'm asking for a competent one that properly forecasts inflationary pressures And I'm not claiming money is being funneled into a private slush fund. I don't even know where that came from.


We have had several price spikes in the past 15 years, metal prices rising, roofing materials rising, shortage of drywall and brick, fuel surcharges, plywood and lumber pricing fluxuating, wiring prices on the rise, just to mention a few and not to forget theft of items.  Some of the items continue to rise, while others have stabilized or even dropped a bit.

----------


## BOBTHEBUILDER

> a huge factor in the rising prices of raw materials has been the tsumani in japan .. please tell us which "compentent economist or budget officer"  could have predicted that?


The same cost estimators and/or budget analyst that predict cost everyday in the private industry.  Yearly we have disasters in this city, state, country as well as globally.  We have events that drive up cost everyday, and those costs rarely if ever come down once the disaster has been cleaned up.  Look at the local level, hailstorms, tornadoes, flooding, wild fires, ice storms, drought, etc.  Then look at the national level, hurricanes, tornadoes, wild fires, many of the same catastrophes.  These things are inevidable and are taken into account daily by private industry.  You cannot lowball a price to the citizens and then be suprised when you cannot complete a project on time or within budget 5 or so years away.

----------


## betts

> You're mixing the two.  Temporary price spikes related to the affects of the tsunami, which are actually quite small and on very specific products, most of which wouldn't affect construction costs in the U.S. anyway. 
> 
> Mize indicated scaled down projects due to long-term, permanent price inflation, which should have been accounted for by competent budget officers and economists in the projections since it is entirely predictable, especially over the long-term outlook.
> 
> And, please, stop with the strawmen.  I'm not asking for a perfect budget projection--no one is. I'm asking for a competent one that properly forecasts inflationary pressures And I'm not claiming money is being funneled into a private slush fund. I don't even know where that came from.


You're mixing me up with someone else.  I never mentioned the tsunami.  So we have crappy city officers, crappy management, crappy consultants, etc.  I'm not sure what complaining about them on a message board will do.  Become a city planner, go work for a consultant, run for office, campaign to throw people out of office.  There's your solution.  If you don't think it's being done right, do it yourself.  It's easy to be an armchair quarterback.

----------


## Rover

I can always tell those who aren't in the large scale construction businesses.  They have no clue as to how estimating is done nor realize how volatile the commodities and construction supply costs are.  We have seen some basics like copper increase nearly 50% in the last year.  Steel, gas, diesel, etc. are all escalating quickly.  The cost of insurance for workers, etc., etc., etc.  Not to mention the city has to estimate the cost of land acquisition, etc.  What is amazing is that they can get as close as they do.

----------


## jn1780

I wouldn't be too hard on the city budget planners. Not only are they trying to predict what market conditions will be like their also trying to predict what the men and women at the Federal Reserve, congress, etc will do.  

The Federal Reserve printing money completely changes the macroeconomic environment.

----------


## Larry OKC

> The point is all tax related projects have made or will be made to change. 
> 
> OG&E seems to be locked in with the $30 Million. 
> 
> Glad that the city was able to get substation budget right. *Could be the first time that an estimated Maps project was right on the money.* 
> 
> Again this is all very interesting with the MAPS3 substation removal.


Maybe but maybe not. Steve mentioned either in the Oklahoman or in his blog that the original estimates were $75M for relocating the substation, he complained about it and Staff came back with the $30M guesstimate. Steve also mentioned that City Manager stated in the last Council meeting the $30M does NOT include the cost of relocating/burying the transmission lines that go from the substation and span the MAPS 3 Park space.

----------


## BOBTHEBUILDER

> I can always tell those who aren't in the large scale construction businesses.  They have no clue as to how estimating is done nor realize how volatile the commodities and construction supply costs are.  We have seen some basics like copper increase nearly 50% in the last year.  Steel, gas, diesel, etc. are all escalating quickly.  The cost of insurance for workers, etc., etc., etc.  Not to mention the city has to estimate the cost of land acquisition, etc.  What is amazing is that they can get as close as they do.


Cost are cost no matter the size or the complexity of the project. To properly estimate a large scale project takes time and effort, not just going off of previous construction pricing as does ODOT and the city.  Instead of forecasting and researching the volatility of materials and labor, apparently they just throw numbers at the projects just for the sake of having a number attached to a project and hope thats close.  If the city doesnt have the staff that deals with construction estimating on a daily basis, then by all means hire it out, get some help.

There is a science to estimating.  Dont throw a number out there and have the citizens vote on it unless that number is more than adequate to build the project.  If we come in under budget, then lets apply it to the next project.  It sure lends to credibility when you say that your going to build something for what you said it was going to cost in the allotted time frame.

----------


## king183

> You're mixing me up with someone else.  I never mentioned the tsunami.  So we have crappy city officers, crappy management, crappy consultants, etc.  I'm not sure what complaining about them on a message board will do.  Become a city planner, go work for a consultant, run for office, campaign to throw people out of office.  There's your solution.  If you don't think it's being done right, do it yourself.  It's easy to be an armchair quarterback.


Actually, I'm not mixing you up with anyone else.  It's important to read in context, Betts.  You referenced the temporary price spike I said was caused by the tsunami and said, "Why don't we just wait for prices to go back down."  You weren't understanding the difference between a temporary price spike (caused by the tsunami) in certain products and permanent inflationary pressures.

You do seem to be a master of strawmen, like a few others here.  I never said we have crappy officers or crappy management or crappy consultants.  You just made that up or you were projecting your frustration with other people onto me.  You use those other arguments to then hilariously attack "armchair" quarterbacks.  It would be hilarious to compile a list of your posts that constitute armchair quarterbacking on issues like hotels in Bricktown or The Hill or the Mercy Hospital Site and its selection process or Legacy or...well, you get the point.  Like you said, if you don't like the job those people do (did), do it yourself.  Stop being the armchair quarterback, right?  

That's just dumb--we're on a message board meant to discuss these issues and even be--GASP!--critical of them when we don't like them.  It doesn't mean we're always right, but it's hilarious you (and others) selectively throw out the armchair quarterback accusation.

----------


## betts

I appreciate criticism with alternate suggestions. Global rants serve no purpose, IMO. My "strawmen" were my interpretation of the tenor of your posts. If I misinterpreted, mea culpa. Perhaps you would do better discussing this subject with Rover, as he appears to have more experience with construction budgets than I. I try to stick with aesthetics and location in my discussions, as that is an area where I feel I have a little expertise.  If your expertise is in contracting and budgets for large projects, have at it and I'll stay out of the discussion, except to say I'm generally satisfied with how we've spent our tax monies.

----------


## king183

> There is a science to estimating.  *Dont throw a number out there and have the citizens vote on it unless that number is more than adequate to build the project.*  If we come in under budget, then lets apply it to the next project.  It sure lends to credibility when you say that your going to build something for what you said it was going to cost in the allotted time frame.


This is exactly my point.  We're told one thing and then get something entirely different.  We're seeing this with the CC, the park, and, worst of all, the OGE substation.  We're cutting down the size of the CC, the ameneties of the "destination" park, and now we're learning relocating the substation is likely going to cost far more than $30 million.  The substation is the worst simply because no one remembers it even being discussed during the election, then we're given the magic number of $30 million to relocate, and then we're told that doesn't include everything required for the relocation.  It's now entirely possible, we're told, that the total cost of relocating the OGE substation will be equal to nearly 10% of all the proposed MAPS 3 budget.

----------


## Patrick

Just go with the Bricktown site for the CC.  That way you save $30 million to relocate the substation, and you save millions on purchasing land, since the city already owns the land in Bricktown.  And you can spend the money you save on a nicer and larger CC.

----------


## Larry OKC

Sounds great Patrick but the Mayor has indicated that the $30M for the substation is going to be spent no matter where the C.C. ends up (well, pending Council approval which seems uncertain at this point). He stated in the first Citizen Oversight Committee meeting (where he gave a short MAPS 3 presentation) that the available money to go towards the C.C. itself (building) is really $250M

----------


## Larry OKC

> Something to realize....when these MAPS projects are first proposed, the plans and costs are only estimates.  The real costs and what the city is able to build for the money changes based on economic factors, the real costs of the development, etc.  Sometimes, what's estimated isn't close to what the cost ends up being.


This is true. the City readily admits this in the small print, which most don't read. They go by the commercials, articles and direct mail pieces that consistently throw out these "budget" numbers as if they are fact. Even with MAPS 3, over in a Gazette article, they admitted that they really don't have any idea what something is going to cost, because the due-diligence hadn't happened yet. That they wouldn't know anything until the other side of the vote. This is part of the problem. They don't have a clue.

With MAPS 1, they didn't include things like environmental studies, landscaping etc etc etc.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n10117437/
*Bown leaves post reflecting on successes, failures* (_Journal Record_, 1/8/98)
retiring city manager, Don Bown...



> The city oversold MAPS to the citizens, Bown said, and should have informed citizens of the time-consuming infrastructure and environmental work that would take place before the projects took shape. "We talked about the glitzy things," Bown said. "We didn't talk about all these millions of dollars that was going to be spent long before we got to do any other stuff." The early budget numbers for the program were unrealistic, Bown said. "I can talk about this because I was one of the seven old white guys that met to discuss what MAPS was going to be and how it was going to be done and how much money we were going to have to do it," Bown said. "Many of those decisions were political decisions having nothing to do with what we wanted to build, but what you could sell to the public."






> Take the Bricktown ballpark for example.  Original plans were for a 15,000 seat stadium.  But, plans had to be scaled back to 13,000 because of the actual costs. Also, all of the plans always include optional additional items, which, if the money is available, can be included in the final bid.


I don't remember seating capacity being scaled back on the Ballpark, but will take your word for it. I do recall changes being made on an aesthetic level (but nothing specific)




> But, sometimes it goes the other way. For example, costs to build the OKC Arena came in much lower than expected.


Oooops, you were doing so well. There were many ups and downs with the Arena project. It is true that the bid came in $10M under whatever the current budget was at the time (and the City/Council were thrilled). It was discovered they had made a mistake on their bid but would "stick by it". Unfortunately, something happened along the way and it came in costing some $22M over the bid ($8.8M over what voters were told). This was after cutting 22 items from the project (articles in the _Oklahoman_ & _Journal Record_ indicated if they wanted them, the cut items would be paid for by the eventual tenant (RedHawks for the Ballpark) and the Thunder for the Arena. Interesting to note that the City caved and paid 50% of the finishing out costs with the RedHawks, (Clay Bennett) and paid for 100% of the finishing out costs for the Thunder (Bennett again).

Similar stories with other MAPS projects as well. Stumbled upon this...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n10119483/
*MAPS bids under budget for fairgrounds* (_Journal Record_, 5/22/98) 



> Bids to renovate three State Fairgrounds exhibit buildings came in below budget Thursday, the third under-budget MAPS bid in as many weeks.
> ...
> "I'm obviously very pleased," [MAPS Program Manager Jim] Couch said. "I felt good on the last few projects we've had that we were going to be OK. Within the last three weeks now we've had three projects come in under budget, significant projects."


So what happened? Just as with the Arena, something happened between bids and final costs. The projects mentioned as being bid under budget were the 
1) Fairgrounds (ended up being $2.5M over)
2) Canal ($14M over)
3) Myriad/Cox ($35.1M over)

----------


## rcjunkie

If I were as unhappy about what the City of OKC and the State of Oklahoma does and how they spend my tax dollars, I would move, I've never heard someone so negative in my 52 years of life.

----------


## Larry OKC

RC, You should get out more (away from the fishes)...same thing happens everywhere...I am native born OKCitian and love my hometown...just hate being lied to and mislead by the powers that be at seemingly every turn...if they would do what they said they were going to, that would be a different matter, but they don't. As others have pointed out, it is standard operating practice to over promise and under deliver. I voted for many of the elected officials and then then later betrayed (for lack of a better word) by Humphreys, Cornett (2x's), Roth and a few more. Say whatever you have to to get the vote to pass...little things like the truth and ethics etc, don't matter (this is directed more at the Chamber that does the City's "dirty" work)...the end justifies the means...As long as the voters keep falling for it, they will continue to do so.

I look at things with a critical eye and no longer blindly accept what they are saying. Feel free to do the opposite!

----------


## Rover

And we wonder why it is so hard to progress cities.  Some people are convinced everyone is lying, getting wealthy on the rest of us and have evil ulterior motives.  People need to get deeply involved and actually learn about how these things are done at the ground level.  There are plenty of mistakes that happen in projects the size of these and over long periods of time, but there is far less "conspiracy" than some think.  If the world was as evil as some on here think I think I would go jump off a cliff.

----------


## Patrick

> Sounds great Patrick but the Mayor has indicated that the $30M for the substation is going to be spent no matter where the C.C. ends up (well, pending Council approval which seems uncertain at this point). He stated in the first Citizen Oversight Committee meeting (where he gave a short MAPS 3 presentation) that the available money to go towards the C.C. itself (building) is really $250M


I still don't remember that being presented to us, the general public, when we voted on this.   We were presented with $280 million for a convention center, not $250 million for a convention center and $30 million for an OG&E substation.

----------


## rcjunkie

You can't convince those with earplugs and blinders, oh well, I'm proud of OKC and glad to see it prosper. If were up to some, we would still be spending nights at the Fairgrounds watching the 89ers, or eating a footlong at Dairy Queen.

----------


## earlywinegareth

> And we wonder why it is so hard to progress cities.  Some people are convinced everyone is lying, getting wealthy on the rest of us and have evil ulterior motives.  People need to get deeply involved and actually learn about how these things are done at the ground level.  There are plenty of mistakes that happen in projects the size of these and over long periods of time, but there is far less "conspiracy" than some think.  If the world was as evil as some on here think I think I would go jump off a cliff.


Best post in this entire thread.  The devil is in the details...when you move a project from concept to execution, it's inevitable that you will stumble into things unforeseen and unplanned for.  Estimates are merely "best guesses" and estimates are always wrong.  You try to manage risk as much as possible, but it's impossible to manage 100%.

----------


## Larry OKC

> Best post in this entire thread.  The devil is in the details...when you move a project from concept to execution, it's inevitable that you will stumble into things unforeseen and unplanned for.  Estimates are merely "best guesses" and estimates are always wrong.  You try to manage risk as much as possible, but it's impossible to manage 100%.


While I would hope for 100%, I know that ain't goin' to happen either. If they were even close to the 100%, again, within acceptable parameters. When the final cost comes in nearly 50% more than what was sold to the public (MAPS 1), then there is a problem. When $40M "mistakes" are made on a $40M project (Trails), there is a problem. When costs escalate where instead of 57 miles, you only get 32 (Trails again, hopefully the cost of asphalt will go back down or they can use a comparable quality but less expensive alternative), there is a problem.





> I still don't remember that being presented to us, the general public, when we voted on this.   We were presented with $280 million for a convention center, not $250 million for a convention center and $30 million for an OG&E substation.


You are correct. I did run across the disclaimer info from a City of Oklahoma City Press Release dated 9/17/09 (Contact David Holt) on page 5 of the 24 pg document (following the project list/descriptions, the following...



> *A note regarding cost estimates:* Cost estimates for each project are approximate. It is expected that some projects may cost more than estimated, and some may cost less. Just as in MAPS, the cost estimates for individual projects are not included in the legal documents, they are merely guides the Mayor and Council use to calculate the necessary length of the tax collection.
> 
> *A note regarding the revenue estimate:* The estimate that a one-cent sales tax for seven years, nine months will raise $777 million is merely that, an estimate. However, in 2001, City staff came within $2 million of correctly estimating the ultimate sales tax revenues of the seven-year MAPS for Kids sales tax.


 



> And we wonder why it is so hard to progress cities.  Some people are convinced everyone is lying, getting wealthy on the rest of us and have evil ulterior motives.  People need to get deeply involved and actually learn about how these things are done at the ground level.  There are plenty of mistakes that happen in projects the size of these and over long periods of time, but there is far less "conspiracy" than some think.  If the world was as evil as some on here think I think I would go jump off a cliff.


I don't agree with the entire litany but on certain points, when you are presented with the evidence time & time again....

When those involved come out and tell you point blank that things were done in a certain fashion just to get it sold to the voters...you know, you described it yourself, "how these things are done".

----------


## BOBTHEBUILDER

> I still don't remember that being presented to us, the general public, when we voted on this.   We were presented with $280 million for a convention center, not $250 million for a convention center and $30 million for an OG&E substation.


I do seem to remember that there was $ 30 million included for the relocation of the OG&E substation. I also found it ironic that OG&E donated $ 50K or was it $ 100K to the MAP3 yes camp. The $ 100K may have been Chesapeake. I will have to double check.  Anyway, it seemed a little fishy to me at the time and after seeing that its going to take twice that figure to get the job done, it seems a lot fishy now.  Make no mistake, that substation will be relocated and we will be on the hook for the extra money it cost to move it.

----------


## Rover

Or, we can ignore the relocation issue and try to saddle any future developers with the cost, in which case they will just say no and leave the area blighted.

----------


## mcca7596

Good point, Rover.

----------


## rcjunkie

> Or, we can ignore the relocation issue and try to saddle any future developers with the cost, in which case they will just say no and leave the area blighted.


Or do as in the past, pay for the move out of pocket, then pass it on to the customer with a much needed rate increase.

----------


## Rover

> Or do as in the past, pay for the move out of pocket, then pass it on to the customer with a much needed rate increase.


Ah, the third basic law of economics....there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Besides, you dont honestly believe you pay only for just the utility cost you are responsible for, do you? You may very well get subsidized yourself.  It is a utility where system costs are spread.  Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.  Infrastructure costs are spread across the whole.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

Tomorrow at 10:00 AM the MAPS 3 Oversight Board meets at City Hall. Item #5 on the agenda, recommend MAPS 3 Implementation Plan Project Order.

This is where the rubber meets the road on what larger projects get potentially pushed forward or pushed back. IE: Streetcar/Transit Hub, Park, Convention Center.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

Proposed schedule "Option #1" approved and moves forward to council.  Streetcar schedule safe and reasonably timed.  

Whew...

Many thanks to those who came out and to our Chair and Co Chair of the MAPS 3 Transit Subcommittee.

----------


## Spartan

Good news!

----------


## BoulderSooner

> Proposed schedule "Option #1" approved and moves forward to council.  Streetcar schedule safe and reasonably timed.  
> 
> Whew...
> 
> Many thanks to those who came out and to our Chair and Co Chair of the MAPS 3 Transit Subcommittee.


is this the "revisied option 1"   that moves tranist phase 2 back 2 years .. and add the study phase?

----------


## Larry OKC

Would be interested in hearing Urban & Betts take on it. 

I watched it and towards the end, the head of the Oversight Committee made statements that I found troubling. He noted that among the "experts", that the ranking put the Whitewater Rafting, State Fair & Convention Center as the top 3 "by any measurement you want to give that are going to have the most economic impact". No mention by him at all of Transit when it came to economic impact. He went on to say that Transit needs more study.

----------


## rcjunkie

> Would be interested in hearing Urban & Betts take on it. 
> 
> I watched it and towards the end, the head of the Oversight Committee made statements that I found troubling. He noted that among the "experts", that the ranking put the Whitewater Rafting, State Fair & Convention Center as the top 3 "by any measurement you want to give that are going to have the most economic impact". No mention by him at all of Transit when it came to economic impact. He went on to say that Transit needs more study.


He's correct, the proposed "Transit" does nothing that will impact the economy.

----------


## Rover

I would expect that the transit system will definitely spur development along its route, but probably is a shifting of development areas, not necessarily a net gain for the city for awhile.  On the other hand, the ones mentioned, the cc, white water rafting and fairgrounds all tend to bring in money from the outside and more immediately.  I am sure that is the thinking.

----------


## Larry OKC

Rover: I tend to agree with you about the development aspect (if it is new development or development that would happen elsewhere anyway, no matter where it is built). SImilar to the economic impact associated with the original MAPS projects, how much of that development would have happened anyway (just maybe not in that specific area)?  

That said, some (like Kerry) think the C.C. is mostly local anyway and doesn't bring in all that much new, outside visitor type dollars. The same for the Whitewater Facility, sure it is going to bring in some but that seems to be such a niche target market that the economic impact seems likely to be small. But I may be wrong on that. Would be interesting what economic impact it has had in other places that have built similar venues. I also understand the Olympic Training aspect of it.

----------


## Larry OKC

> He's correct, the proposed "Transit" does nothing that will impact the economy.


How so?  We have been told repeatedly by those that should know these things have a 10 to 1 return (or even higher). Sounds like economic impact to me, but maybe we have different definitions?

----------


## SkyWestOKC

I concur that the streetcar does have an economic impact, but also agree that that impact is shifting money around. For example, a development built elsewhere in the city, might locate closer to the streetcar system. The same money (or very close to) will be spent with or without it, the difference being it will be spent at Point B rather than Point A. On paper, for the entire city, the economic impact is probably close to neutral, probably slightly higher than neutral. On a downtown basis, the impact will be tremendous.

Convention Center will bring money into the economy that otherwise would not have been spent in the economy. So, it is true that it would have both a greater impact on the city, and since it is also downtown, will also have an impact positively on the downtown "economy." 

Fairgrounds...hit or miss. I guess if they are increasing exhibition space, etc. it would also have a positive impact on the city economy by possibly attracting larger shows/events.

Whitewater Facility, also, really how many people per year will this attract to OKC that normally would have not visited. I would like to see some data for this as well, as I genuinely am curious.

So, with all that said, it is true that the convention center will have a greater city-wide impact on the economy than the streetcar. While I am 100% in favor of the streetcar, it will not bring in money from outside our economy in the amount as the convention center. 

I think the streetcar will have the greatest impact on downtown as a unit, though.

All of these projects are good. They all work with each other. As someone pointed out, without the convention center, the streetcar will not have as many users, without the streetcar, the convention center won't be as attractive, without the park, downtown housing won't be as desirable as suburban living. The whitewater facility will continue to bring guests down to the river, and hopefully act as a catalyst for more development on that front. 

I am in favor of all of the MAPS3 projects, so I am very hesitant to say "kill this project" and make MAPS3 a fight for money. The projects will all eventually get built. In the grand scheme of things, the timing isn't THAT important. Downtown is growing at a very steady pace, and having certain projects take a little longer won't kill the private investment that is being poured into downtown.

As soon as most of the preliminary plans are drawn up and locations for everything begins to be firm. Private development will build around it before everything is 100% complete. 

For example, knowing the streetcar route, might be enough to spur some development now along the streetcar route, before a single track is down.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

> Would be interested in hearing Urban & Betts take on it. 
> 
> I watched it and towards the end, the head of the Oversight Committee made statements that I found troubling. He noted that among the "experts", that the ranking put the Whitewater Rafting, State Fair & Convention Center as the top 3 "by any measurement you want to give that are going to have the most economic impact". No mention by him at all of Transit when it came to economic impact. He went on to say that Transit needs more study.


That's because he was right.  He was reffering to "direct economic impact" based on job creation and sales tax generation that could be projected by the consultants and described at the joint meeting earlier this month.

But the consultant went out of her way and ADG reaffirmed that they did not even attemp to rank transit against the other projects because they didn't have enough time, final route, and hub location information.  So even in the meeting today, it was reaffirmed by Chairman McDaniels that it needed more study.  Subcommittee Chair Nathaniel Harding stressed the indirect return observed in other cities.

We had more prepped on this subject to speak on but it was obvious they wanted to get the vote over with while they had a quorum.

----------


## HOT ROD

> Proposed schedule "Option #1" approved and moves forward to council.  Streetcar schedule safe and reasonably timed.  
> 
> Whew...
> 
> Many thanks to those who came out and to our Chair and Co Chair of the MAPS 3 Transit Subcommittee.


Very good news UP! 

You all have mass support from China!!!

----------


## HOT ROD

> I would expect that the transit system will definitely spur development along its route, but probably is a shifting of development areas, not necessarily a net gain for the city for awhile.  On the other hand, the ones mentioned, the cc, white water rafting and fairgrounds all tend to bring in money from the outside and more immediately.  I am sure that is the thinking.


Rover, I politely and respectfully disagree with a portion of your statement. You mentioned that the transit system probably will shift development areas and therefore will not necessarily be a net gain for the city as a whole. I disagree with this.

If there streetcar results in ANY new/additional residential/commercial/retail space that is built along its route or in downtown (within the stated access of its route), then it is a net gain for the city because nothing is there now. For it to not be a net gain, then something would need to be torn down outside of downtown and something built along the route of the streetcar. Also, the development along the streetcar will most likely be URBAN in nature and nothing like it exists outside of the current downtown districts - again, nothing suburban is compromised for streetcar development.

I think this is what many are failing to realize/see, that the streetcar will/should have an impact on the city far greater and more tangible than any other project. It also has an immediate and tangible benefit to the citizens of the central city. The cc will have an impact, but OKC must still compete with other cities and unless we build a Tier I convention center, I don't see there being a huge increase in business given the competition. I am not anti-cc, I am anti-cc instead of more popular/promising projects like streetcar and the park.

Back to the streetcar/'transit': I thought MAPS III was the START of a regional transportation system, beginning with a streetcar network for the immediate downtown area - so for those who keep complaining of the small segment being served by Maps III; realize this is a start and it is appropriate to build at the most dense section of your city then move out. If any of the suburbs already had plans for CR, then that too could be realizes, but I think it might be unrealistic at this point given the relative lack of critical mass commuting to downtown for work. 3-5 years from now, that probably will change and we should be implementing CR or at least Commuter Bus.

Again, this transit is a process and there is no reason for any other part of OKC to get rail right now other than downtown and parts of the inner city, due to the critical mass that does (or very soon will) exist and will use the system daily. The streetcar will be much more than a tourist circulator, it is the start of OKC's transit network. 

Look for Maps 4 to expand on transit - with transit center, expanded city/regional bus, and commuter rail as highlights; and MAPS probably becoming a true "metropolitan area" initiative.

----------


## Snowman

> Back to the streetcar/'transit': I thought MAPS III was the START of a regional transportation system, beginning with a streetcar network for the immediate downtown area - so for those who keep complaining of the small segment being served by Maps III; realize this is a start and it is appropriate to build at the most dense section of your city then move out. If any of the suburbs already had plans for CR, then that too could be realizes, but I think it might be unrealistic at this point given the relative lack of critical mass commuting to downtown for work. 3-5 years from now, that probably will change and we should be implementing CR or at least Commuter Bus.


While I have hope for the downtown streetcar, I have little expectation for a regional system. With major construction from the primary routes from Yukon/Mustang/El Reno, Norman, soon Edmond, a gas price spike and little alternatives choice of vehicle power available; now is as good as you are going to get with people being open to mass transit anytime soon with suburbs if it where available. In 4/5 years only Edmond should have the main freeway blocked but they have two paths around, plus outside of significant reduction in fuel costs their should be more CNG and electric options as well.

----------


## Kerry

When people say that the streetcar only redirects existing future development I have to scratch my head because I don't even know what that means. However, lets look at the current Mercy Hospital site. 6 groups are trying to building on this site. Why are these 6 groups fighting over this site and where would they have been built if this site wasn't available? 5 of these groups are going to lose, are they going to build somewhere else or just put their plans in a file cabinet? The Streetcar is going to change the economics that makes projects viable that otherwise would not be viable, and would never be built anywhere in OKC.

----------


## Hutch

> That's because he was right.  He was reffering to "direct economic impact" based on job creation and sales tax generation that could be projected by the consultants and described at the joint meeting earlier this month.
> 
> But the consultant went out of her way and ADG reaffirmed that they did not even attemp to rank transit against the other projects because they didn't have enough time, final route, and hub location information.  So even in the meeting today, it was reaffirmed by Chairman McDaniels that it needed more study.  Subcommittee Chair Nathaniel Harding stressed the indirect return observed in other cities.
> 
> We had more prepped on this subject to speak on but it was obvious they wanted to get the vote over with while they had a quorum.


There is no question that the OKC modern streetcar system will generate very significant economic development activity, potentially greater than all other MAPS 3 projects when all economic impact data is considered.  Economic impact studies from existing and proposed streetcar systems confirm that fact.  The results of those studies report real and projected economic impacts from streetcar systems beyond the economic development that would occur without those systems.          

Here are the numbers:

*Real Economic Impact Data from Studies of Streetcar Systems in Operation* 

Portland:
Modern Streetcar
4.0-mile alignment - $103 million capital cost
$3.5 billion in economic development within 2 blocks of alignment
10,200 new residential units within 2 blocks of alignment
5.4 million square feet of new commercial and retail development within 2 blocks of alignment

Seattle:
Modern Streetcar
1.3-mile alignment - $52 million capital cost
$2.5 billion in new economic development within 3 blocks of alignment
6,100 new residential units within 3 blocks of alignment
3.3 million square feet of new commercial and retail development within 3 blocks of alignment

Tampa:
Heritage Streetcar
2.4-mile alignment - $53 million capital cost
$1 billion in new economic development within 3 blocks of alignment
2,740 new residential units within 3 blocks of alignment

Little Rock:
Heritage Streetcar 
3.5-mile alignment - $27 million capital cost
$400 million in new economic development within 2 blocks of alignment
600 new residential units within 2 blocks of alignment

*Projected Economic Impact Data from Studies of Proposed Streetcar Systems*

Milwaukee
Modern Streetcar
3.55-mile alignment - $95.8 million capital cost 
$3.35 billion in new economic develoment
9,000 new residential units
13,500 new residents
5 million square feet of new commercial and retail development
20,500 new jobs

Los Angeles
Modern Streetcar
4.75-mile alignment - $110 million capital cost
$1.1 billion in new develoment
$24.5 million in new retail, hotel, restaurant, entertainment annually
$47 million in cumulative new city tax revenues
2,600 new residential units
3,600 new residents
675,000 square feet of new and renovated office space
7,200 new construction jobs providing $500 million in total compensation
2,100 new permanent office, retail, entertainment, hotel jobs providing $120 million annual compenstation
5,800 new hotel room nights annually

Cincinnati
Modern Streetcar
4.9-mile alignment - $102 million capital cost
$1.4 billion in new economic development within 3 blocks of alignment

----------


## Rover

First, I said it wouldn't be a net gain "for awhile".  I am a huge proponent of the streetcar and regional mass transit systems and the sooner we start on it the better.  My only point was that there is X amount of demand for housing and retail in OKC.  The streetcar system will increase demand of people living and working nearby, shifting those dollars from somewhere else in the city.  A developer will look at all location options and pick the site that is most economically advantaged.  But, people won't necessarily move to the Oklahoma City AREA because we have a few miles of streetcars.  Let's be real.  As the whole downtown evolves though, that might be enough to persuade a few businesses and residents who might be choosing between taking jobs or locating in OKC vs Austin or Milwaukee or Kansas City to settle here.  Is it a huge boost to downtown...yes...both short and long term.  Is it a boost to OKC....yes, but longer term.  

The "experts" looking at all this have all the data from throughout the US and will or will have put it in perspective against the backdrop of our peer cities.  It will be looked at objectively and thats how it should be done.  We tend to look at it emotionally and using limited data we quickly find on a few sites we Google.  We hope they are factual and we can sit back and be opinionated.  Best we can do with our emotions, opinions and voices is to make sure they have pressure to look at ALL the angles and data before committing us in directions which will affect our citizens for decades.

----------


## Rover

> There is no question that the OKC modern streetcar system will generate very significant economic development activity, potentially greater than all other MAPS 3 projects when all economic impact data is considered.  Economic impact studies from existing and proposed streetcar systems confirm that fact.  The results of those studies report real and projected economic impacts from streetcar systems beyond the economic development that would occur without those systems.          
> 
> Here are the numbers:
> 
> *Real Economic Impact Data from Studies of Streetcar Systems in Operation* 
> 
> Portland:
> Modern Streetcar
> 4.0-mile alignment - $103 million capital cost
> ...


Have to be careful with assigning cause and effect.  I could present data that shows that the Bricktown Canal  was responsible for the $3 Billion in development around it since it went in.  That would be absurd.  We don't know from the numbers you show what the NET affect in the CITY was.  We only know from that info that there was great investment apparently in the area around the tracks.  While many people have a fever when they die, they don't die from the fever.

----------


## mcca7596

In an article I read about the potential Tuscon streetcar, opponents said that most of the surrounding development occurs because of tax incentives. Any thoughts about that?

----------


## Kerry

Maybe if we called it the American Indian Cultural Train Ride and said it would generate $3.8 billion in NEW economic activity Rover would understand it better.

----------


## Popsy

I have always questioned the numbers relating to economic impact touted by streetcar proponets, but now I think I am getting a clearer picture.  If anything is built near a streetcar line, then the proponets will claim it as being because of the streetcars.  It is too bad that the streetcar was not in place two years ago.  Had it been, proponets could claim the devon tower, project 180, the new I-40 replacement, the new convention center and central park and anything else that happens, even if it had nothing to do with the street car.  Those projects add to what?  Two billion?  Just think how other streetcar proponents in other cities could point to OKC as a shining example of the impact streetcars have had in the southern plains.  I guess since streetcars have been proposed for a while it might be possible to claim those numbers anyway.
 .

----------


## HOT ROD

popsy, the claim is not for the entire route per se, but new PRIVATE development that was a direct result of the streetcar and typically within a 2-3 block radius of stops (also known as TOD-Transit Oriented Development).

If the streetcar was already running and there was a stop within 2-3 blocks of the brand new Devon, then yes we could claim it just like Seattle Streetcar claims the Vulcan developments in South Lake Union (Paul Allen). It likely would NOT include projects that were already planned before the streetcar and likely would not include the I-40 relocation since it is nowhere near any of the 'current' routing. It likely also would not include project 180/convention center/central park since like I-40 they are not private developments.

Portland, for sure, is absolutely positively streetcar development - I have visited PDX numerous times before the Pearl District was developed and after - it is NIGHT AND DAY, unbelievable!!! and ALL due to the streetcar.

----------


## Rover

> Maybe if we called it the American Indian Cultural Train Ride and said it would generate $3.8 billion in NEW economic activity Rover would understand it better.


I understand perfectly...that people want simple answers to complex problems.  That everyone is an expert.  That many think opinion is the same as fact.  That many perspectives are myopic.  That prejudices exist.

----------


## Popsy

> popsy, the claim is not for the entire route per se, but new PRIVATE development that was a direct result of the streetcar and typically within a 2-3 block radius of stops (also known as TOD-Transit Oriented Development).
> 
> If the streetcar was already running and there was a stop within 2-3 blocks of the brand new Devon, then yes we could claim it just like Seattle Streetcar claims the Vulcan developments in South Lake Union (Paul Allen). It likely would NOT include projects that were already planned before the streetcar and likely would not include the I-40 relocation since it is nowhere near any of the 'current' routing. It likely also would not include project 180/convention center/central park since like I-40 they are not private developments.
> 
> Portland, for sure, is absolutely positively streetcar development - I have visited PDX numerous times before the Pearl District was developed and after - it is NIGHT AND DAY, unbelievable!!! and ALL due to the streetcar.


Hot Rod,

Aren't you helping me make my point by saying the Devon Tower could be claimed?  There would no valid relationship between the two.  If proponents of streetcars want to claim an economic impact it should be because whatever was built was only built near that stop because of the streetcar.   I don't know if Portland and OKC are comparable in anyway, but it seems to me if there was really demand due to the OKC streetcar, land speculators would be out buying properties along the route to get ready for the onslaught of demand.

----------


## HOT ROD

if the streetcar were already built, then YES - devon tower could be claimed. and rightfully so.

----------


## Kerry

> ... but it seems to me if there was really demand due to the OKC streetcar, land speculators would be out buying properties along the route to get ready for the onslaught of demand.


What makes you think they aren't doing that?

----------


## Popsy

> if the streetcar were already built, then YES - devon tower could be claimed. and rightfully so.


Pardon, but my brain cannot grasp "rightfully so".  When proponents claim economic impact due to construction of the line that is saying that it would not have happened without the line, which in the example given would be very disingenious.  Please explain.

----------


## Popsy

> What makes you think they aren't doing that?


I read the list of properties sold in the Saturday Oklahoman every week and have not noticed any recent purchases in the area.  Perhaps you could prove me wrong, providing you have the time to do so, which it appears you might.

----------


## Kerry

> I read the list of properties sold in the Saturday Oklahoman every week and have not noticed any recent purchases in the area. Perhaps you could prove me wrong, providing you have the time to do so, which it appears you might.


I'll tell you what - send me a map showing where the streetcar is going to be built and I'll take a look.

_(that is a trick request - we don't the exact route yet or when it will open)_

----------


## Kerry

> Pardon, but my brain cannot grasp "rightfully so". When proponents claim economic impact due to construction of the line that is saying that it would not have happened without the line, which in the example given would be very disingenious. Please explain.


How about this then.  Put together a quick list of all the future development that will take place around OKC and after the streetcar is built, anything that gets constructed along the route that was on your list we won't credit to the streetcar.  That should be fair.

----------


## betts

The route hasn't even gone through environmental analysis and if problems are found there may be changes, so anyone who doesn't already own property would be foolish to purchase now.  It's going to be 3 to 5 years before the streetcar line is completed, so certainly anyone wanting to rent to capitalize on the route would be foolish to do so now as well.  It's simply too early.  Economic development will occur over time regardless, it won't simply mushroom in a month or two.

----------


## Popsy

> How about this then.  Put together a quick list of all the future development that will take place around OKC and after the streetcar is built, anything that gets constructed along the route that was on your list we won't credit to the streetcar.  That should be fair.


I think I will just wait and if something is built along the line I will go ask them if they located there because of the streetcar and get back to the forum with what I found out.

----------


## betts

There's a lot of open land along Robinson and on cross streets between Broadway and Robinson that has not been developed, as well as a lot of open land near 11th St.  Perhaps we can watch these areas once the final route is officially announced and see what happens.  One could also argue that anything sold prior to the official route announcement is buying for speculation as well, but for that you will have to ask.  

I wouldn't claim the Devon Tower regardless, nor would I claim anything that had been in the planning stages for years.  I will tell you that retailers who are going to be on or near the proposed route are thrilled at the prospect.  Midtown will suddenly be accessible to visitors staying in Bricktown or downtown hotels, and people living in Mesta Park and Heritage Hills will have easy access to Bricktown and downtown.  Those are probably distances requiring driving for all but the most intrepid casual walkers.

----------


## Spartan

> In an article I read about the potential Tuscon streetcar, opponents said that most of the surrounding development occurs because of tax incentives. Any thoughts about that?


Well actually, that's not true. I don't know where you saw that, but in many cases, it's actually the opposite. To fund streetcar expansions, often what happens in Portland and Seattle is they levy a tax district that raises property taxes on the TOD impact area, issues bonds, and then repays the bonds over time with the new property taxes on the infill area.

I want to make a few essential comments about the concept of economic development regarding the streetcar. First, there is a difference between the streetcar attracting investment to the greater metropolitan area and attracting demand to the greater metropolitan area. Of course the streetcar improves quality of life in Oklahoma City and makes our downtown much more attractive, and that will interest many prospective new residents, but the potential for it to actually grow regional housing demand isn't really relevant. *But it does attract investment that otherwise would not come to OKC. That is because people are right, that it does shift demand from one area (suburbs) to another area (downtown).* It does this in a natural way that doesn't involve leveraging taxes to make life unpleasant for suburbanites. 

There are investment opportunities that exist with urban development that don't hardly exist with suburban developments. If they decide to let MAPS3 pay for a _FULL_ downtown streetcar system, as voters expected, then there will be a lot of investment from OUTSIDE of OKC that would go into OKC real estate. Obviously this is not the case with suburban development. Furthermore, just compare the cost differential between suburban housing and urban housing. Which do you think is better for the economy?

Then regarding convention center economic development potential, I think that is an argument of the 1990s. It was very true then. Now? It seems to be proving a lot less true. I think streetcar economic development is the trend of the future. How ironic that OKC always seems 10-20 years behind, and then we wonder why? This is why. We are so convinced by looking at old data and old arguments, and we refuse to believe new data and new arguments until 10-20 years too late. That is what we are seeing with the convention center v. streetcar.

But even if you want to go above trends, which I believe is needed (there is no point in just "keeping up with trends" regardless of what economic development argument someone gives you), then it should come down to livability and quality of life. Which the convention center does nothing for, as a black hole in our downtown that doesn't interact with people at all.

----------


## Spartan

> I think I will just wait and if something is built along the line I will go ask them if they located there because of the streetcar and get back to the forum with what I found out.


I would just recommend everyone puts a particular poster on ignore...

----------


## Rover

Spartan, you make a great case.  I am not sure about CC's being dead, but I do know the current trends are away from big conventions.  I suspect that the more expensive travel is and the more opportunities in mass electronic communication grow we will see some diminishing of conventions.  However, I think there will always be needs for group meetings and a competitive facility is needed. As to it being a "black hole", it doesn't have to be.  That said, I have spent a lot of time in Europe and am a HUGE proponent of urban mass transit systems.  I go to Paris quite a bit and never rent a car except to go travel the country.  Even in Lyon where I have worked quite a bit, and is a city very comparably sized, etc. to OKC, they have a good transit system.  So, I totally agree with the need on many levels.  

Choosing between these two is like choosing between your daughter and son.  You love them both.

----------


## Popsy

> I would just recommend everyone puts a particular poster on ignore...


Why is that Sparky?  Does your lack of maturity not allow you to read a different view than your own?  No need to answer either of those questions because I already know.

----------


## betts

I'm laughing here because I just told one of my co-workers about the plan to move the Convention Center forward.  She's the kind of person who votes for MAPS but then doesn't pay a lot of attention.  Her comment was:  "Why?  There's not enough to do downtown right now to attract bigger conventions.  People will be saying, 'I don't want to go to a convention there because there's nothing to do' or after attending 'That convention was lame'."

That was precisely my argument to the committee yesterday.  We need time to develop our downtown and downtown transit more.  We can build a bigger, fancier space but unless there's more to do than attend the convention, the only ones we'll attract are conventions where no one brings their family and no one wants to do anything but meet.  We run the risk of bad reviews that could hurt us attract better conventions even when our downtown is more developed.

----------


## Rover

Compared to Orland or Chicago, you are right.  Compared to Columbus or Omaha, not so much.  Coming in from Wichita or Gotebo we have tons of entertainment.

----------


## Spartan

> I'm laughing here because I just told one of my co-workers about the plan to move the Convention Center forward.  She's the kind of person who votes for MAPS but then doesn't pay a lot of attention.  Her comment was:  "Why?  There's not enough to do downtown right now to attract bigger conventions.  People will be saying, 'I don't want to go to a convention there because there's nothing to do' or after attending 'That convention was lame'."
> 
> That was precisely my argument to the committee yesterday.  We need time to develop our downtown and downtown transit more.  We can build a bigger, fancier space but unless there's more to do than attend the convention, the only ones we'll attract are conventions where no one brings their family and no one wants to do anything but meet.  We run the risk of bad reviews that could hurt us attract better conventions even when our downtown is more developed.


Not to mention that nobody wants to go to a convention in a city designed around a convention center..

----------


## betts

Actually, Omaha may be a better place, or at least no worse, to go to a convention than OKC. I was pretty shocked when I was there this year. And my sister goes to a fair number of conventions. She lives in a town of 5,000 and she wants to go to San Diego and Boston just like I do.  Now, if the Adventure line were functioning or we had some downtown retail of significance that might be different. I'm certainly going to no conventions where I have to rent a car to get around a convention city. If there's no mass trans I'm not going.

----------


## Spartan

> Actually, Omaha may be a better place, or at least no worse, to go to a convention than OKC. I was pretty shocked when I was there this year. And my sister goes to a fair number of conventions. She lives in a town of 5,000 and she wants to go to San Diego and Boston just like I do.  Now, if the Adventure line were functioning or we had some downtown retail of significance that might be different. I'm certainly going to no conventions where I have to rent a car to get around a convention city. If there's no mass trans I'm not going.


So how did you get around in Omaha? Just wondering. (smiley emoticon)

----------


## betts

I walked. Got a ride downtown and then never left. I'm not really saying Omaha should be a convention destination, but I'm not really sure it has less to offer than OKC. And they've got some retail downtown.

----------


## Hutch

> Have to be careful with assigning cause and effect.  I could present data that shows that the Bricktown Canal  was responsible for the $3 Billion in development around it since it went in.  That would be absurd.  We don't know from the numbers you show what the NET affect in the CITY was.  We only know from that info that there was great investment apparently in the area around the tracks.  While many people have a fever when they die, they don't die from the fever.


I agree. I'm sure there are economic values included in those figures that would have occured with or without the streetcar.  The studies were, however, prepared by qualified consultants who understand transit oriented development and have experience separating out economic impacts that are primarily driven by streetcar system development versus those that would have occurred otherwise.

Anyone familiar with TOD and the various streetcar and other rail transit systems throughout the country knows that there is substantial economic development directly related to development of those systems.  You can discount the figures provided with any hocus-pocus factor you choose...20%...30%...even 50%...and they are still very significant.

The point of posting those wasn't to argue their specificity.  It was meant only to generally demonstrate the significant economic development potential of the MAPS 3 streetcar system.  Will it create $3.5 billion in economic development.  I doubt it. Will it generate hundreds of millions? Probably.

----------


## Larry OKC

> I have always questioned the numbers relating to economic impact touted by streetcar proponets, but now I think I am getting a clearer picture.  If anything is built near a streetcar line, then the proponets will claim it as being because of the streetcars.  It is too bad that the streetcar was not in place two years ago.  Had it been, proponets could claim the devon tower, project 180, the new I-40 replacement, the new convention center and central park and anything else that happens, even if it had nothing to do with the street car.  Those projects add to what?  Two billion?  Just think how other streetcar proponents in other cities could point to OKC as a shining example of the impact streetcars have had in the southern plains.  I guess since streetcars have been proposed for a while it might be possible to claim those numbers anyway.
>  .


Which is exactly what the Chamber did with their economic impact of MAPS "study". They included anything and everything that fell within a certain boundary that happened after the MAPS vote passed. Including the I-40 relocation and the Memorial.

----------


## Spartan

> Which is exactly what the Chamber did with their economic impact of MAPS "study". They included anything and everything that fell within a certain boundary that happened after the MAPS vote passed. Including the I-40 relocation and the Memorial.


That's exactly what I was going to say. So it's ok to attribute this to the "OKC renaissance" (aka a convention center and a sports team) but to attribute these sorts of spin-off investments to a so-called "liberal" idea like public transit, that's obscene! lol

----------


## Patrick

It's already been decided.....the street car is going to be located along Memorial Rd, between MacArthur and Western.

----------


## Pete

This week the MAPS 3 committee is considering changing the timing and some other elements of the various projects.

Interestingly in Option 1, they are proposing doing exactly what has been discussed here regarding Central Park:

*Revised Project Order Option 1*
• Convention Center moves up 30 months
• Phase 4 of the River, the Lower Park design and construction, 
and Phase 2 of Transit are moved back two years
• Last three Wellness Centers and the later phases of Trails are 
extended
• Upper Park is divided into two phases:
 *****First phase early in the program – basic amenities
  *****Completion phase later in the program
• Fairgrounds project moves up one year
• River - Whitewater project moves up 6 months
• Transit has an added Investigation and Standards phase

*Revised Project Order Option 2*
• Convention Center moves up 21 months 
• Phase 4 of the River, the Lower Park design and construction, 
and Phase 2 of Transit are moved back two years
• Last three Wellness Centers and the later phases of Trails are 
extended
• Upper Park is completed by the end of 2014
• Fairgrounds project moves up one year
• River - Whitewater project moves up 6 months
• Transit has an added Investigation and Standards phase

----------


## soonerguru

Interesting that heavy hitters got their way, such as Clay Bennett getting his unpopular Fairgrounds project moved up a year. Also, the whitewater rapids deal (probably Aubrey's) is getting moved up. 

This will probably be the last MAPS campaign ever for this city. The backroom politics has been downright nasty, some of which I'm not at liberty to discuss. But make no mistake, there are some really important people in this town who have actively tried to destroy the streetcar. They will have to continue to be watched once the thing is actually built.

----------


## dankrutka

It's easy to say that now, but if the projects are completed successfully and prove to be popular then all this will be forgotten.

----------


## Pete

These projects are generally more amorphous and longer-term (not to mention larger scope and budget) than the previous iterations of MAPS, which leaves room for lots of varying opinions and priorities.

Way, way more planning and collaboration is going into all this than with the other MAPS projects and that's not only required, it's probably a good thing.  But it also means tough decisions are having to be made and not everyone that participates in the process is going to get their way.

----------


## Doug Loudenback

At yesterday's council meeting, as part of but expanding beyond discussion of the Skydance Bridge status, the following discussion occurred, largely observations by Pete White concerning MAPS 3 specificity (or lack thereof). Good stuff.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

I haven't met Pete White, but I already like how he seems to be as confused with things as me or any average Joe and has to ask these basic questions. I can't imagine how hard it is to plan all the huge amount of things going on in the city at once right now. I can't follow all these council meetings religiously, but it seems to me that people aren't all on the same page, or somebody fell asleep during a presentation one day. The "bridge to nowhere" and the power substation relocation thing are examples. When people say things like "we never agreed on that" or people have assumptions on what's going to happen and then they don't it makes people wonder about the whole thing.

Oh, then there's the original timeline of events that were in place when MAPS 3 was voted on, with the mass transit thing being the linchpin, that gets swept under a rug and pushed back and suddenly it's the convention center we need now instead. Now the idea of a central park is even questioned, with the bridge to it suddenly in this limbo. Seems like there was some other agenda behind the scenes with all the projects getting shuffled around.

----------


## Rover

> I haven't met Pete White, but I already like how he seems to be as confused with things as me or any average Joe and has to ask these basic questions. I can't imagine how hard it is to plan all the huge amount of things going on in the city at once right now. I can't follow all these council meetings religiously, but it seems to me that people aren't all on the same page, or somebody fell asleep during a presentation one day. The "bridge to nowhere" and the power substation relocation thing are examples. When people say things like "we never agreed on that" or people have assumptions on what's going to happen and then they don't it makes people wonder about the whole thing.
> 
> Oh, then there's the original timeline of events that were in place when MAPS 3 was voted on, with the mass transit thing being the linchpin, that gets swept under a rug and pushed back and suddenly it's the convention center we need now instead. Now the idea of a central park is even questioned, with the bridge to it suddenly in this limbo. Seems like there was some other agenda behind the scenes with all the projects getting shuffled around.


I don't recall the timeline being part of the promotion of Maps3.  Perhaps someone can post something showing how the various project timelines were used to sell the ideas to the public. Was the mass trans promoted as the first to happen?  Maybe I just missed that part.

Oh, and there are always agendas.  Many of them good, some bad.  The biggest and best agenda is serving our citizens.  How that is done best is a matter of opinion.

----------


## Snowman

> I don't recall the timeline being part of the promotion of Maps3.  Perhaps someone can post something showing how the various project timelines were used to sell the ideas to the public. Was the mass trans promoted as the first to happen?  Maybe I just missed that part.
> 
> Oh, and there are always agendas.  Many of them good, some bad.  The biggest and best agenda is serving our citizens.  How that is done best is a matter of opinion.


Their was a few statement about the convention center being at the end.

----------


## Rover

> Their was a few statement about the convention center being at the end.


By who? Where was it said?  In what context?

----------


## HOT ROD

rover, Im not sure if you're playing devils advocate or are the big interests 'boy' sometimes. I often agree with some points of what you say (usually about conspiracies) but Unforsaken brought up some very valid points and I also noticed that your posts always have a common theme - that these power brokers (Nickles, Bennett, etc all) know what they're doing - they run big businesses and that the citizens don't know the real deal or should otherwise trust what has happened. 

Yet, how can people trust when things have consistently changed and it has been ONE group leading that change. You asked about the original MAPS III timeline, you would HAVE to believe there was one since MULTIPLE PEOPLE on here have consistently cited it and are asking why should we change it so the ford site becomes favourable for the convention centre. Rover, this is a fact and nobody is dreaming it and YOU are the one in the dark or being the cc's boy.

Second, it is very clear that transit was the #1 by far project the citizens voted on, yet you (and the cc people) have tried to push that aside and say it is the CC that is the centrepiece of MAPS III. Many of us beg to differ and would like the system that was set up to be used (and not changed so that Ford Site 'works').

Again, I am not picking on you or anything and most of the time I agree with at least some of your points, but when I look objectively at your posts and some of the things others are saying - I can't help but think that you are defending the cc people and trying to justify their actions with their business titles. As someone on the forum said, Larry should stick to running oil/gas companies because bullying your way through civic projects is NOT the way to go. As I said in the cc thread, it is plainly obvious that the cc committee didn't even use their own criteria in selecting the cc site, since Ford site was the LOWEST scored and needed significant modifications to MAPS III in order for it to even come close to being acceptable along the lines of the other sites. 

So this has to make somebody wonder - why did the cc committee not follow their own rules/process, and instead chose an all around (per their own survey) inferiour site? Why is it that transit, the #1 by far project this city wants, has to be pushed back 2 years so that the Ford Site Convention Center WORKS and Clay Bennett supported Fairgrounds get pushed up 1 year?

Again, there was an original timeline, otherwise - why are people *me, forum members, these committees, the council* why are we all saying this should move 30 months, this back 2 years, so on. Come on, ... There was an original schedule and you are proving more and more that you are just supporting the cc and that perhaps there MAY BE some sort of conspiracy by Bennett, Nichols, and the cc committee members. ....

----------


## betts

> By who? Where was it said?  In what context?


Cornett said it.  However, I'm not sure that was prior to the vote.  I believe it may have been fairly soon after MAPS 3 passed.  I don't recall hearing anything about a timeline prior to the vote.  

The best argument for the first timeline is that it was ADG's opinion, theoretically idependent of outside influence.  The timeline was not changed until a change was requested by one committee.  It doesn't bother me that the convention center committee wanted to move up.  I understand that completely.  It was that they wanted to move to the front of the line, and they basically leaned on ADG to change their timeline, without any discussion of quality of life issues, without any discussion of how that timeline would affect other projects.  It was basically....."This is what we want."  and it was quite clear in the meeting they intended to get it.  ADG didn't help, because they threw out that the three projects with the most economic impact would be the convention center, the fairgrounds and the whitewater facility.  There was absolutely no data presented to back up this assertion,  and when asked after the meeting why the economic impact of the streetcar hadn't been factored in to the discussion, it was stated that that economic benefit had been discussed at the joint meeting and that "information had been adequately discussed."  ????????  Then, ADG changed the timeline to move up the convention center, the fairgrounds and the whitewater facility.  I've yet to see any hard data about the potential economic impact of any of them.

----------


## Rover

I am certainly not in the business to support the "big boys", are not their friend, and have no financial interest in them, at all.  Nor do I think they are infallible, far from it. I also do not believe that they are experts on urban development.  HOWEVER, when there are differences of opinion, all too often certain people on this board are way too eager to look for a boogey man.  There seems to be a theme of resentment of successful people in general. The conversation gets pretty aggressive in its portrayal of many civic leaders and their motives or "agendas".  I happen to think that we should question their decisions, but unless we have pretty good evidence, we should avoid assigning motives.  In fact, very few on here know their motives or why they think like they think.  I believe that many of the people who are attacked hardest (Like Larry Nichols) actually have huge amounts of skin in the game and want downtown OKC to be the best it can be.  That he may have a different opinion of what that is and is working to convince others of his point of view does not automatically make him a crook as some have intimated without evidence.  

I will always vigorously defend the right and value of good honest discourse, but feel like the personal attacks, regardless of the target, is unnecessary and do not help us find good and solid common understanding and new ideas.  

I think there is solid reasoning behind the Ford site, as there is for other sites as well.  In the end, there are difficult and controversial decisions to be made.  Consensus is not easy.  Whether it is priority of projects or how they are done, if there are multiple choices there will be multiple viewpoints and many enemies of decisions which will be made. But it doesn't mean the people making the decisions are bad, or stupid, or ill intentioned.  And if we don't like how it is done, then we need to vote the people responsible out.  But we put people in office to make decisions and they are making them.  Elect new people if you want new decisions.

As for the "power brokers", the reason they keep popping up is that our leaders always ask them to be on these committees and to lead initiatives.  It is because they have proven over and over that they can actually get things done at a high level.  That, and their contacts with other people who can get things done is huge.  Nobody asks failures and novices to lead initiatives to spend millions of dollars, particularly public money.  It is no secret why the same people are involved.  USUALLY, but not always, there is a reason why they have been successful and it isn't because they are shrinking violets.  Oh, and most of them really know their way around financial information, project planning, working with consultants, knowing who to believe and who not to believe, and have large staffs capable of helping them get to the bottom of most issues.  They usually know how to navigate trick politics and how to work with groups to gain common ground.  They generally are also good at knowing good risks from bad on many types of issues.

That said, I totally agree that this is a citizens' initiative and we all need to voice our opinions and be heard in the process, and to be vocal when we are not.

----------


## RodH

> I am certainly not in the business to support the "big boys", are not their friend, and have no financial interest in them, at all.  Nor do I think they are infallible, far from it. I also do not believe that they are experts on urban development.  HOWEVER, when there are differences of opinion, all too often certain people on this board are way too eager to look for a boogey man.  There seems to be a theme of resentment of successful people in general. The conversation gets pretty aggressive in its portrayal of many civic leaders and their motives or "agendas".  I happen to think that we should question their decisions, but unless we have pretty good evidence, we should avoid assigning motives.  In fact, very few on here know their motives or why they think like they think.  I believe that many of the people who are attacked hardest (Like Larry Nichols) actually have huge amounts of skin in the game and want downtown OKC to be the best it can be.  That he may have a different opinion of what that is and is working to convince others of his point of view does not automatically make him a crook as some have intimated without evidence.  
> 
> I will always vigorously defend the right and value of good honest discourse, but feel like the personal attacks, regardless of the target, is unnecessary and do not help us find good and solid common understanding and new ideas.  
> 
> I think there is solid reasoning behind the Ford site, as there is for other sites as well.  In the end, there are difficult and controversial decisions to be made.  Consensus is not easy.  Whether it is priority of projects or how they are done, if there are multiple choices there will be multiple viewpoints and many enemies of decisions which will be made. But it doesn't mean the people making the decisions are bad, or stupid, or ill intentioned.  And if we don't like how it is done, then we need to vote the people responsible out.  But we put people in office to make decisions and they are making them.  Elect new people if you want new decisions.
> 
> As for the "power brokers", the reason they keep popping up is that our leaders always ask them to be on these committees and to lead initiatives.  It is because they have proven over and over that they can actually get things done at a high level.  That, and their contacts with other people who can get things done is huge.  Nobody asks failures and novices to lead initiatives to spend millions of dollars, particularly public money.  It is no secret why the same people are involved.  USUALLY, but not always, there is a reason why they have been successful and it isn't because they are shrinking violets.  Oh, and most of them really know their way around financial information, project planning, working with consultants, knowing who to believe and who not to believe, and have large staffs capable of helping them get to the bottom of most issues.  They usually know how to navigate trick politics and how to work with groups to gain common ground.  They generally are also good at knowing good risks from bad on many types of issues.
> 
> That said, I totally agree that this is a citizens' initiative and we all need to voice our opinions and be heard in the process, and to be vocal when we are not.


I really appreciate your comment.  Thanks.

----------


## Larry OKC

> I don't recall the timeline being part of the promotion of Maps3.  Perhaps someone can post something showing how the various project timelines were used to sell the ideas to the public. Was the mass trans promoted as the first to happen?  Maybe I just missed that part. ...





> Their was a few statement about the convention center being at the end.





> By who? Where was it said?  In what context?





> Cornett said it.  However, I'm not sure that was prior to the vote.  I believe it may have been fairly soon after MAPS 3 passed.  I don't recall hearing anything about a timeline prior to the vote.  ...


Betts is correct, it was the Mayor (pre-vote). 
*From the Mayor's January 2009 State of the City speech:*



> The park and the boulevard are the lynchpins, and they serve as the catalyst for future retail, housing, and a potential Convention Center, which I’ll discuss in a moment. ... The timeline is doable. Keep in mind, the interstate should be relocated in 2012. The resulting boulevard that will be built along the current interstate alignment should be in place by 2014. The park, ideally, needs to be ready at the same time, roughly five years from now.
> 
> If we decided to vote on a MAPS 3 initiative in the next year or two, it would most likely be at least ten years from now before that convention center would open.


*Q&A with Cornet* (_Oklahoman_, 3/11/2009):



> It’s important to remember that a new convention center may not open until nearly 2020, even if funding were approved this year.


*MAPS convention center plans discussed* (_Oklahoman_, 11/22/09)



> Cornett said the city hasn’t decided which projects will be built first and will make those decisions with the help of a citizen’s oversight committee. But he expects the park will be toward the front of the line.
> 
> "The convention center will probably be 10 years out, maybe nine,” Cornett said.


Somewhere Cornett used the phrase "staged last" when talking about his preference for the timing of the C.C., but can't locate it right now...


All of that being said, the underlying premise/rationale of the Park/Boulevard was a direct response to the relocation of I-40 and the opportunity that presented the City to redevelop/redesign it's downtown. The Council has declared the Core to Shore area as being "blighted" and the intention of getting the Park completed as one of the 1st projects is giving the people that are exiting off those new I-40 ramps into downtown, won't be driving through block after block of unsightly "blight" (the same rational used for the Boulevard or "Gateway" into downtown). If the park is pushed back towards the end of the timeline, that means people are going to be looking at various degrees of that blight for the next 10 years. Do we really want that?

I agree with the Mayor, that the Park needs to be completed (blight removed and construction finished) sooner rather than later.

----------


## Rover

So park before transit?  Park before senior centers?

----------


## Patrick

By the time Cornett gets the senior centers built, the seniors that will have paid for them will be dead.

----------


## ljbab728

> By the time Cornett gets the senior centers built, the seniors that will have paid for them will be dead.


Since I fit in that category, I'm planning on proving you wrong.  LOL

----------


## Larry OKC

ljbab728:

I hear what you are saying. While I don't currently qualify, by the time they get built, I will (if they follow the age criteria of the Arkansas one they were using as the template pre-vote).

----------


## Rover

> By the time Cornett gets the senior centers built, the seniors that will have paid for them will be dead.


That's the way it goes when you pay as you go (or before you go).  On the other hand, we of this generation get the advantage of those who paid before us.  This is our responsibility to succeeding generations.  We should be doing these things for the "future" of OKC and our kid and grandkids.  This is not about being just self serving and selfish, but in preparing OKC for the long haul.  Too often we look at supporting these things based only on what WE want RIGHT NOW an only for our own use.  If we are to be a great city and a great citizenry we must give up our selfish interests and be willing to look more at the future.

----------


## Snowman

> By the time Cornett gets the senior centers built, the seniors that will have paid for them will be dead.


While their will be a some that will not get a chance to use them, it is not like it is a targeted tax on seniors, the vast majority of people who pay for them (even if you just include senior population today) will get an option to use one unless they end up having to be closed.

----------


## Larry OKC

> That's the way it goes when you pay as you go (or before you go).  On the other hand, we of this generation get the advantage of those who paid before us.  This is our responsibility to succeeding generations.  We should be doing these things for the "future" of OKC and our kid and grandkids.  This is not about being just self serving and selfish, but in preparing OKC for the long haul.  Too often we look at supporting these things based only on what WE want RIGHT NOW an only for our own use.  If we are to be a great city and a great citizenry we must give up our selfish interests and be willing to look more at the future.


I am not disagreeing with most of what you are saying, but you do realize that including the Senior Aquatic Centers was a deliberate, calculated political decision to get the Senior vote? Just as the Senior sales tax exemption was used in the original MAPS? MAPS 4 kids is a much better example of what you were talking about. On the other hand, I know of very few voters that vote for purely unselfish reasons. There is nearly always "something in it for them". Thus the wide range of projects. Not interested in a Convention Center? Fine, maybe you want Streetcars, Trails and Sidewalks.

----------


## Rover

> I am not disagreeing with most of what you are saying, but you do realize that including the Senior Aquatic Centers was a deliberate, calculated political decision to get the Senior vote? Just as the Senior sales tax exemption was used in the original MAPS? MAPS 4 kids is a much better example of what you were talking about. On the other hand, I know of very few voters that vote for purely unselfish reasons. There is nearly always "something in it for them". Thus the wide range of projects. Not interested in a Convention Center? Fine, maybe you want Streetcars, Trails and Sidewalks.


If you consider over 50 as Senior, then maybe there were votes by those wanting to use those centers in a few years.  However, no time frames were ever given on building them and it has always been that projects are not started until money is there to pay for it.  So I doubt the true seniors were voting on it hoping to use it in the next 5 years or so.

----------


## ljbab728

> If you consider over 50 as Senior, then maybe there were votes by those wanting to use those centers in a few years.  However, no time frames were ever given on building them and it has always been that projects are not started until money is there to pay for it.  So I doubt the true seniors were voting on it hoping to use it in the next 5 years or so.


I have to say that, as a Senior, the plans for the Senior Centers really were not a major consideration in my decision to vote for approval.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

I just want to see the streetcar get built before I die and I'm in my 30s, lol

----------


## Larry OKC

> If you consider over 50 as Senior, then maybe there were votes by those wanting to use those centers in a few years.  However, no time frames were ever given on building them and it has always been that projects are not started until money is there to pay for it.  So I doubt the true seniors were voting on it hoping to use it in the next 5 years or so.


Agree, no time frame or specific location was given. But to your money point, if they had them shovel ready (they aren't). They have all of the money needed to build all of them now.

----------


## Rover

What is the total budget for the Sr. Centers?  Have sites been chosen & land acquired?  Have designs been started?

----------


## betts

I can't remember the exact budget, but I believe each is anticipated to cost  between $10 and $15 million.  The city is looking for partners to help with the operation of the facilities once they're built, and that's actually one of the most important rate limiting steps.  I know they've been talking to St. Anthony's and OUHSC but I'm not aware if there's been any formal partnership formed.  There are no specific plans nor has land been chosen as far as I know.  The city simply has collected enough money to start, but the timeline hasn't even been formally adopted so nothing will happen until then.  

Perhaps someone on the committee is a member here and will enlighten us.

----------


## foodiefan

> I have to say that, as a Senior, the plans for the Senior Centers really were not a major consideration in my decision to vote for approval.


same here. . . .

----------


## Larry OKC

> What is the total budget for the Sr. Centers?  Have sites been chosen & land acquired?  Have designs been started?


Betts is correct on the per center cost

This was from a pre-vote sidebar article in the _Oklahoman_



> Health and wellness aquatic centers for senior citizens, $50 million
> An undetermined number of the centers would be built across the city. City officials have not said exactly where the centers will be located.


As I said, the Senior Aquatics Centers are NOT shovel ready. They don't know what they are going to be like (what amenities). Don't know locations (other than a general statement about one being placed in each quadrant of the City). May or may not own the land already (depends on where they end up). Don't know the exact number either (during campaign, repeatedly put at 4 or 5). Just a guess but that would mean one in each quadrant (as previously mentioned) and maybe one located downtown. Am sure the number depends on the cost per center and if they stay within the overall $50MM earmarked amount.

My point was addressing your point about having the money in hand to build them. *IF* they were shovel ready and all of those particulars were resolved, the City has the amount needed to build all of them already. There are at least a couple of vocal Council members making sure the SACs dont get the short end of the deal. IIRC White, Kelley and maybe a couple of others have expressed strong support for them.

The City also has all of the $10MM earmarked for the Sidewalks (they don't appear to be exactly shovel ready at this point either). But I suspect they are closer to being so than the SACs

----------


## Urban Pioneer

So major discussion happening right now at the City Council meeting as to whether put the $30 million substation money in the Convention Center budget, add it to the contingency fund and deal with it later, or end the Maps 3 tax early shorting the overall budget $30 mil.

----------


## king183

Anyone know why the revenue and expenditure report wasn't presented at the last MAPS 3 committee meeting?

----------


## BDP

It's too bad they can't use it to start a maintenance fund for the park, but out of those choices I'd go with contingency fund or end the tax early.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

Pat Ryan & Greenwell- Put in CC Budget or end tax early
Meg Salyer- Put the money in the Contingency Fund
Shadid- Put the money in the Contingency Fund and poll the voters and ask them what they want to do with it
Larry McAtee- Put money in CC budget
Pete White- Put money in contingency and develop an innovative idea as to how to deal with the substation aesthetic issue (Deal with how to spend it later)
Gary Marrs-  Put money in the in the CC early.  Don't end the tax early.  Leave them "fully funded."

Discussion still going strong.  This could be a very splintered vote possibly.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

Version B is up for a vote- Puts the $30 million into the contingency fund with an amendment written by a Pete White instructing staff to begin discussion between staff and engineers as to design an innovative aesthetic solution to the substation.

Pat Ryan is fighting back hard.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

Item fails 4 to 5

----------


## Steve

No, item passed, 5-4.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

Thanks for that correction. Going back I see Shadid changed his vote and my phone rang at the same time distracting me.

----------


## Larry OKC

While it appears to be a moot point now, ending the tax early is an interesting idea, can they even legally do that without a vote of the people? The ordinance (that required a vote of the people) that was approved clearly gives the beginning and ending dates. the length of the tax is one of the few things that is actually "set in stone". I don't recall any clause permitting it to end early as there was with the Ford Tax (if a team wasn't signed by a particular date, the tax would be shortened from 15 months to 12).

*Definitely a good idea to put it into the contingency fund since we already know that:*

1) there has been a 60 miles/$40 million "mistake" and the Trails Master Plan will not be completed as repeatedly promised

2) due to cost increases we aren't even going to get the 57 miles of trails that were promised (32 instead)

3) the contingency fund was severely underfunded at only 2.2% of the MAPS 3 budget, since the City readily admits that these types of long term projects average 8% and the original MAPS went at least 47.75% over what voters were told (not factoring in the $100MM mol for the Arena upgrades to actually bring it back up to NBA standards) That means the contingency fund should have been budgeted with $62 to $168 million from the beginning. 

*So again, good to see that they are putting it into the contingency fund and studying a cheaper alternative to solve the substation problem.*

Does anyone know what time tonight they will replay this meeting?

----------


## Urban Pioneer

> Does anyone know what time tonight they will replay this meeting?


I don't know what time on Cox.

About mid-afternoon, it becomes available as part of the minutes posted on the City's website.

----------


## Larry OKC

*Urban*: thanks, I can't always get the video to play from the City site so depend on the rebroadcast or Doug's excellent excerpts when I miss it "live". Turned it to Cox and there is some sort of satisfaction survey results presentation going on, so don't know if it is the tail end of the "live" meeting, a replay of the Council meeting or another meeting. Hit record just in case. LOL

----------


## mcca7596

> Anyone know why the revenue and expenditure report wasn't presented at the last MAPS 3 committee meeting?


I watched the meeting and I can't remember if it was Eric Wenger or Jim Couch, but they said it is just taking longer to prepare a report because it is the end of the fiscal year.

----------


## BDK

Well, this is somewhat redeeming. Hopefully they come up with a unique concept to disguise the sub-station.

----------


## mcca7596

I am for the decision that was made and am glad for it. However, all the literature has said $280 million for a convention center. A certain issue that they anticipated did not come up; it does seem hard to justify taking it out rather than using it elsewhere within the cc expenses. 

It would be like the streetcar subcommittee fortuitously finding out that they already had a hub ready. Hypothetically, should that $10 million be moved to a contingency fund as well?

I'm just afraid there may be more citizen backlash than we think (even with the convention center being the least popular project).

----------


## Just the facts

> I am for the decision that was made and am glad for it. However, all the literature has said $280 million for a convention center. A certain issue that they anticipated did not come up; it does seem hard to justify taking it out rather than using it elsewhere within the cc expenses. 
> 
> It would be like the streetcar subcommittee fortuitously finding out that they already had a hub ready. Hypothetically, should that $10 million be moved to a contingency fund as well?
> 
> I'm just afraid there may be more citizen backlash than we think (even with the convention center being the least popular project).


If the Streetcar group didn't do a hub study (or found one in the trunk of a junked car in rural Arkansas next to the Rose Law Firm billing documents) then Yes, the streetcar budget would be reduced by $10 million.  That is a no-brainer - just like this vote was.  The Mayor was correct all along, the $280 million was the budget ONLY IF the east park location was choosen.  The CC sub-committee picked a different location so they don't get the money.  Instead, the money will be used for its original purpose - the power substation.  Since it doesn't have to be moved to make way for the CC then a less expensive alternative can be found.

----------


## Larry OKC

*mcca7596*: valid points but remember that by putting it into the contingency fund it is still available for the C.C. if that need presents itself (and precluding that it hasn't been earmarked/spent already for something else). By getting the C.C. moved up towards the front of the yimeline, they have increased their odds that they will be able to still access those dollars.

*UPDATE*: for those interested, the replay is at *6:30 tonight*(Tues) on Cox. They also replay it on Sundays noonish but not sure of the exact time

----------


## MustangGT

> I'm just afraid there may be more citizen backlash than we think (even with the convention center being the least popular project).


This would probably be a safe bet.

----------


## BoulderSooner

> I am for the decision that was made and am glad for it. However, all the literature has said $280 million for a convention center. A certain issue that they anticipated did not come up; it does seem hard to justify taking it out rather than using it elsewhere within the cc expenses. 
> 
> It would be like the streetcar subcommittee fortuitously finding out that they already had a hub ready. Hypothetically, should that $10 million be moved to a contingency fund as well?
> 
> I'm just afraid there may be more citizen backlash than we think (even with the convention center being the least popular project).


this exact thing was discussed at the last street car meeting ..  right now the budget is 10mil (actually 9.7 or so because of timeline deflation)  marked for transit hub and connections ..   there is some thought that some of this money might go toward the adventure line .. or another transit line to the airport

----------


## betts

Personally, I think spending any money to disguise the substation is a waste of money and a waste of a block along the park.  How wonderful to have some fake castle disguising the substation on one side of the park and the  entrance to the loading docks for the convention center on another.  That's my idea of aesthetics, for sure.  Find out what the real costs for moving the substation are, find another block to trade OG&E that's owned by the city and make a deal.

----------


## Rover

This whole action is just kicking the can down the road.....let's deal with it later when we see what is most politically expedient or when people are looking the other way.  Meanwhile, the council will continue to get more and more splintered IMHO.

----------


## RodH

I watched the discussion regarding what to do with the $30 million.  I was suprised that no one mentioned that the proposed location for the convention center may mean that construction costs will be higher because of the need to maintain the Harvey Spine as a pedestrian path.  Preserving the pedestrian pathway is IMO more important to the future park than removing or hiding the substation.  I would have left the money in the cc budget.

----------


## Rover

It is in a contingency budget right?  That means they can still spend it on any project they want any way they want.  If the cc site costs more than the original budget, then I guess it could be used as a contingency fund to cover the difference, right?  Again, this doesn't sound like any decision was made...just more waffling.

----------


## Larry OKC

Agree Rover, that is all it is.

----------


## RodH

I got the impression that those who voted to put the money in the contingency fund saw an opportunity to use it for something other than the convention center.  I don't think that they had the same uses in mind.  It will be very interesting when someone tries to claim some of it.  According to the proposed plans the convention center could be 100,000 square feet smaller without the $30 million than was recommended by the study that they used to justify the need for a new convention center.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

> It is in a contingency budget right?  That means they can still spend it on any project they want any way they want.  If the cc site costs more than the original budget, then I guess it could be used as a contingency fund to cover the difference, right?  Again, this doesn't sound like any decision was made...just more waffling.


They could spend it on anything.  Therefore, it is an important vote.  The fact that it wasn't simply handed over to the establishment's beloved Convention Center means that there will probably be a bigger fight further down the road.  

Who knows for sure that it is the CC to first have budgetary problems?  It opens it up for a later debate with many unknowns.

----------


## Just the facts

> They could spend it on anything.


I wonder if an extra $30 million (less cosmetic make-over of substation) could get the streetcar into more residential areas.

----------


## MustangGT

They just "kicked the can down the road".  A much bigger fight is coming, wait and see.

----------


## dmoor82

After watching the cc meeting,I think this isssue has just begun to spin it's ugly head.On a side note,after hearing Ed Shadid speak He sounds like a very intelligent person and I'm glad He's on the cc.

----------


## warreng88

Transit was the overwhelming majority of the votes coming in on the Maps 3 vote in 2007. If the streetcar is off to a good start, spend some of that on improving the bus system and more improvements to the transit hub. I remember seeing something UP posted a while back about Portland's system where people can see exactly when the streetcar will get to it's destination by using their smart phones. An investment in that system would be a good idea too. JMHO

----------


## MustangGT

> On a side note,after hearing Ed Shadid speak He sounds like a very intelligent person and I'm glad He's on the cc.


Me too.  He will bring a level of honest credibility that has IMHO been lacking on the CC for a while.

----------


## ljbab728

> This would probably be a safe bet.


Actually, it's not a very safe bet.  There is a lot of emotion here but, on the street, probably 90 percent of the voting public won't know about it and won't care much.  I rarely even hear anyone I talk to even bring up any of the Maps projects at all, let alone have debates about it or voice concerns about how it's being handled.  The posters here usually have special interests and are not a good indicator of public sentiment.

----------


## Snowman

> Actually, it's not a very safe bet.  There is a lot of emotion here but, on the street, probably 90 percent of the voting public won't know about it and won't care much.  I rarely even hear anyone I talk to even bring up any of the Maps projects at all, let alone have debates about it or voice concerns about how it's being handled.  The posters here usually have special interests and are not a good indicator of public sentiment.


Yea, outside of this forum, I have not heard MAPS3 come up in conversations nearly as much as the original MAPS.

----------


## shawnw

> Well, this is somewhat redeeming. Hopefully they come up with a unique concept to disguise the sub-station.





> Personally, I think spending any money to disguise the substation is a waste of money and a waste of a block along the park.  How wonderful to have some fake castle disguising the substation on one side of the park and the  entrance to the loading docks for the convention center on another.  That's my idea of aesthetics, for sure.  Find out what the real costs for moving the substation are, find another block to trade OG&E that's owned by the city and make a deal.


I'm not sure it has to cost a lot or be a castle. I mean, nothing short of moving it will be "ideal", but if that simply isn't an option for cost/budget reasons, there are seemingly cheap options. Below are pics of a disguised substation in downtown Toronto that I took while there in June. Not saying we have to do this exact thing, but it "works" for a big time city like Toronto...

Street Level:


Aerial:

----------


## mcca7596

> Yea, outside of this forum, I have not heard MAPS3 come up in conversations nearly as much as the original MAPS.


Then, it was more about convincing people that MAPS was worth it and wouldn't be a farce; everyone was talking about it. Now, the discussion centers more about specifics; most people recognize that positive things will come from MAPS3 and probably just are not as concerned with how it will be implemented.

----------


## betts

> I'm not sure it has to cost a lot or be a castle. I mean, nothing short of moving it will be "ideal", but if that simply isn't an option for cost/budget reasons, there are seemingly cheap options. Below are pics of a disguised substation in downtown Toronto that I took while there in June. Not saying we have to do this exact thing, but it "works" for a big time city like Toronto...
> 
> Street Level:
> 
> 
> Aerial:


Do you really want something like that across from your iconic downtown park?  Again, not me.  And, it's about loss of developable space as much as aesthetics.  That's an entire block that is unuseable if the substation stays.  I've always questioned the $30 million price tag though.  I'd like to know what it would cost to physically move the substation, as I'm sure there's another empty city block the city owns it could be moved to that would be a preferable location.

----------


## kevinpate

Ipad ads would suck.  But something interesting on the panels would be acceptable.  Of course, I've lost faith the park will be iconic at all so what's across the street is now of less concern, to me anyway, than when the grand and awesome type pitches were made.  It will probably still be a nice park, but I'll be both pleased and surprised if it turns out anything even remotely similar to the early pitches when the votes were needed to get the necessary cover for the cc project.  Time will tell and hopefully I've become cynical without good cause.  I just don't feel like betting against me at present.

----------


## MustangGT

> Actually, it's not a very safe bet.  There is a lot of emotion here but, on the street, probably 90 percent of the voting public won't know about it and won't care much.  I rarely even hear anyone I talk to even bring up any of the Maps projects at all, let alone have debates about it or voice concerns about how it's being handled.  The posters here usually have special interests and are not a good indicator of public sentiment.


At places I frequent it is not a constant topice but it gets brought up at least anytime there is a city council meeting that discusses it.  OKCTalk holds no monopoly on MAPS discussions.

----------


## Rover

The people will judge the success by how things turn out vs. their expectations.  The process isn't most people's concern.  If the CC or any of the other projects turn out to be substandard because of budget shenanigans and power plays, the public will judge harshly.  If it turns out fine, along with other projects, there will be another MAPS.  I doubt the general public will scrutinize the trails or senior centers nearly as much as the visible and expensive CC and streetcar projects, and even the park.

BTW, I'm betting the money eventually gets spent on the park with a little on the sub-station.  This is the way that Mick voted and his preference all along.  With a divided council, he wins....divide and conquer.  He can stay out of the fray and still get what he wants.  Don't underestimate the mayor.

----------


## MustangGT

It is interesting the number of folks who have basicilly wagered their political futures on the success of the CC.  If it flops or does not perform to the expectations that are being touted now I hope the political repercussions are massive and brutal.

----------


## Rover

> It is interesting the number of folks who have basicilly wagered their political futures on the success of the CC.  If it flops or does not perform to the expectations that are being touted now I hope the political repercussions are massive and brutal.


It can fail for many reasons.  Infighting and power plays by our local politicians is one of them.  I just hope the public is smart enough to make the politicians pay for the REAL reasons if it fails.

----------


## Just the facts

> It is interesting the number of folks who have basicilly wagered their political futures on the success of the CC.  If it flops or does not perform to the expectations that are being touted now I hope the political repercussions are massive and brutal.


I fear it was doomed from the start (much like the Indian Cultural Center).  How you can start constructon on something when a key piece of it (the convention hotel) is totally unfunded is beyond me.  Plus, they picked the absoulte most expensive piece of real-estate to build it on and then picked the most expensive contruction technique (underground).

----------


## urbanity

Walk the line

MAPS 3 park subcommittee members are concerned the convention center will impede walkability.

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/ar...-the-line.html

----------


## Just the facts

They spent so much time deciding if they could use the Ford site, they never considered if they should.

----------


## Rover

I guess people could get hit by a streetcar trying to cross over into the park too.  

What is the expected or desired foot traffic flow pattern and how is it expected to be impacted?  Are users of the park walking from directly north of the site or from residential areas in DD and new housing from the west?  If they are coming from mid-town, are they walking from mid town through the site to the park?  Will the park actually gain traffic from putting a cc hotel on the site and creating visitors?  If a private condo/mixed use development goes on the site does it obstruct foot traffic as much or more?  If people use the new light rail to get downtown are they left off on a path to be blocked by the CC?  Where is the transit hub going and do riders get blocked in their attempt to get to the park?  Where do the park users likely come from anyway?  If a parking garage is developed for the CC and hotel, does it actually encourage MORE people to come use the park?  Will it provide parking closer to the park itself?  Do the new Map3 paths lead to and from the park or through the CC site?

I think there are LOTS of yet unanswered questions that impact whether the location is good or bad.

----------


## Just the facts

Rover, I think the concern is having two major parks separated by an uninviting structure.  Most likely, private development on the site would cater to the foot traffic, not discourage it.  After all, private business is in business to make money.  I could see the area with retail and sidewalk cafes on the first floor with residential/office/hotel above.

----------


## betts

> They spent so much time deciding if they could use the Ford site, they never considered if they should.


There has never been any discussion by the convention center subcommittee about the park.  The most I heard was Populous discussing the need to put the CC truck loading underground so it wouldn't impact the park negatively from a visual standpoint.  Of course, they also gave low marks to the substation site because the truck loading would be a block away from the park and negatively impact development east of the convention center.....without ever discussing the possibility of putting the loading docks below ground.  I found that rather interesting, but it was never questioned or discussed by the subcommittee members.

----------


## Just the facts

> There has never been any discussion by the convention center subcommittee about the park.  The most I heard was Populous discussing the need to put the CC truck loading underground so it wouldn't impact the park negatively from a visual standpoint.  Of course, they also gave low marks to the substation site because the truck loading would be a block away from the park and negatively impact development east of the convention center.....without ever discussing the possibility of putting the loading docks below ground.  I found that rather interesting, but it was never questioned or discussed by the subcommittee members.


In the plans I saw for the east park location, the loading docks were along Shields and out of view from the park.  I think they were also elevated a story above Shields (but I could be wrong on that).

----------


## betts

> In the plans I saw for the east park location, the loading docks were along Shields and out of view from the park.  I think they were also elevated a story above Shields (but I could be wrong on that).


You're correct.  But, Populous' argument was that having loading docks along Shields would negatively affect development to the east, and that was one of the reasons the east park site scored as low as it did.

----------


## Just the facts

> You're correct.  But, Populous' argument was that having loading docks along Shields would negatively affect development to the east, and that was one of the reasons the east park site scored as low as it did.


To the east?  To the east is Shields and then a 25' high railroad viaduct.

----------


## Doug Loudenback

> No, item passed, 5-4.


The videos of the $30M issue are in this thread:

http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=27090

----------


## Rover

> Rover, I think the concern is having two major parks separated by an uninviting structure.  Most likely, private development on the site would cater to the foot traffic, not discourage it.  After all, private business is in business to make money.  I could see the area with retail and sidewalk cafes on the first floor with residential/office/hotel above.


If the concern is interaction between the two parks, just buy the property and make it a continuous park. Don't build anything on it. LOL.  This dream that someone is coming in to build this grand mixed use project on that site is totally unsubstantiated.  The idea that it is somehow going to be less of a barrier is wishful thinking.  There are no plans and no vision for that at this time or on the horizon that anybody of any impact has informed anyone of.  This idea that suddenly there is demand for a great shopping area and upscale condo's in the core business district is unsupported at this time.  No demographics for it and no one willing to take this massive risk.  The CC may well be the best use for that property at this time.  THEN, realize that dream when the Cox Center is scraped and reclaimed.

----------


## betts

I'd love to see it as one continuous park. That would be something worth seeing there, rather than a cheesy convention center.

----------


## Larry OKC

> If the concern is interaction between the two parks, just buy the property and make it a continuous park. Don't build anything on it. LOL.  *This dream that someone is coming in to build this grand mixed use project on that site is totally unsubstantiated.*  The idea that it is somehow going to be less of a barrier is wishful thinking.  *There are no plans and no vision for that at this time or on the horizon that anybody of any impact has informed anyone of. *  This idea that suddenly there is demand for a great shopping area and upscale condo's in the core business district is unsupported at this time.  No demographics for it and no one willing to take this massive risk.  The CC may well be the best use for that property at this time.  THEN, realize that dream when the Cox Center is scraped and reclaimed.


I realize you put in there, "at this time", but that is exactly what was presented in the Core to Shore plan...new, mixed use development with a pedestrian corridor to maintain the Harvey Spine and serve as the connection between the Central & Myriad Garden parks. That was something that I never understood, why separate the parks anyway? Go ahead and make it one continuous space from the MG all the way to the River and beyond. But this mixed use development was going to be part of the grand Boulevard retail revival in those Core to Shore animations.

----------


## Larry OKC

Got done watching the taped replay late last night and a couple of things to note. 

*Substation:*
The City Manager mentioned a stacked stone appearing "screen", that he thought they could wrap it for about $300 to $400K. He went on to say there is the issue of transmission lines and the total cost of dealing with them and the screen could be done for about $5 million. He also stated that he thought the cost of moving the substation shouldn't be born entirely by the City and/or MAPS 3 but the cost should be shared by OG&E. However, that was something that would have to be negotiated. Shadid said the $30 million is a much lower figure than the $70 to $100 million OG&E put it at in Aug of 2009 (election was Dec 2009).

*Part of Convention Center budget or not?*
Lots of discussion on that one. Couch said that some of the campaign materials mentioned $280 million. Think he is mistaken, as every campaign material or article I read where the Convention Center cost was mentioned (after MAPS 3 was announced), the $280 million number was used. The only instance I can find where the $250 million was mentioned as what was needed for the Tier II status was in the Chamber's C.C. study and the Mayor cited that figure in a short Q&A blurb pre-announcement (_Oklahoman_, 3/11/09) about that study ($250 to $400 million, divided up into Phase 1 & 2)

*Less money in the budget means smaller facility*
The consultant stated of the 3 options the Council was considering:

$250MM = 470,000 sf
$265MM = 500,000 sf
$280MM = 530,000 sf

Oooops, too small...the Chambers C.C. study stated 570,000 sf was needed in Phase 1, their 2 year old figure was $250 million for that. Based on the info presented above, to get the 570,000 sf needed, the C.C. budget needs to be around $300 million. Or $50 million more than what was just approved by the Council. Doesn't count the other $50 million "elephant in the room" either.

*Interesting sidenote* but moot now since they probably aren't going to move it...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n54994381/
*Mayor Cornett: Convention center location not certain, but substation must be moved* 
(_Journal Record_, August 26, 2010)



> But the property on which the substation sits, as well as a building where several of the utility's information technology employees work, now is not mapped for the new convention center. 
> ...
> "There are a lot of variables within what those costs would be. Keep in mind that this is about much more than a substation," Alford said.
> 
> "We have a physical building that houses people, an IT (information technology) infrastructure, that would need to be relocated," he said. "That is the greater cost when you look at this project. Relocating a substation is a rather routine operation for us."


*Contingency costs are included in each project's budget?*
This was the first time I had heard this. I don't recall anyone on these threads that are involved in the process and/or on particular sub committees ever mentioning it. The consultant mentioned it and Councilman Ryan stated this was the case. 

What amounts are already built into the each of the MAPS 3 projects?

Apparently not enough contingency money is in the budgets otherwise there should have been enough to still get 57 miles of Trails rather than the 32 they expect now.

*Oh, by the way,* the City's site STILL has the C.C. listed as $280 million
http://www.okc.gov/maps3/conventioncenter.html

----------


## Just the facts

Well I guess I was a little too hard on the Oklahoman yesterday about their convention center article because this morning I made a comment on a Barry Trammel article and I got a message that it has to be approved first.

----------


## BoulderSooner

Larry ... i believe that there was a 3 percent contingency  inside each project .. and there is a 3 percent overall contingency ... 


i am not sure that the selected CC site is still a good choice based on the economics of the idea

----------


## Larry OKC

> ...  Who really knows right now whether we can get a cc hotel with subsidies of one dollar or 50 million dollars, or at all.  People take positions based on their personal bias.  If you basically don't want, don't use, and don't support the idea of updating our cc, then you will object to just about all parts of it and will suppose that those that do want it are more stupid than you or are corrupt (otherwise they would surely see it your way).  
> 
> All in all, Maps1 has been HUGELY successful and the citizens certainly got their money's worth.  History and the present show that to be true.  The attempt to characterize it otherwise is just a refusal to accept reality.  To continue to ascribe evil to the current projects because there were cost overruns in Maps1 is misguided.


The ones refusing to accept reality are those that are the apologists for what happened back then and continue to happen to this day. These projects are not "evil". The only "evil" I ascribe is to the process of lying & deception employed by those those to get what they want. The blatant disregard towards the legal & ethical way of doing things. Rationalize it all you want, what you are advocating is that the end justifies the means. I disagree.

Was MAPS successful? No doubt. It generated far ore in development than projected (even using the inaccurate lowest number). Yet even with that, the Chamber can't seem to stop with inflating the numbers. they included things that have absolutely no relation to MAPS as part of the impact (like the I-40 relocation and the Bombing Memorial). They had at least 3 sets of numbers, adding billions to the economic impact, even on the same web page. No one disputes that it was successful. If $1 billion sounds good, lets just say MAPS lead to $2 billion or even more. The implication is that if we go ahead with MAPS 3 and the 3/4 billion public "investment" we will see the same rate of return we saw with the original MAPS.

If the Ballot had been presented with separate projects or even categories of "like-kind" projects, I think I would have voted for every single one. If the Ballot or Ordinance had even mentioned the projects, that would have helped. I did not support the process, the clearly illegal, vague Ballot & Ordinance. I supported most, if not all of the MAPS 3 projects (I didn't with the original).  

I was one of the few that supported the C.C. I saw the value in it. While I didn't believe the inflated numbers the Chamber put out there, I saw it as primarily new money coming into the economy and that can only be a good thing. After the vote, the Chamber admitted that it wasn't that case at all. This is what they recently admitted (and JTF was trying to tell us all along): 2/3 of the events are local which means they are most likely going to continue. That leaves 1/3 as non-local, so while still new  money, not near what they mischaracterized it to be pre-vote. They continue to claim that the jobs & revenue generated will increase 3-fold (300%) by a new C.C. Quick-n-dirty math indicates that it will mean that minority 1/3 business will have to increase 9-fold or 900% to achieve the jobs /revenue promises. Does that seem likely to you? Especially for a C.C. that we are now going to build smaller than what was indicated pre-vote? A facility that doesn't meet the current needs of the lady that spoke on behalf of the C.C. at one of the Breaking Through luncheons?

As far as who knows what the C.C. hotel public subsidy is going to be? You are right, we won't know for sure until after it happens, but the folks over at the Urban Land Institute stated it isn't going to happen without it. I haven't heard any of the C.C. supporters remotely suggest the C.C. won't be viable without the unfunded C.C. hotel. The Chamber's report indicated it wasn't going to happen on its own. It even suggested the City own it 100%. Estimated cost of the hotel = the C.C. itself. The amount of subsidy seems to be the question, not if a subsidy is going to happen. IIRC, The $50 million figure was midrange of what the ULI folks suggested. It could be less, but history is replete with far more examples of costs exceeding estimates.

However, the issue of the hotel is now going to have to be addressed sooner rather than later due to the fact that the C.C. has been moved up in the timeline. The ULI strongly suggested that they open at the same time but no later than 6 months apart. everyone seems to be in agreement that for the C.C. to be viable, a C.C. hotel is essential.

The voting public seems to be starting to see through the spin, half-truths and in some cases out right lies as MAPS 3 barely passed (almost to the same exact percentage of the original). If the City ever wants a MAPS 4 to happen, they are going to have to adhere to the promises made or somehow spin their way out of it. They aren't very good at the first, while quite adept at the second.

----------


## Just the facts

I guess it all comes down to this.  Was the Arena built to NBA/NHL specification?  Yep.  Was it built to Thunder specifications?  Nope.  Were voters told about convention hotel or the $30 million substation?  Nope.  What do you want to do about it?

----------


## rcjunkie

> I guess it all comes down to this.  Was the Arena built to NBA/NHL specification?  Yep.  Was it built to Thunder specifications?  Nope.  Were voters told about convention hotel or the $30 million substation?  Nope.  *What do you want to do about it?*


Some will just do their normal moaning, groaning and complaining, of course you have to consider that the same ones complaining and are negative about anything OKC does.

----------


## theparkman81

> Some will just do their normal moaning, groaning and complaining, of course you have to consider that the same ones complaining and are negative about anything OKC does.


I agree with you completely rcjunkie, people need to quit thinking negative about OKC and think positive.

----------


## betts

I think most people are very happy with MAPS 1 and I think they're satisfied with the arena situation. Most voters have enough common sense to realize you don't get something for nothing, and that we got what we could afford. I sense a general satisfaction with what we've gotten for what we've spent, especially since it includes an NBA team. There are cities who've spent more than we did on an arena and have no team. Since we're far from finishing MAPS 3, let's see what we get for our money and put a hold on complaining until we're sure we didn't get what we paid for.

----------


## Rover

> I think most people are very happy with MAPS 1 and I think they're satisfied with the arena situation. Most voters have enough common sense to realize you don't get something for nothing, and that we got what we could afford. I sense a general satisfaction with what we've gotten for what we've spent, especially since it includes an NBA team. There are cities who've spent more than we did on an arena and have no team. Since we're far from finishing MAPS 3, let's see what we get for our money and put a hold on complaining until we're sure we didn't get what we paid for.


Amen

----------


## progressiveboy

> The ones refusing to accept reality are those that are the apologists for what happened back then and continue to happen to this day. These projects are not "evil". The only "evil" I ascribe is to the process of lying & deception employed by those those to get what they want. The blatant disregard towards the legal & ethical way of doing things. Rationalize it all you want, what you are advocating is that the end justifies the means. I disagree.
> 
> Was MAPS successful? No doubt. It generated far ore in development than projected (even using the inaccurate lowest number). Yet even with that, the Chamber can't seem to stop with inflating the numbers. they included things that have absolutely no relation to MAPS as part of the impact (like the I-40 relocation and the Bombing Memorial). They had at least 3 sets of numbers, adding billions to the economic impact, even on the same web page. No one disputes that it was successful. If $1 billion sounds good, lets just say MAPS lead to $2 billion or even more. The implication is that if we go ahead with MAPS 3 and the 3/4 billion public "investment" we will see the same rate of return we saw with the original MAPS.
> 
> If the Ballot had been presented with separate projects or even categories of "like-kind" projects, I think I would have voted for every single one. If the Ballot or Ordinance had even mentioned the projects, that would have helped. I did not support the process, the clearly illegal, vague Ballot & Ordinance. I supported most, if not all of the MAPS 3 projects (I didn't with the original).  
> 
> I was one of the few that supported the C.C. I saw the value in it. While I didn't believe the inflated numbers the Chamber put out there, I saw it as primarily new money coming into the economy and that can only be a good thing. After the vote, the Chamber admitted that it wasn't that case at all. This is what they recently admitted (and JTF was trying to tell us all along): 2/3 of the events are local which means they are most likely going to continue. That leaves 1/3 as non-local, so while still new  money, not near what they mischaracterized it to be pre-vote. They continue to claim that the jobs & revenue generated will increase 3-fold (300%) by a new C.C. Quick-n-dirty math indicates that it will mean that minority 1/3 business will have to increase 9-fold or 900% to achieve the jobs /revenue promises. Does that seem likely to you? Especially for a C.C. that we are now going to build smaller than what was indicated pre-vote? A facility that doesn't meet the current needs of the lady that spoke on behalf of the C.C. at one of the Breaking Through luncheons?
> 
> As far as who knows what the C.C. hotel public subsidy is going to be? You are right, we won't know for sure until after it happens, but the folks over at the Urban Land Institute stated it isn't going to happen without it. I haven't heard any of the C.C. supporters remotely suggest the C.C. won't be viable without the unfunded C.C. hotel. The Chamber's report indicated it wasn't going to happen on its own. It even suggested the City own it 100%. Estimated cost of the hotel = the C.C. itself. The amount of subsidy seems to be the question, not if a subsidy is going to happen. IIRC, The $50 million figure was midrange of what the ULI folks suggested. It could be less, but history is replete with far more examples of costs exceeding estimates.
> ...


 Larry, I hope there is a MAPS 4 and it passes with flying colors. Quit complaining and be happy that OKC is trying to improve life for it's residents and change it's image. Why would you want to complain about that? No conspiracy theory here! It's time that OKC grows up and becomes a better city!

----------


## PhiAlpha

Kerry & Larry complain all the time. The majority are happy with the maps programs otherwise they wouldn't keep passing them and there would be more on boards like this bitching and moaning.

----------


## Doug Loudenback

> I think most people are very happy with MAPS 1 and I think they're satisfied with the arena situation. Most voters have enough common sense to realize you don't get something for nothing, and that we got what we could afford. I sense a general satisfaction with what we've gotten for what we've spent, especially since it includes an NBA team. There are cities who've spent more than we did on an arena and have no team. Since we're far from finishing MAPS 3, let's see what we get for our money and put a hold on complaining until we're sure we didn't get what we paid for.


What Rover said. +1 Amen.

----------


## Steve

> Was MAPS successful? No doubt. It generated far more in development than projected (even using the inaccurate lowest number). Yet even with that, the Chamber can't seem to stop with inflating the numbers. they included things that have absolutely no relation to MAPS as part of the impact (like the I-40 relocation and the Bombing Memorial). They had at least 3 sets of numbers, adding billions to the economic impact, even on the same web page. No one disputes that it was successful. If $1 billion sounds good, lets just say MAPS lead to $2 billion or even more. The implication is that if we go ahead with MAPS 3 and the 3/4 billion public "investment" we will see the same rate of return we saw with the original MAPS.


I understand concerns with the chamber's tally. But I'm also going to argue the impact truly is $2 billion or more. Let's strip out I-40, the MAPS projects themselves, and look at economic development in the urban core I will argue either wouldn't have happened at all (Devon has stated repeatedly they wouldn't have stuck around, SandRidge wouldn't have come downtown, St. Anthony would have split) or would have been greatly diminished (Oklahoma Health Center).
Here's the list kids. It's something I've been tracking from time to time but never really posted. It has some projects where I'm uncertain on the total, so it's under by several million or more (The Hill, Brownstones), and I've not been updating it of late so I'm sure there are several projects missing. 
I'll let one of you guys total it out.

Devon Energy Center - $750 million
Renaissance Hotel — $38 million
Courtyard by Marriott and garage — $27 million
Sonic Corporation — $12 million
American Choral Directors Association — $2 million
Harkins Theatres — $14 million
Oklahoma Health Center — $270 million
Deep Deuce apartments — $15 million
Westin Hotel renovation — $11 million
5th Avenue Lofts — $1.5 million
501 Broadway Building — $3.1 million
Nonna’s Bricktown — $1.5 million
JDM Building — $5 million
Kingman Building — $6 million
Oklahoma Hardware Building — $4 million
Power Alley Parking Garage — $5.3 million
Coca-Cola Bricktown Events Center — $1.5 million
Miller-Jackson Building — $2 million
North Bricktown parking — $1 million 
Hampton Inn - $25 million
Legacy at Arts Quarter - $33 million
Bass Pro Outdoor World — $19 million
Land Run Monument — $5 million
Lower Bricktown retail— $2 million
Residence Inn Lower Bricktown — $35 million
Skirvin Hotel — $54 million
St. Anthony Hospital — $200 million
The Montgomery — $5.5 million
Sieber Hotel apartments — $5 million 
Chesapeake Energy Boathouse — $2 million 
Devon Energy Boathouse - $5 million
Chesapeake Energy Finish-line Tower - $5 million
Block 42 – $11 million
The Hill – ??
The Brownstones at Maywood Park - ??
The Second Street Lofts - $14 million
Central Avenue Villas – $5 million
Level Urban Apartments – $24 million
Aloft Hotel –  $18 million
SandRidge Commons - $100 million
Colcord Hotel
Steve Mason development - ??
Bob Howard/Mickey Clagg projects - ??
YMCA - ??
Banjo Museum - ??
Park Harvey Building - ??
Rick Dowell development - ??

----------


## Just the facts

> Kerry & Larry complain all the time.


Example?

----------


## Larry OKC

*Steve*: I fully appreciate what you are saying. I am not disputing that there has been more in private investment than was spent by the public portion either. Now how many of those items on that list would have happened anyway, MAPS or no MAPS? Not talking about DT specifically but would have been built somewhere else in the City? You even mentioned it in your recent story on SandRidge.

Just as there has been an increase in sales tax collections during each of the MAPS incarnations (the 6 month extension was supposed to bring in $30MM, or $60MM/yr) MAPS for Kids was higher than that, and MAPS 3 is supposed to bring in $100MM/yr avg. All well and good. But my question is how much of that is directly attributed to the various MAPS? In other words has the growth rate increased from what it was say in the 10 years prior to the first MAPS? Just for the sake of example, if the avg increase was say 10% and with MAPS it is 12%, that means only 2% net growth because of MAPS. Yet the spin-meisters will try to say that MAPS increased revenues by the full 12%. I am not complaining about growth, but they need to be honest with the growth.

*progressiveboy*: I have no problem with city leaders trying to improve things, but they need to do it honestly & legally. They need to stop the distortion and misleading info (spin), half-truths and in some cases out right lies just to get it passed. If I said it once, I have said it 100 times, I supported most if not all of the proposed MAPS 3 projects. I think they will be good for OKC but only if they are built: 1) as promised, 2) on time & 3) on budget. All something the City has a horrible track record with.

----------


## Rover

Some people just don't comprehend how these thing happen and why there can be legitimate differences between estimates pre-vote and actual project estimating and bidding for the actual projects.  Never will understand and because of that will be suspicious of evil doings.

----------


## rcjunkie

> *steve*: I fully appreciate what you are saying. I am not disputing that there has been more in private investment than was spent by the public portion either. *now how many of those items on that list would have happened anyway, maps or no maps? Not talking about dt specifically but would have been built somewhere else in the city? You even mentioned it in your recent story on sandridge.*
> 
> just as there has been an increase in sales tax collections during each of the maps incarnations (the 6 month extension was supposed to bring in $30mm, or $60mm/yr) maps for kids was higher than that, and maps 3 is supposed to bring in $100mm/yr avg. All well and good. But my question is how much of that is directly attributed to the various maps? In other words has the growth rate increased from what it was say in the 10 years prior to the first maps? Just for the sake of example, if the avg increase was say 10% and with maps it is 12%, that means only 2% net growth because of maps. Yet the spin-meisters will try to say that maps increased revenues by the full 12%. I am not complaining about growth, but they need to be honest with the growth.
> 
> *progressiveboy*: I have no problem with city leaders trying to improve things, but they need to do it honestly & legally. They need to stop the distortion and misleading info (spin), half-truths and in some cases out right lies just to get it passed. If i said it once, i have said it 100 times, i supported most if not all of the proposed maps 3 projects. I think they will be good for okc but only if they are built: 1) as promised, 2) on time & 3) on budget. All something the city has a horrible track record with.


zero

----------


## Popsy

Larry,  If the city leaders did everything you want them to do, you would no longer have anything to post about.  However, I want you to know I really do enjoy reading your posts and I have most of it memorized at present because you post the same thing over and over and over and over ...............

----------


## Larry OKC

*Popsy*: That is because others keep posting the incorrect misinformation over and over...

----------


## Larry OKC

> Some people just don't comprehend how these thing happen and why there can be legitimate differences between estimates pre-vote and actual project estimating and bidding for the actual projects.  Never will understand and because of that will be suspicious of evil doings.


I comprehend that. However, very few legitimate reasons have happened that they should have planned for and didn't.  But what do you call it when NONE of the projects came in under budget? What do you call it when the budget doubles and you only get a portion of what was promised (the Canal is the posterchild)? What do you call it as with the original MAPS they didn't the cost of required include environmental studies, landscaping and the like? They didn't know about those things? please, while the method of funding was new (a sales tax instead of bond issue), this wasn't the City's first rodeo. What do you attribute it when the City admits that long term projects average 8% over? What do you call it when they fail to budget for at least that 8%? Why don't they do the due-diligence and get "real" costs before ever presenting it to the voters? 

We know it can be done on the City side of things, as the NBA Practice Facility came in at about half of what they had earmarked for it. Why can't we get the equivalent of 8 Practice Facilities?

So far, the Trails are the MAPS 3 equivalent of the Canal. Someone at the City made a $40 million mistake and instead of completing the Trails Master Plan as the Parks Director stated would be done with the passage of MAPS 3 on the Mayor's Magazine program, instead there will be 60 miles still left unfunded (this came as a surprise to some of the Council members). Then we discover that due to oil/asphalt price increases, the 57 miles they mentioned repeatedly, won't be happening either. If prices stay with what they have budgeted currently, we are only getting 30 something miles. Is that legitimate? Perhaps, but then again when you have a volatile main component, you better budget to the extreme. the built in contingency is only going to get us the 30 something miles, and there wasn't enough in the other contingency fund either. Now maybe they will get lucky and the trails will be the only MAPS project that has this problem/ Oh that's right, there is the Convention Center that even betts worries is going to go way over budget and especially since they succeeded in getting it moved up in the time line, those projects that follow, like the completion of the Streetcars & Park are going to get shortchanged even if they stay within their announced budget.

Which brings us back to a basic budgeting issue. You estimate revenues low and costs high. Not the other way around. That way you can exceed expectations instead of always failing. Especially when they screwed it up before. Did they learn anything from that experience? Apparently not.

----------


## Steve

Larry, I can tell you that nothing would have happened south of Sheridan in Bricktown, at least not on the timetable it did, without the canal and ballpark. Devon would be gone. Kerr-McGee Tower would not have been snatched up by SandRidge. Deep Deuce, I believe, would not have been developed. Without MAPS, I truly believe downtown would have remained stuck as it was. The only items that would have happened, though I believe on a smaller scale, would be the OHC and some of the stuff on Broadway that was related to the bombing as much as it was to MAPS. Again, I'm not criticizing your concern about the chamber overplaying things - clearly, projects like the new I-40 would have happened with or without MAPS. I believe the list I've compiled, however, is largely spin-off related to MAPS that would not have happened without it.
This is not intended to be a "don't question how MAPS 3 is handled" list. MAPS was a success because it had people asking questions and challenging presumptions of elected leaders and city staff. And sometimes city staff was wrong.

----------


## kevinpate

It's not that the be vigilent and cost effective POV isn't important to hear and to consider, but daaaaaaaang, i'm almost missing some of the Not This MAPs rants.  They were a tad shorter and easier to digest.

----------


## betts

Agree with Steve.  Downtown would still be a ghost town without MAPS 1.  We'd have no NBA team, Deep Deuce would be a wasteland and the Devon tower would have been built in Houston.  I'd be back in Denver, but perhaps my presence here is a negative to some.  MAPS 1 was the single best thing to happen to Oklahoma City since.....whenever downtown was in its heydey.  I didn't live here then, so don't have the dates.

----------


## Larry OKC

*Steve*: I understand and we are good. Obviously certain projects would have only happened in DT and can be attributed to MAPS. Definitely have to take Devon at their word they are still here in the City because of it. Folks like SandRidge indicated that they would still be here but if not for the bargain price they got Kerr-McGee property, they would have built north of downtown. in other words, if the Kerr McGee tower hadbeen on Memorial or NW Expressway, they would have gone there instead.

*Kevinpate*: if it was directed at me, I do _try_ to keep the posts short. LOL  Seems when i go that way i get accused of making stuff up etc.

----------


## Steve

I'm also going to bet that Betts (excuse the pun) wouldn't have ended up choosing downtown as a residence either!

----------


## G.Walker

Steve or someone, I have always wondered, were there any publicly funded initiatives in OKC's history like in the 20's or 30's that were similar to today's OKC MAPS era, that help initiate revitalization of the downtown core, prior to the oil boom era?

----------


## dankrutka

> Steve or someone, I have always wondered, were there any publicly funded initiatives in OKC's history like in the 20's or 30's that were similar to today's OKC MAPS era, that help initiate revitalization of the downtown core, prior to the oil boom era?


I'm not sure whether anything existed, but there likely was not a need to get people and businesses downtown prior to the proliferation of a car society and white flight to the suburbs. Downtown was the place to be because it didn't make sense to be spread out (and probably never has IMHO).

----------


## Steve

To some extent the original Civic Center was a precursor to MAPS...

----------


## Just the facts

To echo KilgoreTrout’s assessment, downtown didn't need revitalizing in that era because it never stopped growing until OKC annexed 500 sq miles and spread development all over the country side.

----------


## Popsy

> To echo KilgoreTrout’s assessment, downtown didn't need revitalizing in that era because it never stopped growing until OKC annexed 500 sq miles and spread development all over the country side.


The annexation of 500 sq. miles by OKC did not spread development all over the country side.  Develpment spread because there was consumer demand for it.  Do you really believe builders would keep building if there was no demand.  You would have been better served if you had read an economics book that concentrated on supply and demand rather than the book on urbanism that you read half the book.  Reading the urbanism book did allow you to fit in better with the most outspoken of the posters in this forum so perhaps you achieved what you wanted.  It is up to you if you want to continue trying to distort just the facts.

----------


## dankrutka

> The annexation of 500 sq. miles by OKC did not spread development all over the country side.  Develpment spread because there was consumer demand for it.  Do you really believe builders would keep building if there was no demand.  You would have been better served if you had read an economics book that concentrated on supply and demand rather than the book on urbanism that you read half the book.  Reading the urbanism book did allow you to fit in better with the most outspoken of the posters in this forum so perhaps you achieved what you wanted.  It is up to you if you want to continue trying to distort just the facts.


Well, you're probably correct that the annexing of new land is not the reason for development, but you certainly could have posted that without assuming so much about a person and their motives from one sentence. Your post comes off as very condescending. Just state that demand caused sprawl and leave it at that.

----------


## Popsy

> Well, you're probably correct that the annexing of new land is not the reason for development, but you certainly could have posted that without assuming so much about a person and their motives from one sentence. Your post comes off as very condescending. Just state that demand caused sprawl and leave it at that.


It is my opinion that certain posters deserve a condescending response and I have no problem being condesdending if it serves a purpose.  What I promise not to do is try to tell someone what and how they respond to another post.  I trust your superiority complex has been satisfied by chastizing me for what I posted.  Anything else I can do to make your day, let me know.

----------


## Steve

Good luck with that.

----------


## dankrutka

> It is my opinion that certain posters deserve a condescending response and I have no problem being condesdending if it serves a purpose.  What I promise not to do is try to tell someone what and how they respond to another post.  I trust your superiority complex has been satisfied by chastizing me for what I posted.  Anything else I can do to make your day, let me know.


Lol. Some people are just jerks. What can you do?

----------


## Popsy

Couldn't think of anything to say, so you dropped down to name calling.  Figures..

----------


## dankrutka

How do you respond to someone that justifies being condescending?

----------


## betts

> How do you respond to someone that justifies being condescending?


Put them on ignore.

----------


## Just the facts

Popsy - I am pretty well versed in economics.  There is no supply and demand without a product.  Economics is what led me to the new urbanism.  Some found the new urbanism from an environmental origin, I got there from an economics origin.

----------


## Rover

Actually, supply fulfills demand. In a macro sense you can't keep supplying without demand.  I hope this is the lesson that has been learned in this economy.  When artificial demand is created, and supply fills that mirage, then it is unsustainable.  OKC must fill demand generated in its economy.  Overall, there can be pockets of anomalies, but in a total sense you cannot long term build more than we can consume.  The more we build our economy and GROW our population, the more we can prosper. Investments that encourage that work.  MAPs has done that very well to date.  If we only supply what we currently consume and not invest in the future then we have failed.

----------


## Just the facts

> Actually, supply fulfills demand. In a macro sense you can't keep supplying without demand.  I hope this is the lesson that has been learned in this economy.  When artificial demand is created, and supply fills that mirage, then it is unsustainable.  OKC must fill demand generated in its economy.  Overall, there can be pockets of anomalies, but in a total sense you cannot long term build more than we can consume.  The more we build our economy and GROW our population, the more we can prosper. Investments that encourage that work.  MAPs has done that very well to date.  If we only supply what we currently consume and not invest in the future then we have failed.


...and I submit that a city built on sprawl is not sustainable and the people buying homes in suburbia were not (and are not) paying the true cost of their choice, hence bonds sold to pay for current needs backed by future taxes.  How are future people supposed to meet their future needs if the future money has already been spent on past needs by people in the past?

----------


## Rover

OKC has a AAA GO bond rating and very low total indebtedness.  As a comparison, Tulsa is AA.  Considering the low cost of real estate and the low level of property taxes here, OKC has managed their finances well.  OKC doesn't pay for Edmond or Midwest City, or Norman, or, or, or.  While I believe it much healthier to have higher density, I don't believe it is as dramatic as you would like to have everyone believe.  Who do you think isn't paying their way...specifically?  Do you honestly believe downtown would have the same growth today without subsidies?

----------


## Just the facts

According to the City, sprawl now costs $18 million more to support than it brings in in taxes.  I am not sure if the $45 million expansion of the Hefner water plant is factored into that.  Nothing grows forever so if the economic model requires constant growth to work, it will eventually fail.  Maybe MAPS IV should be the creation of two TIFF districts - the urban core and the non-core.  All taxes collected in each district would have to be spent in the district.  I wonder which would be better off after 10 years - the 50 sq mile urban core or the 550 sq mile suburban fringe.  Too bad there is no way to find out.

----------


## Rover

Please give link to where the city accounting shows the cost of "sprawl" broken out.  I agree sprawl is expensive, but I am curious what they consider boundaries and how they break out the accounting of it separately. I was unaware there was a separate accounting.  Is sprawl 2 miles from dead center?  4 miles?  10 miles?  Is it figured with concentric circles? Neighborhoods? How is it computed?

----------


## Just the facts

> Please give link to where the city accounting shows the cost of "sprawl" broken out.  I agree sprawl is expensive, but I am curious what they consider boundaries and how they break out the accounting of it separately. I was unaware there was a separate accounting.  Is sprawl 2 miles from dead center?  4 miles?  10 miles?  Is it figured with concentric circles? Neighborhoods? How is it computed?


I'll see if I can find the link to the news story again.  I am not sure how the City calculated it, I just took their word for it.  My guess is they looked at revenue vs expenses for areas annexed in the 1960's and discovered that the idea that the new areas would pay for themselves via growth didn't actually happen.

----------


## G.Walker

$136 Million in funds available as of October 31st, 2011. Which means now we are tipping in the $150 million range, good deal!

Source:OKC.GOV > City Council Agenda > MAPS3 Board Agenda 12/15/2011

----------


## king183

> $136 Million in funds available as of October 31st, 2011. Which means now we are tipping in the $150 million range, good deal!
> 
> Source:OKC.GOV > City Council Agenda > MAPS3 Board Agenda 12/15/2011


I've been keeping track of the revenue reports for a while now and it appears total revenue growth has fallen quite a bit--from approximately 10% per month at the beginning of the year to about 6.6% now.  It's been a steady drop.  6.6% is still pretty good, I think. (Note, however, that October's revenue is well above the 2011 monthly average).

I wonder how much the NBA lockout affected the city. I'm willing to bet a substantial chunk of the drop-off is a result of the lockout.  Hopefully, we'll see it rebound nicely starting this month.

----------


## Snowman

> I've been keeping track of the revenue reports for a while now and it appears total revenue growth has fallen quite a bit--from approximately 10% per month at the beginning of the year to about 6.6% now.  It's been a steady drop.  6.6% is still pretty good, I think. (Note, however, that October's revenue is well above the 2011 monthly average).
> 
> I wonder how much the NBA lockout affected the city. I'm willing to bet a substantial chunk of the drop-off is a result of the lockout.  Hopefully, we'll see it rebound nicely starting this month.


You would be wrong in that bet, while it will hurt some, it is nothing like 3.5% of all revenue. It goes against most known spending habits, people tend to spend their money on other things, so while some may go to surrounding communities at least percentage would have gone to the city anyway. Even with how expensive some tickets, concessions and nearby entertainment can be; the 20,000 people going to games and related entertainment on 40 to 56 nights are not out spending the normal spending of the half a million people going about normal life 365 days along with the several hundred thousand commuters and destination shoppers. Christmas shopping should have a much larger effect on city revenues through December anyway, though their will be some overlap with Thunder related gifts.

----------


## dmoor82

It would have hurt OKC's tax collections alot more if the entire NBA season was cancelled,but only 8 Home games and a couple of preseason games have been or are going to be lost.I think I read somewhere that well over $1million from each Thunder game could be lost!

----------


## king183

> You would be wrong in that bet, while it will hurt some, it is nothing like 3.5% of all revenue. It goes against most known spending habits, people tend to spend their money on other things, so while some may go to surrounding communities at least percentage would have gone to the city anyway. Even with how expensive some tickets, concessions and nearby entertainment can be; the 20,000 people going to games and related entertainment on 40 to 56 nights are not out spending the normal spending of the half a million people going about normal life 365 days along with the several hundred thousand commuters and destination shoppers. Christmas shopping should have a much larger effect on city revenues through December anyway, though their will be some overlap with Thunder related gifts.



Those 3.5 percentage points represent several hundred thousand dollars in revenue, so I'm still willing to bet a significant portion can be accounted for in the lockout.  To me, at least, even .5 percentage points of that is signficant.  So maybe it's just a different conception of what "substantial" is.

I'm also sure that those 20,000 people who attend Thunder games plus related events in downtown spend multiples of what they would if they weren't attending a game or related event.  The average attendee, hypothetically, may spend well over $100 during the course of the night, whereas if they were simply doing a daily routine, they'd spend $20.

----------


## SkyWestOKC

Also you need to take into account, all of the people who work for the NBA, media, teams, etc. that travel to the games. They have cab fares, rental cars, hotel rooms, food expenses, etc. and typically spend more than a leisure traveler since they might be on a per diem rate and are spending their bosses money. That money is not being spent right now.

----------


## Cocaine

I wonder dow much of these maps 3 projects will actually get done.

----------


## rcjunkie

> I wonder dow much of these maps 3 projects will actually get done.


That's an easy one, all of them.

----------


## dmoor82

> I wonder dow much of these maps 3 projects will actually get done.


Just by going on track record of all the other MAPS votes/projects,all of these projects will be completed!

----------


## Laramie

That one thing I can say about the MAPS PROJECTS (MAPS I, MAPS II for KIDS, MAPS for HOOPS) the city has maintained a track record for delivery.  MAPS III shouldn't be any different.  MAPS for HOOPS has improved the Chesapeake Energy Arena which is used for many events as well as the NBA Thunder being its anchor tenant.  The Thunder's new practice facility which many people questioned, does provide for the team and it is City-owned.  _The amount of support the players and the Thunder personnel give back to this community is immeasureable._

----------


## Snowman

Today's maps3 board meeting video seems to only cover like items 1 & 2 before cutting out abruptly, did anything interesting happen in discussion of the like 12 agenda items that got cut out?

----------


## Larry OKC

> Just by going on track record of all the other MAPS votes/projects,all of these projects will be completed!


Yes indeed. And by that same track record, we can expect that they will NOT be built:

1) On time
2) On budget
3) As promised

Currently there are several MAPS 3 projects that have already followed the pattern.

----------


## rcjunkie

> Yes indeed. And by that same track record, we can expect that they will NOT be built:
> 
> 1) On time
> 2) On budget
> 3) As promised
> 
> Currently there are several MAPS 3 projects that have already followed the pattern.


Glad you didn't disappoint us. try to have a Good Day Mr. OKC Negative.

----------


## dmoor82

> Yes indeed. And by that same track record, we can expect that they will NOT be built:
> 
> 1) On time
> 2) On budget
> 3) As promised
> 
> Currently there are several MAPS 3 projects that have already followed the pattern.


I'm gonna guess you voted NO to all the MAPS votes?Other than my quick comment,you are %100 correct but what would OKC be w/o the MAPS taxes?My guess is that we would have NO NBA,NO improved or rebuilt schools,NO Boathouse row and just maybe no Devon tower and the P180 that goes with it,I'm just guessing!

----------


## Bellaboo

> I'm gonna guess you voted NO to all the MAPS votes?Other than my quick comment,you are %100 correct but what would OKC be w/o the MAPS taxes?My guess is that we would have NO NBA,NO improved or rebuilt schools,NO Boathouse row and just maybe no Devon tower and the P180 that goes with it,I'm just guessing!


dmoor82 - you're spot on........................about OKC without MAPS

----------


## dmoor82

I remember back in 1993 when the first MAPS had passed and thinking WOW,a 20,000 seat arena and a canal!I think it is very safe to say that all installments of the MAPS projects have been extremely successful and each have had some sort of spin off or spurred development from each of the projects.IF the first vote had not passed back in 93',Bricktown might very well still be dead and our idea of a good night would only consist of dinner at Spaghetti Warehouse.Each action in life has either a positive or negative reaction,and I think with each MAPS project built creates civic pride within the community,because we know that our city is thriving BECAUSE of us!

----------


## dankrutka

The amazing amount of progress is not enough to stop the determined negativism of Larry OKC - the king of Debbie Downer.

----------


## Larry OKC

> Glad you didn't disappoint us. try to have a Good Day Mr. OKC Negative.


 I prefer Mr. OKC Realistic, but no to worry, I am having a great day. I actually was born here, moved back in my college days and continue to live and work here.





> I'm gonna guess you voted NO to all the MAPS votes?Other than my quick comment,you are %100 correct but what would OKC be w/o the MAPS taxes?My guess is that we would have NO NBA,NO improved or rebuilt schools,NO Boathouse row and just maybe no Devon tower and the P180 that goes with it,I'm just guessing!


 You are correct. I voted No to every round of MAPS for various reasons.

*MAPS* was a mixed bag of items, some of which government should be involved with and some not. Also, the original MAPS Ballot/Ordinance was illegal due to the logrolling nature of lumping unrelated projects together in an all-or-nothing format. The City admiotted this and promised that they wouldn't do it again (then they did)

*MAPS 4 Kids.* The City of Oklahoma City has nothing to do with the school district and as such shouldn't have been involved. It should have been entirely up to the school district. While new buildings have been built the purpose behind those new/renovated buildings haven't materialized. A few years behind schedule (according to the Mayor) and untold multi-millions over budget.

*MAPS for the NBA.* Citizens paying for the place of business for a private, for profit professional sports team. no thanks. they can afford to build their own places of business and certainly don't deserve the naming rights etc to buildings they dont own.

*MAPS 3.* I wanted to vote for it as nearly all of the projects were ones where government should be involved. But then they went back to that nagging illegal Ballot format and I had to vote No on it.





> The amazing amount of progress is not enough to stop the determined negativism of Larry OKC - the king of Debbie Downer.


Hey, I resemble that comment. LOL
If you want to dispute the historical facts, feel free.

Oh, by the way, you don't have to take my word for it...will let the Mayor's responsible for the various MAPS speak to the matter:
http://www.kansas.com/2010/06/06/134...ls-turned.html (think the link is now broken but it was an interview with the 3 mayors. Apparently someplace in Kansas was trying to do a MAPS style thing)




> * The City Council must develop and maintain credibility with the public: Get quality projects done on time and on budget.
> 
> "It's vital. Just vital," Norick said. "If you don't have credibility with the public, you won't get anything done.
> 
> "As long as the city and your leadership does and says what it's going to do, the voters will keep voting for what we want to do.
> 
> "But if you trip up, you lose credibility, you lose the faith of your voters and it's over."
> 
> *Any project that veers off-track, coming in late, over-budget or less than advertised, is disaster, the mayors said.*
> ...


How many of the original MAPS projects:
1) veered off track?
2) were behind schedule?
3) over budget?
4) less than advertised?

By their own definition, MAPS qualified as being a "disaster."

----------


## dankrutka

And by the definition of any reasonable person, the MAPs projects have been an unqualified success. Luckily, most people disagree with you. Hopefully, they continue to do so so this city might continue to succeed. It's easy to critique others...

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.” 

- Teddy Roosevelt

----------


## kevinpate

> ... By their own definition, MAPS qualified as being a "disaster."


I don't dispute that.  But, I would absolutely dispute that OKC would be better off if none of the MAPs votes had ever passed.
The bottom line, for me anyway, is that even with the problems, cost overruns, iffy political posturing, ballot formats, yada, yada, yada, yada, OKC is better off having gone with the MAPs route than its citizens and visitors would be if the various votes had gone the other way.

For you, what's important is how they got there.  For me, that's the yada, yada, yada, part.  I'll take the arena naming rights as an example.  That's a point you don't often skip over.  It's a completely meaningless point to me, irrespective of whether the naming rights annually brings the team 1 grand, 1 million, 10 million, or more.  The city is better off having the exposure, and the regular influx of people dropping dimes and dollars, than they would be if there wasn't a team in place and those 40 nights were a hodge podge of lesser events.

So while I agree MAPs could be handled better, the results make it easier to overlook that it wasn't.  At least for many.

----------


## Larry OKC

Ah, so the end justifies the means...gotchya.

Overlooking it is exactly what they are expecting you to do. Congratulations. Until the voters demand otherwise, expect more of the same.

I would have whole heartedly supported MAPS 3 if they had only done what they said they were going to do before the ballot was unveiled. They didn't. Then the spinning, half-truths and in some cases out right lie machine of the campaign went into full gear. We are continuing to see the results of that and some of the most ardent supporters (even on this board) are slowly waking up to that realization (based on the posts i have been reading lately).

----------


## okcpulse

> *MAPS* was a mixed bag of items, some of which government should be involved with and some not. Also, the original MAPS Ballot/Ordinance was illegal due to the logrolling nature of lumping unrelated projects together in an all-or-nothing format. The City admiotted this and promised that they wouldn't do it again (then they did)
> 
> *MAPS 4 Kids.* The City of Oklahoma City has nothing to do with the school district and as such shouldn't have been involved. It should have been entirely up to the school district. While new buildings have been built the purpose behind those new/renovated buildings haven't materialized. A few years behind schedule (according to the Mayor) and untold multi-millions over budget.
> 
> *MAPS for the NBA.* Citizens paying for the place of business for a private, for profit professional sports team. no thanks. they can afford to build their own places of business and certainly don't deserve the naming rights etc to buildings they dont own.
> 
> *MAPS 3.* I wanted to vote for it as nearly all of the projects were ones where government should be involved. But then they went back to that nagging illegal Ballot format and I had to vote No on it.
> 
> 
> By their own definition, MAPS qualified as being a "disaster."


*MAPS* wrapped up with every single project addressed.  You are correct in that some of the projects were scaled back, however, all of the projects materialized.  We all tend to forget the Civic Center Music Hall, built as planned.  Same goes with the library and the fairgrounds.  However, do you REALLY think any public project in ANY city is built as planned.  Every project faces a revised budget.  We forget that the solution most other cities seek is to bond out the funding gaps, not to mention the entire project itself is bonded, which leaves cities with years of debt to pay off.  Oklahoma City never had to pay a penny of interest in the original MAPS.  Why would you think the government shouldn't have been involved with some of the projects?  These are all public facilities.  

*MAPS for Kids*  The City of Oklahoma City has everything to do with the school district.  OKCPS is a public entity.  Every single city in Oklahoma holds bond elections for public school projects.  Not sure why MAPS for Kids comes as a surprise.

*MAPS for the NBA.*  Honestly, Larry.  The arena was scaled back the first go-round.  NBA or no NBA, the arena needed the improvements.  Let's quit using the NBA as a pawn over why the improvements shouldn't have happened.  Have you been there lately?  Wouldn't you agree that the improvements puts our facility up to par with others across the nation?

*MAPS 3.*  So now that they've taken care of the log-rolling issue to no one's satisfaction, people can now use the 'vague' wording as an excuse to claim not all of the projects will get built.  In reality, if the City of OKC did that, it would be a death knell for the entire MAPS series.  Then we're back to square one with voter's disdain, and the next CIP package would fail at the polls.  We can all agree to disagree over the various blemishes with the MAPS series, but I don't subscribe to nit-picking.  While I agree the city needs to improve on project estimates on a pay-as-you-go program, to say that any part of MAPS was a failure is nothing more than a grudge-filled approach.

----------


## rcjunkie

> *MAPS* wrapped up with every single project addressed.  You are correct in that some of the projects were scaled back, however, all of the projects materialized.  We all tend to forget the Civic Center Music Hall, built as planned.  Same goes with the library and the fairgrounds.  However, do you REALLY think any public project in ANY city is built as planned.  Every project faces a revised budget.  We forget that the solution most other cities seek is to bond out the funding gaps, not to mention the entire project itself is bonded, which leaves cities with years of debt to pay off.  Oklahoma City never had to pay a penny of interest in the original MAPS.  Why would you think the government shouldn't have been involved with some of the projects?  These are all public facilities.  
> 
> *MAPS for Kids*  The City of Oklahoma City has everything to do with the school district.  OKCPS is a public entity.  Every single city in Oklahoma holds bond elections for public school projects.  Not sure why MAPS for Kids comes as a surprise.
> 
> *MAPS for the NBA.*  Honestly, Larry.  The arena was scaled back the first go-round.  NBA or no NBA, the arena needed the improvements.  Let's quit using the NBA as a pawn over why the improvements shouldn't have happened.  Have you been there lately?  Wouldn't you agree that the improvements puts our facility up to par with others across the nation?
> 
> *MAPS 3.*  So now that they've taken care of the log-rolling issue to no one's satisfaction, people can now use the 'vague' wording as an excuse to claim not all of the projects will get built.  In reality, if the City of OKC did that, it would be a death knell for the entire MAPS series.  Then we're back to square one with voter's disdain, and the next CIP package would fail at the polls.  We can all agree to disagree over the various blemishes with the MAPS series, but I don't subscribe to nit-picking.  While I agree the city needs to improve on project estimates on a pay-as-you-go program, to say that any part of MAPS was a failure is nothing more than a grudge-filled approach.


Save your breath, all MAPS projects could have been built exactly as planned, on or under budget, and he still would complain. Some are never happy and bitch because they can!!

----------


## Bellaboo

No comment, this is been re-hashed umpteen times.........

A few folks out there in the world just don't get it, and for that matter, never will get it.

----------


## Larry OKC

Bellaboo: how true, how true.

----------


## Rover

http://newsok.com/article/3634521

Was this position aggressively recruited to?  Given the controversy expressed here on project mismanagement and cost overruns, was this the best hire?  Now that Wenger is out what will his legacy be regards Maps?  What will change with this hire?

Given the amount of money being spent, this is an important hire.

----------


## Spartan

I don't believe that Eric Wenger was popular with many. Any time you have somebody who clings to their job by appeasing only their bosses, you have an awkward situation, and it doesn't take much for them to lose favor with the only people who were keeping them around. I don't know 100% of the details surrounding Wenger's departure, but I can also say that I question anyone who really thinks the Project Manager carries that much weight to begin with. 

How do we know that Wenger is the one who wanted MAPS3 to be bastardized? All we do know is that Wenger's fiscal figures were consistently off. And while that's not helpful, it isn't going to give one project an explicit advantage over another. I just don't see the change-up as that big of a deal.

By the way Rover, sorry if my last response to you (about "conspiracies") was rather terse. I don't think I was in a bad mood or anything, but it was a rash knee-jerk on second thought. I am very curious about your thoughts on Wenger. That said, I am shocked that they haven't decided to fold project management under the duties of the Alliance. That's pretty much why the Alliance was created, and we know that they will take the lead on many aspects of MAPS.

----------


## Pete

Wenger isn't out, he's been promoted and will still be heavily involved in all these civic projects.

----------


## rcjunkie

> Wenger isn't out, he's been promoted and will still be heavily involved in all these civic projects.


With his promotion to Department head of the Public Works Division, he'll be more directly involved then he was in his previous position.

----------


## Rover

So, with all the cost overruns, bad communications, etc. on P180, the Conference Center, Central Park, etc., why is this appointment so low key and no one seems to care who it is or that the same people will continue to manage the projects?  We all talk about wanting to improve bad processes and decisions, but who is hired is pretty key to getting things done right.

----------


## Steve

Answer: almost certainly good.
Some, but not all, of the problems witnessed are, in my observation, due to a city staff that is stretched farthest that I've seen since the mid-90s when city staff, again shrunk by cuts, etc, were hit with adding bombing recovery efforts to an already full plate. The bench needs to be replenished with good, qualified people. Todd enjoys a good reputation and I've never heard a critical comment about him either during his prior years at City Hall or out in private practice.

----------


## Rover

Thanks for the insight Steve.

Accepting your premise (or observation), that problems are due to cutbacks and overworked staff, why haven't we heard more council persons go to bat for right-sizing (up) the staff?  If we are going 10s of millions of dollars over budget, and priorities aren't getting accomplished, it would be a very wise position to increase staff.  You can pay for a lot of staff (and good ones) for the kinds of overruns that we are seeing and are projected.  This should be done now to save money overall.  Just makes sense, even though adding staff won't go over well politically.  Sometimes you just have to do the right thing though.

----------


## Spartan

> With his promotion to Department head of the Public Works Division, he'll be more directly involved then he was in his previous position.


Well there ya go. A story in itself.

----------


## Steve

> Thanks for the insight Steve.
> 
> Accepting your premise (or observation), that problems are due to cutbacks and overworked staff, why haven't we heard more council persons go to bat for right-sizing (up) the staff?  If we are going 10s of millions of dollars over budget, and priorities aren't getting accomplished, it would be a very wise position to increase staff.  You can pay for a lot of staff (and good ones) for the kinds of overruns that we are seeing and are projected.  This should be done now to save money overall.  Just makes sense, even though adding staff won't go over well politically.  Sometimes you just have to do the right thing though.


It's always easier for a politician to tell voters they're cutting spending than to admit they need to spend more on administrative costs to have better outcomes in govt. services, performance. At the same time, is there waste in govt. at large? You bet... so it's a conundrum, isn't it?

----------


## Rover

It is.  It is very fashionable these days to think that the only appropriate route to efficiency is to cut.  Sometimes there is inefficiency created by not having the assets in place to do the job properly.  There is a saying in manufacturing, "if you need a piece of equipment and you don't by it, you pay for it anyway." we can save pennies by understaffing the city and cost ourselves dollars.  Very shortsighted.

----------


## Larry OKC

*Steve*, correct me on this but haven't the previous "cuts" in City Staff been restored? While some have left the City, they were replaced and in some cases they are now contracted employees with the City (i.e., the Alliance). Was pretty sure that it came up that staffing for managing MAPS 3 was directly funded from MAPS 3 itself?

----------


## Spartan

I agree that city staff limitations are definitely part of the equation, but let's not ignore that a lot of the shortcomings we've seen (and a lot of the bastardization of MAPS3) has been the direct will of those calling the shots.

The staff recommendations can keep coming in, they can keep getting longer and more comprehensive, but it doesn't mean a damn thing when a slough of committees take the opposite action.

----------


## Steve

Spartan, there are those who would say you can't bastardize what is already a bastard.....

----------


## SoonerBoy18

I have an acute knowlege of MAPS 3. can someone tell me when will they start creating the park, building the convention center, etc. How long will they be collecteing the 1 cent sales takes from Oklahoma City residents?

----------


## SoonerBoy18

Also, when will they start with the core to shore thing?

----------


## fromdust

if it's so acute what are you asking us for?

----------


## SoonerBoy18

> if it's so acute what are you asking us for?


Because i know LITTLE about it.

----------


## BDK

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acute

----------


## fromdust

acute:sharp or penetrating in intellect, insight, or perception: an acute observer.

----------


## SoonerBoy18

> acute:sharp or penetrating in intellect, insight, or perception: an acute observer.


All this time I thought it meant something small. My bad

----------


## fromdust

don't be a fool. son, you got to stay in school! lol

----------


## soonermike81

> if it's so acute what are you asking us for?


lol, i was thinking the exact same thing as i was reading his questions.

i think he was assuming acute meant small b/c of how we learned about triangles growing up.  acute versus obtuse, acute angles are small and obtuse are large.  however, acute angles are also very sharp, but i can see how one can get it mixed up.  at least that's what i'm assuming was the confusion.

----------


## SoonerBoy18

> lol, i was thinking the exact same thing as i was reading his questions.
> 
> i think he was assuming acute meant small b/c of how we learned about triangles growing up.  acute versus obtuse, acute angles are small and obtuse are large.  however, acute angles are also very sharp, but i can see how one can get it mixed up.  at least that's what i'm assuming was the confusion.


You are absolutly correct. Just forget that I said it

----------


## Larry OKC

> ...can someone tell me when will they start creating the park, building the convention center, etc. How long will they be collecteing the 1 cent sales takes from Oklahoma City residents?


And no one bothered to answer the man's questions? Hope this helps...

*Park*
This gets convoluted because it was the plan to have the Park/Boulevard completely done sometime in 2014. Timelines changed and the Park is being done in multiple phases. The earliest phase is most likely to be minimal landscaping along the Boulevard (northern edge of the Park) and along the Harvey Spine that connects to the Skydance pedestrian bridge that spans the new I-40 (so it isn't a bridge to nowhere...LOL)

*MAPS 3 Project dates*



> 




*MAPS 3 Tax duration*
It is being collected over a 7.75 year span. Beginning on April 1, 2010 and ending at midnight, December 31, 2017




> Also, when will they start with the core to shore thing?


Some of the MAPS 3 projects are tied into the Core to Shore (i.e., the Park). The Boulevard is another component (non-MAPS). Core to Shore has been described as a 30 to 50 year plan.

----------


## CaptDave

> lol, i was thinking the exact same thing as i was reading his questions.
> 
> i think he was assuming acute meant small b/c of how we learned about triangles growing up.  acute versus obtuse, acute angles are small and obtuse are large.  however, acute angles are also very sharp, but i can see how one can get it mixed up.  at least that's what i'm assuming was the confusion.


Unfortunately even though the adults should have recognized the context of his question, they chose to be obtuse in their responses!  :-D

----------


## OKCisOK4me

> Unfortunately even though the adults should have recognized the context of his question, they chose to be obtuse in their responses!  :-D


Nicely put ;-)

----------


## SoonerBoy18

Thanks for answering my questions, glad to know there are less sarcastic people on this site

----------


## Teo9969

> Thanks for answering my questions, glad to know there are less sarcastic people on this site


You should venture over to the Landthieves OU Sooners forum....You will be begging for people to be more like OKCTalkers  :Wink:

----------


## SoonerBoy18

I've seen on the greaterokc.tv website that core to shore is going to completely change the face of the downtown area between the Oklahoma river and the boulevard, I really cant wait until that happends. Are they collecting money from the Maps projects or are they getting their money from a different source?

----------


## SoonerBoy18

> You should venture over to the Landthieves OU Sooners forum....You will be begging for people to be more like OKCTalkers


Lol I have vsiited that site a couple times, nothing like OKCTalk members

----------


## Teo9969

> I've seen on the greaterokc.tv website that core to shore is going to completely change the face of the downtown area between the Oklahoma river and the boulevard, I really cant wait until that happends. Are they collecting money from the Maps projects or are they getting their money from a different source?


I'm probably not the best to answer this but, here it goes anyway:

The Core to Shore (C2S) is anticipated to take anywhere from 30 to 50 years to be "completed". From Reno (which border Myriad Botanical Gardens to the South) there are about 15 blocks between the Central Business District (CBD...which is the Core part of C2S) down to the Oklahoma River. That is a LOT that needs to be developed. A decent portion of that is going to be the Maps 3 Park. But there is still a LOT of development that would need to occur.

The funding will come from all sorts of sources. The only MAPS 3 money that will go toward C2S is the Central Park. There may be future MAPS that distribute more money toward the central park, but we're at least 4 years away from voting for another MAPS.

In the mean time, one would hope that many private investments are made into the area. It does seem as though the river is moving forward relatively well...Boat houses, Youth Pavillion, a couple projects that are currently being speculated on could come to fruition. I personally think that the River area is going to have to "blow up" with development in order for C2S to become a reality. What is going to need to happen is that the CBD and the River area are going to have to slowly envelop central park with development.

----------


## soonermike81

> Unfortunately even though the adults should have recognized the context of his question, they chose to be obtuse in their responses!  :-D


Sorry, but not quite sure what you mean by me being "obtuse" in my response.  I guess I could have given a more "acute" answer if I was actually able to answer the question.  Unfortunately, I don't live in OKC any more and didn't have the answers to his questions.  I am pretty new to this site myself.

----------


## Larry OKC

*SoonerBoy18*: To add to what *Teo9969* said, early on the Mayor stated that Core to Shore was (IIRC) a 3 billion dollar plan and would be a mixture of public & private investments/development. The precise ratio not defined. Core to Shore elements like the Park and other public infrastructure improvements can come from various sources, either more MAPS or General Obligation bond issues, TIF districts (like the Devon TIF that is behind Project 180). The hope is that the public investment projects will spur the private development and "keep the momentum going" from previous rounds.

----------


## dankrutka

More than anything, Core to Shore provided a vision to inspire others to make it a reality. Core to shore is not a ready-to-go plan aside from the park.

----------


## CaptDave

> Sorry, but not quite sure what you mean by me being "obtuse" in my response.  I guess I could have given a more "acute" answer if I was actually able to answer the question.  Unfortunately, I don't live in OKC any more and didn't have the answers to his questions.  I am pretty new to this site myself.


Just making a play on words - no ill will intended.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

The MAPS 3 Citizens Advisory Board meeting will be held on Thursday, March 22, 2012 @ 10:00 AM

The Oklahoma State Fairgrounds Subcommittee will not meet this month.

 The following subcommittees will meet in March:

Convention Center Subcommittee – Tuesday, March 20 @ 10:30 AM – 10th Floor Conference Room, 420 W Main
Oklahoma River Subcommittee – Tuesday, March 20 @ 2:30 PM – 10th Floor Conference Room, 420 W Main
Trails/Sidewalks Subcommittee – Wednesday, March 21 @ 8:30 AM – Basement Conference Room, 420 W Main
Senior Health and Wellness Centers Subcommittee – Wednesday, March 21 @ 10:30 AM – Basement Conference Room, 420 W Main
Parks Subcommittee – Wednesday, March 21 @ 1:30 PM – 10th Floor Conference Room, 420 W Main
Transit/Modern Streetcar Subcommittee – Wednesday, March 21 @ 3:30 PM – 10th Floor Conference Room, 420 W Main

----------


## CaptDave

UP - just to be sure, the public is invited to these meetings? For once I think I can go - thank goodness. I have wanted to attend for quite some time.

----------


## BoulderSooner

> UP - just to be sure, the public is invited to these meetings? For once I think I can go - thank goodness. I have wanted to attend for quite some time.


yes these are 100% public meetings

----------


## Urban Pioneer

> UP - just to be sure, the public is invited to these meetings? For once I think I can go - thank goodness. I have wanted to attend for quite some time.


Yes.  They are all public meetings.  Usually guests sit in chairs along the perimeter of the room with the committees/city staff seated at the conference table.  Of course, the Oversight Board meetings are held in the Council Chambers with the public sitting in the benches and the board around the horseshoe.

Hope that helps.  Usually the city garage on Main is where to park.  You night plan on at least 10 minutes to deal with getting to/from the parking garage.

----------


## Just the facts

> Usually the city garage on Main is where to park.  You night plan on at least 10 minutes to deal with getting to/from the parking garage.


LOL - maybe someday OKC will be a city where the inclusion of parking instructions are not assumed.

----------


## CaptDave

Funny again JTF - you are on a roll lately! Thanks for the info Boulder, UP, and JTF. Definitely want to attend.

----------


## Pete

In the City Council meeting today, a sales tax report was presented that showed year-to-date sales tax collection for MAPS was 6% over the target thus far.

Overall, sales tax collection is up 9% for the year over the same period 2011.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

Did you just watch it?  That was quite a council meeting discussion about MAPS overall and the sidewalk situation.  The CC discussion is also interesting.

----------


## Pete

Didn't watch but was following the tweets.

Can't believe the council didn't slam the people involved with missing the sidewalk estimate by 66%.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

Kinda "did".  Missing the target goes back to speculation forming the original docket.

----------


## CuatrodeMayo

Ed reinterated the point myself and others have made regarding the absolute firestorm that WILL happen WHEN the convention center comes in way over budget.

----------


## Larry OKC

*CuatrodeMayo*: maybe, maybe not. The spin put on it will be something along these lines..."we always said this was just Phase 1, we just need to approve the funds for Phase 2." Don't pay any attention to the pre-vote information...all of the pesky details about size, functionality, hotel etc...LOL

----------


## Larry OKC

*CuatrodeMayo*: maybe, maybe not. The spin put on it will be something along these lines..."we always said this was just Phase 1, we just need to approve the funds for Phase 2." Never mind this was mentioned in a short Q&A with the Mayor in the Oklahoman about the cost of a new Convention Center...pretty much ignored during the campaign as not being a complete, fully functioning one that will meet current needs, much less what the needs are by the time it gets built. "Don't pay any attention to the pre-vote information...all of the pesky details about size, functionality, hotel etc"...LOL

----------


## G.Walker

With Project 180 being half done, the MAPS3 Sidewalks/Trails coming in over budget, and the debacle with the new CC, I have a feeling this will be the last MAPS package that the city will be able to pass. The way MAPS3 is currently being managed will deter OKC citizens to support future MAPS programs.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

I'm actually optimistic about the next MAPS.  There is very little left IMHO that the city fathers could ask for.  I think the next one is all about sidewalks, transit, more trails, and western river improvements.  I don't see it stopping as projects start to come online with grandeur generating excitement for people.

That doesn't mean that I think these concerns are overrated, but we're getting very close to focussing our energy/money on what the majority of people want.

It could spiral out of control if they don't watch it though.  I mean politically.  The sidewalk issue should be resolved in a way that is politically salient as soon as possible.  The same for transit should the budget be short.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

> With Project 180 being half done, the MAPS3 Sidewalks/Trails coming in over budget, and the debacle with the new CC, I have a feeling this will be the last MAPS package that the city will be able to pass. The way MAPS3 is currently being managed will deter OKC citizens to support future MAPS programs.


I'm with you on that...  If I remember correctly, this MAPS only passed 52 to 48 percent.  It's not like it was a large margin of victory.  I'll be going to the no side next time...




> I'm actually optimistic about the next MAPS.  There is very little left IMHO that the city fathers could ask for.  I think the next one is all about sidewalks, transit, more trails, and western river improvements.  I don't see it stopping as projects start to come online with grandeur generating excitement for people.
> 
> That doesn't mean that I think these concerns are overrated, but we're getting very close to focussing our energy/money on what the majority of people want.
> 
> It could spiral out of control if they don't watch it though.  I mean politically.  The sidewalk issue should be resolved in a way that is politically salient as soon as possible.  The same for transit should the budget be short.


Sidewalks and trails - isn't that what General Obligation Bonds are for?  Public Transit - unless it is to extend the streetcar system years from now, wouldn't that be an RTA thing?

----------


## bradh

> I'm actually optimistic about the next MAPS.  There is very little left IMHO that the city fathers could ask for.  I think the next one is all about sidewalks, transit, more trails, and western river improvements.  I don't see it stopping as projects start to come online with grandeur generating excitement for people.
> 
> That doesn't mean that I think these concerns are overrated, but we're getting very close to focussing our energy/money on *what the majority of people want*.
> 
> It could spiral out of control if they don't watch it though.  I mean politically.  The sidewalk issue should be resolved in a way that is politically salient as soon as possible.  The same for transit should the budget be short.


Are you sure it's really the majority?  There are some part of the public who do understand the benefits more convention space can provide.  Either way, when I first moved here 4 years ago, the first thing I noticed was OKC was a place where it seemed most of the city was on the same page, and people worked together to bring stuff here (like the NBA) because they realized OKC was not NYC, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, etc...cities that could just snap their fingers and get what they wanted.  

I want it all.   The transit, the trails, the river development, the convention space.  Why can't we have it all if we keep supporting the way we've been doing it.  We don't want to end up like Wichita, who has no real direction and keeps losing jobs left and right to places like OKC.

----------


## NWOKCGuy

> I'm with you on that...  If I remember correctly, this MAPS only passed 52 to 48 percent.  It's not like it was a large margin of victory.  I'll be going to the no side next time...


54-46 I believe.

----------


## adaniel

> With Project 180 being half done, the MAPS3 Sidewalks/Trails coming in over budget, and the debacle with the new CC, I have a feeling this will be the last MAPS package that the city will be able to pass. The way MAPS3 is currently being managed will deter OKC citizens to support future MAPS programs.





> I'm with you on that... If I remember correctly, this MAPS only passed 52 to 48 percent. It's not like it was a large margin of victory. I'll be going to the no side next time...


Wow, so we are only into year 3 of an eight-year tax and 12 year plan and no ground has been broken on any project and we are already going to declare it a failure? A bit weak if you ask me.

----------


## Teo9969

How MAPS3 doing in terms of projected revenues? Is it coming in substantially under, under, even, over, or substantially over?

----------


## Urban Pioneer

> Are you sure it's really the majority?  There are some part of the public who do understand the benefits more convention space can provide.  Either way, when I first moved here 4 years ago, the first thing I noticed was OKC was a place where it seemed most of the city was on the same page, and people worked together to bring stuff here (like the NBA) because they realized OKC was not NYC, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, etc...cities that could just snap their fingers and get what they wanted.  
> 
> I want it all.   The transit, the trails, the river development, the convention space.  Why can't we have it all if we keep supporting the way we've been doing it.  We don't want to end up like Wichita, who has no real direction and keeps losing jobs left and right to places like OKC.


Well let me put it this way, it was the majority when I was working on the campaign.  Sidewalks, trails, streetcar, and river improvements towed the vote.  This was scientifically assessed.  Now certainly, that may have changed slightly, but I doubt that it has changed that much.  There was also a public poll done by the Gazette as well that is often quoted and probably buried in this thread.

But let me extrapolate further, the people who are gaining influence and the ability to broadly persuade the public want essentially "MAPS for Neighborhoods".  With the streetcar specifically, we will in theory be reaching out of downtown in a second phase.  So that project meshes well with where this broader influence is going.

A great many people do not realize it, but the next GO bond election will either be very close, if not on the same day as MAPS in theory.  That is obviously affected by the speed at which bonds are capable of being sold.  But with the economy steady and sales stabilized, the timing right now almost assures close proximity to voting on both.  So that the next election/elections in theory is for over $1.6 billion in public improvements.

So GO bond resolves core desired elements such as sidewalks, streets, neighborhood parks, and such while a MAPS type element can be geared to continued visionary elements or additional substantial neighborhood elements.

There are potential major competing elements that still have not been resolved such as a Regional Transit Authority, County Jail, water distribution improvements among others.  One or several of these major issues may end up being a big piece of the pie as well depending on where the politics goes and who is involved in influencing the docket.

But another major note about the diversion from tradittional, top down, heavy-handed docket making to this broader context of influence that is being redistributed in this city-

The Friends for a Better Boulevard Campaign may have appeared on the surface to have been some random Facebook Group which grew legs.  I can assure you that it wasn't and that now well oiled, tested machine is very much idling for the next big thing.

----------


## LakeEffect

I'd disagree that GO Bond resolves core desired issues on one level. I believe Pat Ryan mentioned that he thinks sidewalks should be a specific item in the next GO Bond election. However, bonds for sidewalks are not considered necessary public infrastructure by current state law, so the vote requires a higher approval percentage to pass (above 60% I believe). Therefore, the City had previously decided to NOT allow it as a separate item and rolled it into streets. State law needs to be changed to require a simple majority and then it could be a separate Bond item.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

I suspect many of the people involved in this new wave of influence would agree with you and would want more sidewalks in MAPS irregardless of the size/scope of the GO Bond.  The technicality regarding the state language is interesting and explains a great deal about the 2007 docket.

----------


## Larry OKC

> I'd disagree that GO Bond resolves core desired issues on one level. I believe Pat Ryan mentioned that he thinks sidewalks should be a specific item in the next GO Bond election. However, bonds for sidewalks are not considered necessary public infrastructure by current state law, so the vote requires a higher approval percentage to pass (above 60% I believe). Therefore, the City had previously decided to NOT allow it as a separate item and rolled it into streets. State law needs to be changed to require a simple majority and then it could be a separate Bond item.


If not mistaken, General Obligation bond issue propositions only require voter approval of 50% plus 1. The super majority of 60% is on school bond issues.

----------


## Lafferty Daniel

> I'm with you on that...  If I remember correctly, this MAPS only passed 52 to 48 percent.  It's not like it was a large margin of victory.  *I'll be going to the no side next time...*


What? Why?

----------


## Bellaboo

> I'm with you on that...  If I remember correctly, this MAPS only passed 52 to 48 percent.  It's not like it was a large margin of victory. * I'll be going to the no side next time*...


Shouldn't you be objective enough and see how it all plays out instead of making rash decisions early in the game ?

----------


## OKCisOK4me

Decipher my posts however you may. All Im saying is they changed the order of projects around compared to what the project order is that citizens were concerned with the most. 

I know that collections are up 9% from this time last year and my concern with voting a possible no is not because Im disappointed with how little has been done since the inception of MAPS3 but more with the fact that at some point, all this public tax should lead to some private development. Something that doesn't have to be paid for and scrutinized by the city--which is on a pretty good track with that right now concerning other projects!

----------


## ljbab728

And you're thinking all of the private development would occur before any of the MAPS3 projects have even commenced?  I think there is substantial evidence that private development on a large scale has occured as a result of previous MAPS projects, but not in advance of the projects themselves.

----------


## Larry OKC

*ljbab728*: Certainly not until the placement of the projects has been determined/property purchased/dirt moved on the site. Don't want to start your project based on where they said they were going to put it and then change it on ya.

----------


## grandshoemaster

I'm not sure if this has been posted before.  With the state fair just around the corner, I found this video of the improvements to be made in Maps 3.

----------


## mcca7596

> I'm not sure if this has been posted before.  With the state fair just around the corner, I found this video of the improvements to be made in Maps 3.


I don't see any link.

----------


## Larry OKC

Read more: http://newsok.com/tulsa-council-seek...#ixzz25qOim4KR



> Projects included in a package have to be a mix of what businesses are looking for, what the council is looking for and what will help get it to 50 percent on election day, Cornett said.
> “We all have our pet projects we’d like to see funded, but if it’s *polling at 28 percent, it’s not a good idea,” he said. “It might bring down everything. Your entire package is only as strong as its weakest link*.”


Described the MAPS 3 Convention Center pretty well.



> Oklahoma City elected officials certainly debated and argued among themselves, Cornett said. “But once we called the election, we were on board, and *not a single one of us spoke negatively about the (MAPS 3)* initiative going forward,” he said.


Not a single one? Revisionist history again?  It was not unanimous. No matter what you might think of Ward 5 Councilman Brian Walters, he voted against MAPS 3 going to a vote (required by state law if they are going to impose a new tax/tax increase to fund it) because he thought it was the wrong idea at the wrong time among other things. He was an outspoken opponent during the campaign...

Other council people put the best spin on it that they could...saying things like (not a direct quote), I don't like everything that is in it but I am going to let the people decide (again, required by state law if they want to fund it that way).

----------


## grandshoemaster

I guess that would help.  http://okstatefair.com/state-fair-park/maps-3-project

----------


## CaptDave

> I guess that would help.  http://okstatefair.com/state-fair-park/maps-3-project


Maybe I am not thinking straight, but that Oklahoma Events Center in the Fairgrounds animation looks a lot like a reasonable expectation for the convention center at the South C2S location. I bet it would come in relatively close to the budget allocated to the MAP CC. Am I way off base?

I still prefer the CC concept in BG918's drawings better than anything I have seen to date.

----------


## soonerguru

> I guess that would help.  MAPS 3 Updates | Oklahoma State Fair


Will the State Fair clean up that ghastly mess of dirt piles and strange aluminum-sided buildings on the southwest corner? It is a supreme eyesore. God awful. It makes the entire fairgrounds look like a dump when viewed from I-44.

----------


## Larry OKC

> How is that a spin?  ...


Spin may not be the right word...there were a couple of Council folks that reluctantly voted for it...they gave themselves cover if their constituents voted against it (see I was with you, I didn't like it either) or if their voters voted for it (yep, I like a lot of it too) by not fully endorsing it, but letting the voters decide the issue (which they are required by law to do if they want to pay for any project by using a new tax/tax increase. The Mayor even said recently leading up to his remarks at the GOP convention, that they "allowed" us to vote on it. Allowed? Again, they are required by law to do so. If the COuncil had voted against it going to the voters, they would have had to have found another revenue source or abandon the projects completely.

Brian Walters was the most vocal in his opposition. Before and during the campaign. Some were behind it 100% and spoke at MAPS information meetings in their official capacity (which from what I understand, it is against state law for any elected official to campaign/advocate during the campaign on these types of things. That is why the Chamber runs the campaign to get it passed. Some voted for it to go to the people and kept a low profile.

Wide spread support is not indicated by the passing percentage. This MAPS passed by a nearly identical percentage as the original where it was described at the time as "barely passing" (unlike the MAPS 6 month "extension", MAPS 4 Kids and the Ford/NBA MAPS related tax, which all passed by healthy margins). IIRC, some wards it failed, some were very close and some passed easily...also think the ward split was very similar to the original MAPS whee it generally failed on Southside but passed on Northside by just enough.

----------


## BoulderSooner

> Spin may not be the right word...there were a couple of Council folks that reluctantly voted for it...they gave themselves cover if their constituents voted against it (see I was with you, I didn't like it either) or if their voters voted for it (yep, I like a lot of it too) by not fully endorsing it, but letting the voters decide the issue (which they are required by law to do if they want to pay for any project by using a new tax/tax increase. The Mayor even said recently leading up to his remarks at the GOP convention, that they "allowed" us to vote on it. Allowed? Again, they are required by law to do so. If the COuncil had voted against it going to the voters, they would have had to have found another revenue source or abandon the projects completely.
> 
> Brian Walters was the most vocal in his opposition. Before and during the campaign. Some were behind it 100% and spoke at MAPS information meetings in their official capacity (which from what I understand, it is against state law for any elected official to campaign/advocate during the campaign on these types of things. That is why the Chamber runs the campaign to get it passed. Some voted for it to go to the people and kept a low profile.
> 
> Wide spread support is not indicated by the passing percentage. This MAPS passed by a nearly identical percentage as the original where it was described at the time as "barely passing" (unlike the MAPS 6 month "extension", MAPS 4 Kids and the Ford/NBA MAPS related tax, which all passed by healthy margins). IIRC, some wards it failed, some were very close and some passed easily...also think the ward split was very similar to the original MAPS whee it generally failed on Southside but passed on Northside by just enough.



if it was not for the very ill conceived police fire anti maps campaign .. it would have passed by a bigger margin

----------


## soonerguru

> This MAPS passed by a nearly identical percentage as the original where it was described at the time as "barely passing" (unlike the MAPS 6 month "extension", MAPS 4 Kids and the Ford/NBA MAPS related tax, which all passed by healthy margins). IIRC, some wards it failed, some were very close and some passed easily...also think the ward split was very similar to the original MAPS whee it generally failed on Southside but passed on Northside by just enough.


FALSE. MAPS III passed by a similar, but larger margin than MAPS I, despite much higher voter participation and a well-funded, high-profile campaign against it. "NOT THIS MAPS" got whipped good. Fail.

----------


## Larry OKC

*soonerguru*: Sorry but it is TRUE. Same percentages. Maybe MAPS was rounded up and MAPS 3 was rounded down, but even if that was the case it would be a maximum spread of 1% or less. Thus the same 54% for both.

Oklahoma City MAPS 3 Initiatives - Brief History of MAPS, FAQs, Status and List of MAPS 3 Initiatives



> It's hard to believe now as we look back that the original MAPS initiatives nearly didn't pass a vote of the people. Early polls showed less than fantastic support for the Metropolitan Area Projects, a bundle of 9 major Oklahoma City projects to be funded by a 5 year, 1 cent sales tax increase. *But in December of 1993, MAPS squeaked by voters at 54%.* 
> 
> On December 8, 2009, *MAPS 3 passed by a margin of 54 percent* to 46 percent. Election board officials estimated a total voter turnout of 31 percent, significantly higher than most local elections. Final vote numbers were 40,956 yes and 34,465 no.



History of the MAPS projects TIMELINE timeline | NewsOK.com



> December 1993 Voters pass MAPS
> Voter turnout was strong. *The MAPS sales tax passed with 54 percent* of the vote.


Read more: MAPS 3 passes with 54.3% of vote | NewsOK.com



> ...with about 54 percent of the vote with all precincts reporting. Oklahoma County Election Board officials were anticipating voter turnout of about 25 to 30 percent, about twice as high as most city elections.


I didn't find an exact number on voter participation for the original MAPS (just "strong"). Lack of evidence to the contrary I will concede for now that voter turnout was higher, but the end results were the same. While number of voters may have been higher, the percentages of passing and how the vote broke down demonstrated striking similarities. Doug's blog (Doug Dawgz Blog: MAPS 3  Unofficial Vote Totals) shows that Wards 3, 4 & 5 voted No, with Ward 6 passing by 57 votes, and Ward 7 passing by 474 votes. The other Wards passed by healthier margins.

For sure, there were differing reasons as to the barely passing percentages, be it North/South side; union opposition; the unconstitutionally questionable logrolling all-or-nothing ballot format; including a very unpopular item (the Convention Center), that arguably came close to sinking the entire thing. etc etc etc

----------


## Dubya61

> ... a well-funded, high-profile campaign against it. "NOT THIS MAPS" got whipped good. Fail.


I strongly disliked the anti-MAPS campaign.  It was a lot like the Aesops fable about the dog who lost his food to the river as he wanted both bones (his and his reflection's).  I understand that there is only so much taxation you can spread around, but the opposition to continuing a well-documented success seemed a lot like bellyaching pigs wanting a better place at the feed trough.

----------


## adaniel

I sympathized with the police and fire departments' issues over their decreased funding, but I thought it was a huge mistake to try and hold the MAP's 3 vote hostage. 

The vote was also held in late 2009, when anti-tax tea party rhetoric and anxiety over local, state, and national budgets were hitting their zenith. And yet somehow the vote didn't do any worse than the original MAPs vote. I think that's pretty remarkable.

----------


## soonerguru

> *soonerguru*: Sorry but it is TRUE. Same percentages. Maybe MAPS was rounded up and MAPS 3 was rounded down, but even if that was the case it would be a maximum spread of 1% or less. Thus the same 54% for both.
> 
> Oklahoma City MAPS 3 Initiatives - Brief History of MAPS, FAQs, Status and List of MAPS 3 Initiatives
> 
> 
> 
> History of the MAPS projects TIMELINE timeline | NewsOK.com
> 
> Read more: MAPS 3 passes with 54.3% of vote | NewsOK.com
> ...


Fair enough, but a 54-46 margin is not a squeaker by any definition. That is a decisive victory, particularly considering its organized opposition. If Obama wins by eight against Mitt that will be considered a blowout.

----------


## betts

As in football, regardless of the score, it's a "W".  Whether we get another "W" in the future depends on public sentiment regarding MAPS 3 projects. Way too early to tell

----------


## Larry OKC

> Fair enough, but a 54-46 margin is not a squeaker by any definition. That is a decisive victory, particularly considering its organized opposition. If Obama wins by eight against Mitt that will be considered a blowout.


If you think it is just semantics, go ahead. That's the kind of description by the media at the time...by those that supported its passage. If you have a problem with it, talk to them. Tax increase votes had repeatedly failed prior to MAPS (check out Doug's blog for a rather detailed coverage of the issue). A "decisive victory" might be the MAPS 6-month "extension" (68%), MAPS 4 Kids (61%), the Ford/NBA tax (62%), the 2007 General Obligation Bond issues (where each passed by at least 80% according to the Mayor), Cornett's 88% re-election (the largest in OKC history) etc. Even the Mayor toned down his "mandate" rhetoric after it barely passed and switched to the word "assignment".

*Betts*: yes it _could_ end up with all of the projects being built on time, on budget and as promised. But how likely is that going to be with what has transpired so far with the missed cost projections which are going to cost multi-millions to deliver as promised or severely cut back (Trails, Sidewalks etc). These are the relatively minor projects. Does anyone doubt that the Convention Center is going to be several multi-millions over budget when it is all said and done? It is the most expensive MAPS 3 project and it's $250 to $280 million budget was more than all what voters were told the original MAPS projects combined were going to cost ($237.6 million).  MAPS 3 is Dj vu all over again.

I do agree that it depends on public sentiment and if City/Chamber leadership is as skilled as the recent ones in spinning, using half-truths and in some cases out-right lies to get any future MAPS passed.

----------


## soonerguru

> If you think it is just semantics, go ahead. That's the kind of description by the media at the time...by those that supported its passage. If you have a problem with it, talk to them. Tax increase votes had repeatedly failed prior to MAPS (check out Doug's blog for a rather detailed coverage of the issue). A "decisive victory" might be the MAPS 6-month "extension" (68%), MAPS 4 Kids (61%), the Ford/NBA tax (62%), the 2007 General Obligation Bond issues (where each passed by at least 80% according to the Mayor), Cornett's 88% re-election (the largest in OKC history) etc. Even the Mayor toned down his "mandate" rhetoric after it barely passed and switched to the word "assignment".
> 
> *Betts*: yes it _could_ end up with all of the projects being built on time, on budget and as promised. But how likely is that going to be with what has transpired so far with the missed cost projections which are going to cost multi-millions to deliver as promised or severely cut back (Trails, Sidewalks etc). These are the relatively minor projects. Does anyone doubt that the Convention Center is going to be several multi-millions over budget when it is all said and done? It is the most expensive MAPS 3 project and it's $250 to $280 million budget was more than all what voters were told the original MAPS projects combined were going to cost ($237.6 million).  MAPS 3 is Dj vu all over again.
> 
> I do agree that it depends on public sentiment and if City/Chamber leadership is as skilled as the recent ones in spinning, using half-truths and in some cases out-right lies to get any future MAPS passed.


WTF? Semantics? I couldn't give a crap what some local writer said. An 8 point margin in a fiercely contested political battle is a decisive win. I don't look to the Oklahoman or Gazette for intelligent or enlightening political analysis.

----------


## Larry OKC

Whatever. You have the facts/stats. Call it/believe whatever you want.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

MAPS 3 Update at City Council 9-25-2012 - YouTube

----------


## Plutonic Panda

Oklahoma City Council discusses MAPS 3 issues, police positions, capital improvements during Tuesday's meeting | NewsOK.com

----------


## UnFrSaKn

Architects Reveal Newest Plans For Downtown OKC Park - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports |

----------


## OKCisOK4me

> Architects Reveal Newest Plans For Downtown OKC Park - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports |


"One design has a large lake for paddle boats, another design has two smaller lakes and a third option has no lake at all."

I'm gonna have to go with the large lake option.  Having all the athletic items on the south end of the park is a good idea.  Puts that option closer to the neighborhoods south of the river and allows for easy access to/from the river trails.  Unfortunately, I won't be able to vote cause they always have these things when I'm working!  Edit:  I actually get off at 6pm tomorrow!  YAY!!

----------


## Snowman

> "One design has a large lake for paddle boats, another design has two smaller lakes and a third option has no lake at all."
> 
> I'm gonna have to go with the large lake option.  Having all the athletic items on the south end of the park is a good idea.  Puts that option closer to the neighborhoods south of the river and allows for easy access to/from the river trails.  Unfortunately, I won't be able to vote cause they always have these things when I'm working!  Edit:  I actually get off at 6pm tomorrow!  YAY!!


I don't like how the large lake is to cut off so much of the west side of the park from everything, the island in it seems like it could be a maintenance issue as well.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

Just cause there's a representational island in the lake or the lake is shaped that way in the model doesn't mean it's going to be the final product.

----------


## Fantastic

> Unfortunately, I won't be able to vote cause they always have these things when I'm working!  Edit:  I actually get off at 6pm tomorrow!  YAY!!


I feel your pain on that!  But I'm glad that you will be getting of at 6... can't wait until I start my new job and am able to go to things like this!

----------


## Plutonic Panda

http://newsok.com/celebrations-plann...rticle/3737678

----------


## Urban Pioneer

I'm not sure how I feel about this.  

I'd rather get some of the current stuff in the current vote built first.  Perhaps the streetcar "groundbreaking" will coincide with it.  Or a bunch of "groundbreakings" for that matter.

So it could complimentary to what is actually going on in year 2013.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

Nope.  We can't.  At least until procurement is done and we select a specific company that is.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

> Nope.  We can't.  At least until procurement is done and we select a specific company that is.


I breezed an article in this month's issue of Trains Magazine that said this years attendance for streetcar cab show (whatever it is) was the largest in its history.  Did you guys go to this show or will you be looking to attend it next year?  The article showed no mention of OKC in any kind of planning phase at all so I hope we're on that list next year.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

I was interviewed by an independent writer for Trains Mag I think... Or it might have been Progressive Railroading.  I can't remember.

I'm not sure about the "streetcar cab show" but usually one of us goes to Railvolution and APTA every year.  This city has also joined the Streetcar Coalition at the Subcommittee and Ed Shadid's behest to gain broader exposure for our program.

This coming Wed meeting will be an important one.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

APTA sounds familiar so that was probably it.  They had 4 or 5 different cabs manufactured by various companies on display at this show in the pic that was featured as a news item in this month's issue of Trains.  I didn't see any mention of OKC so it was probably Progressive Railroading.

----------


## ljbab728

An update on the Senior Citizens Centers:

Oklahoma City MAPS 3 board adopts revised outline for senior centers | NewsOK.com

----------


## kevinpate

> An update on the Senior Citizens Centers:
> 
> Oklahoma City MAPS 3 board adopts revised outline for senior centers | NewsOK.com


If I read this correctly, it sounds like having only two centers would now be considered an acceptable outcome.  Makes one wonder if anything in M3 will even come close to the hype used to get folks to vote for the new c center.

----------


## SoonerDave

> If I read this correctly, it sounds like having only two centers would now be considered an acceptable outcome.  Makes one wonder if anything in M3 will even come close to the hype used to get folks to vote for the new c center.


I wouldn't bet on _anything_ getting done outside the CC. Not saying specifically anything _won't_ get done, but the only reason we had an M3 was for a CC. Anything else that emerges is gravy, unfortunately, which is precisely why I opposed M3 - not because we didn't need a convention center, but because the whole process was so fundamentally dishonest.

----------


## Larry OKC

Strange thing is pre-vote, the Mayor indicated that they had multiple partners already lined up, ready to take over operations of the Senior Aquatic Centers...they just needed the City to build them? Oh well, Guess not.

----------


## BoulderSooner

> Strange thing is pre-vote, the Mayor indicated that they had multiple partners already lined up, ready to take over operations of the Senior Aquatic Centers...they just needed the City to build them? Oh well, Guess not.


link??

----------


## Larry OKC

*BoulderSooner*: I can't find a print document for verification, so I must have seen it mentioned in a Council meeting or on the _Mayor's Magazine_ program on Cox

----------


## Larry OKC

*Sid*, you are correct, I didn't mean "lined up" as in contract signed etc...but if you have "several potential partners" that would mean a line was forming or in other words, "lined up" :Cool: 

Then after it passes and some details are known nearly everyone gets out of line???

ON EDIT: I did find a _Gazette_ article that mentioned partnering with the Y or universities...

----------


## LakeEffect

> *Sid*, you are correct, I didn't mean "lined up" as in contract signed etc...but if you have "several potential partners" that would mean a line was forming or in other words, "lined up"
> 
> Then after it passes and some details are known nearly everyone gets out of line???
> 
> ON EDIT: I did find a _Gazette_ article that mentioned partnering with the Y or universities...


If I recall correctly, some people did submit, but didn't match what the City asked for. Others wanted to submit but didn't like the terms/couldn't perform as asked. Maybe they should have been consulted some how during the creation process?

----------


## Larry OKC

*cafeboeuf*: you are correct. But that seems to be the way the City does most MAPS style projects. They come up with these grand ideas and don't worry about the details until much later. We have seen the same process with Project 180 etc. Then when reality hits the fan they have problems reconciling what voters were told to secure their vote.

----------


## BoulderSooner

> If I recall correctly, some people did submit, but didn't match what the City asked for. Others wanted to submit but didn't like the terms/couldn't perform as asked. Maybe they should have been consulted some how during the creation process?


I think they did very much work with the partners before the resubmitted the RFP

----------


## UnFrSaKn

2013 Joseph P. Riley Award winner Mayor Mick Cornett of Oklahoma City on Vimeo

----------


## Urbanized

LOL. Nearly all of the historic photo slides are mirror images of reality.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

> LOL. Nearly all of the historic photo slides are mirror images of reality.


Yes, I just watched the video and that was the first thing I noticed!

----------


## MustangGT

> *cafeboeuf*: you are correct. But that seems to be the way the City does most MAPS style projects. They come up with these grand ideas and don't worry about the details until much later. We have seen the same process with Project 180 etc. Then when reality hits the fan they have problems reconciling what voters were told to secure their vote.


Which is precisely why MAPS4 should be voted down.

----------


## Bellaboo

> Which is precisely why MAPS4 should be voted down.


So I take it you'd like to go back to 1993 and keep everything the way it was then, oh, Devon would have left sometime after that so throw them in there as being gone   ???

----------


## Dubya61

> Which is precisely why MAPS4 should be voted down.


I don't think so.  MAPS has done so much for OKC that it'd be hard to see any reason for it to discontinue.  Maybe that is precisely why MAPS4 should be presented more specifically, or even in separate, smaller projects.  Sort of MAPS 4.1, MAPS 4.2, etc.  I even think there should be a small gap between MAPS3 taxation and the MAPS4 proposition, letting the public see or feel the idea that THEY are investing in OKC and they should take ownership of it.

----------


## Larry OKC

I am not saying that MAPS hasn't been good for the City. The problem is when they over promise and under deliver, engage in illegal ballots etc. Unless the voters hold them accountable, they won't change the way they do things. Get a No vote and if the projects are really that important, they will figure out what went wrong, repackage it (hopefully the legal way) and try again.

----------


## BoulderSooner

> I am not saying that MAPS hasn't been good for the City. The problem is when they over promise and under deliver, engage in illegal ballots etc. Unless the voters hold them accountable, they won't change the way they do things. Get a No vote and if the projects are really that important, they will figure out what went wrong, repackage it (hopefully the legal way) and try again.


maps 3 was a legal ballot  .. i don't think there is any question about that

----------


## Rover

Luckily the people of OKC have been smart enough to see the amazing things Maps has done for this city and don't have the same axes to grind as a number of people here.

----------


## PhiAlpha

> Luckily the people of OKC have been smart enough to see the amazing things Maps has done for this city and don't have the same axes to grind as a number of people here.


Agreed. Regardless of any short comings, given what each MAPS project has produced, you would have to be pretty dense to look back and think voting "no" was the right choice.

----------


## GaryOKC6

> Agreed. Regardless of any short comings, given what each MAPS project has produced, you would have to be pretty dense to look back and think voting "no" was the right choice.


We are definitely the envy of other progressive communities with MAPS.  We are regularly visited by groups from other cities who are here to find out :how we did it”.  Other cities have tried and failed and continue to try again.  We are known as a city that is willing to invest in itself and it had paid off.

----------


## Bellaboo

Without MAPS, we'd still be looking up to Tulsa, enough said.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

I'm sorry, but is this really a debate whether or not MAPS has helped OKC?

----------


## Rover

Apparently so.  There are still those on here trying to prove how bad Maps was and how incompetent everyone associated with it is.  It's like saying a Mercedes is a bad car because it gets flat tires sometimes, so don't buy another one.

----------


## AP

+1 


> Apparently so.  There are still those on here trying to prove how bad Maps was and how incompetent everyone associated with it is.  It's like saying a Mercedes is a bad car because it gets flat tires sometimes, so don't buy another one.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Apparently so.  There are still those on here trying to prove how bad Maps was and how incompetent everyone associated with it is.  It's like saying a Mercedes is a bad car because it gets flat tires sometimes, so don't buy another one.


*like*

----------


## MustangGT

> So I take it you'd like to go back to 1993 and keep everything the way it was then, oh, Devon would have left sometime after that so throw them in there as being gone   ???


I am not saying it was bad but it has been problematic and if the voters that vote continue to poor money into furtherances then there is not reason to hold the city accountable.  Also you "assumption" on Devon is just that.  There is no undeniable proof that they would have moved.  I just want to see ALL that was promised finished and completed as PROMISED before we move on.  As to OKC being the example I am aware of firms from afar that have looked at us and asked the same ticklish questions many here have asked.

----------


## warreng88

> I am not saying it was bad but it has been problematic and if the voters that vote continue to poor money into furtherances then there is not reason to hold the city accountable.  Also you "assumption" on Devon is just that.  There is no undeniable proof that they would have moved.  I just want to see ALL that was promised finished and completed as PROMISED before we move on.  As to OKC being the example I am aware of firms from afar that have looked at us and asked the same ticklish questions many here have asked.


Mustang, it is not an assumption. Larry Nichols has stated that if it weren't for MAPS they would have moved to Houston. I will find the quote when I have a chance.

----------


## Rover

[QUOTE=MustangGT;630787]I am not saying it was bad but it has been problematic and if the voters that vote continue to poor money into furtherances then there is not reason to hold the city accountable.  Also you "assumption" on Devon is just that.  There is no undeniable proof that they would have moved.  I just want to see ALL that was promised finished and completed as PROMISED before we move on.  As to OKC being the example I am aware of firms from afar that have looked at us and asked the same ticklish questions many here have asked.[/

One would have to have their head in the sand if you can't see the overwhelmingly positive effect Maps has had on this city.  It was sick and dying and businesses couldn't wait to leave.  If the standard is perfection, no public or private, or even personal effort will ever reach it.

Are there things to be done better...absolutely.  Should everyone be held accountable...sure.  But, there will never be 100% consensus...never.

----------


## dankrutka

OKC may need to change the MAPs process (e.g., specify projects), but killing it would be killing the thing that jump started OKC. That seems to risky considering the momentum the city has now. Why risk losing it?

----------


## Bellaboo

> I am not saying it was bad but it has been *problematic* and if the voters that vote continue to poor money into furtherances then there is not reason to hold the city accountable.  Also you "assumption" on Devon is just that.  There is no undeniable proof that they would have moved.  I just want to see ALL that was promised finished and completed as PROMISED before we move on.  As to OKC being the example I am aware of firms from afar that have looked at us and asked the same ticklish questions many here have asked.


Problematic ?  You try taking the projects defined for the last 18 years and see if you have a problem or two. You try spending a billion dollars dealing with the processes from start to finish and see if you come across a problem or two.

It's sad to say, some folks on this board just don't get it .....

----------


## Bellaboo

Now, for those of you that 'just don't get it', please watch the video. Without MAPS, we really suck -  this is a good video for those that do get it also -

OETA | Stateline 1404

----------


## shawnw

Idea, tell me if it's stupid:

Have a vote for a permanent MAPS tax (instead of having all these "momentum throttlers", e.g. the strife over future MAPS 4, MAPS 5, MAPS 37 votes). As part of the ballot an oversight board/committee of some kind is defined, with more power than the citizen advisory boards (those can still exist), and their job is to have master plan like oversight with the projects and interface with the citizen committees and council, and most importantly, keep a running/vetted/defined list of "next projects" (per input from council, which gets feedback from their wards), say the next ten projects or something (the priorities of which they can adjust based on circumstances/council input, etc, and also, perhaps the first 3-5 projects can be in the initial ballot so things are still moving and it's future projects that are defined by the board), and as the money comes in we work the projects one at a time. In addition, as part of the ballot, there is a required "Repeal Vote" every five years, so that if we ever become overly dissatisfied with how MAPS is going, we can vote to stop it, and that vote would be defined as finishing all started projects as of the date of the vote, with no further projects being started, and the tax collection process stopping once the budgets for the in progress projects are funded, with any excess going into an overall O&M fund, which would also be part of the ballot (e.g. the ongoing tax revenue brought in is to cover all new projects AS WELL AS O&M for all MAPS projects, past, present, and future... so yes, the proportion would have to change over time, which would inherently mean fewer projects over time). I'm thinking something like this would mean sustained, continued growth, continued momentum, and more rigid planning, oversight, etc.  

Am I dreaming? Or being unrealistic?  I will disclaim that I know nothing about the practicalities of my suggestion from a city government perspective... I just feel like there's a gap between each maps project that slows momentum and a ton of strife at the time while projects for the ballot are being debated, plus all this trouble of project priorities, oversight, and lack of O&M funds, etc. So if there is to be a future MAPS vote, can we make it somewhat bullet proof? Design our ideal "MAPS of the Future"...

----------


## Urban Pioneer

The absence of our Planning Director, Russell Claus, durring the formation of projects and the ongoing implementation of the projects, is the biggest problem with the MAPS program.

We have under-qualified engineers making major planning and architectural decisions.

That is the fundamental problem with MAPS.

Fortunately for the streetcar/transit committee, we hired the most qualified subcontractor consultants, to make up the difference.

----------


## CaptDave

> The absence of our Planning Director, Russell Claus, durring the formation of projects and the ongoing implementation of the projects, is the biggest problem with the MAPS program.
> 
> We have under-qualified engineers making major planning and architectural decisions.
> 
> That is the fundamental problem with MAPS.
> 
> Fortunately for the streetcar/transit committee, we hired the most qualified subcontractor consultants, to make up the difference.


So, for example, our Planning Director has had little or no input in the convention center location/design? I wonder then, who is making these critical decisions and what are their qualifications? 

This sounds like something Mr Lackmeyer should be looking into and writing stories about instead of making questionable insinuations.

----------


## catch22

> So, for example, our Planning Director has had little or no input in the convention center location/design? I wonder then, who is making these critical decisions and what are their qualifications? 
> 
> This sounds like something Mr Lackmeyer should be looking into and writing stories about instead of making questionable insinuations.


Controversy sells. Stories about the planning department's (lack of) involvement wouldn't sell nearly as many newspapers and web clicks.

----------


## HangryHippo

> So, for example, our Planning Director has had little or no input in the convention center location/design? I wonder then, who is making these critical decisions and what are their qualifications? 
> 
> This sounds like something Mr Lackmeyer should be looking into and writing stories about instead of making questionable insinuations.


I don't know about the questionable insinuations part, but I'd be very keen to learn why the planning director isn't being included...  What the hell kind of sense does that make?

----------


## catch22

> "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."  -Abraham Lincoln


You are correct Sid. I offer my sincere apologies to Steve, I got flustered in an argument in another thread and spoke out of emotion.

----------


## CaptDave

Convention center reflects challenges of Oklahoma City's MAPS 3 | News OK

In light of my earlier post, I nearly fell out of my chair when I saw this. I don't think many people have a problem with asking questions about any of the MAPS3 projects as long as it is focused on how to best implement the resolution (non-binding though it may be) and most efficiently build the designated projects. 

If a serious effort to redirect funds away from those specific projects is ever undertaken, there needs to be very clear justification and compelling reasons publicly explained before proceeding down that path. This also includes redistributing MAPS tax revenue within the designated projects. As of now, I have yet to hear anyone offer any reasonable justification for doing so IMO. 

For the good ideas that were not included in this round, I say make MAPS 3 the best it can be and work hard to get those ideas included in MAPS4. But do so within the spirit of cooperation that has generally been associated with the MAPS program for as long as I personally have been observing. I think this is the best way to build consensus and keep the discussions constructive.

----------


## Praedura

April 2013 update:



Source: MAPS 3 Project Updates

----------


## Praedura

I'd like to see the "MAPS 3 sidewalks master plan".

I'd also like to see the design sketches for the Fairgrounds Expo Center.

Also, for the CC, it says "land acquisition is being planned".
Shouldn't that be "land acquisition is underway"?

----------


## Larry OKC

*Praedura*: if not mistaken the Oklahoman printed the Sidewalks Master Plan map. if not there, am fairly certain it is floating around OKCTalk someplace.

There were early renderings during the campaign for the Fairgrounds

----------


## warreng88

Here is a link to the State Fairgrounds improvements:

City of Oklahoma City | Public Information & Marketing

----------


## Praedura

Tiny little milestone for MAPS 3

MAPS 3 lights up the Oklahoma River

As in, this is the first official part of MAPS 3 to be completed.




> The Oklahoma River will become the worlds first permanently lighted racecourse when the lights
> are illuminated during a MAPS 3 River Lighting Ceremony at 8:45 p.m. on June 29.
> 
> This marks the first large-scale MAPS 3 project to be completed.
> 
> The ceremony will take place during the second annual SandRidge Energy Stars and Stripes River Festival
> and is open to the public.

----------


## Praedura

Also, there's an update on the trails portion of the project:

OKC Trails System: Construction Update

The West River Trail (new trail on the north side of the river) set to begin construction this fall.

----------


## BoulderSooner

also in the agenda for this week  the city is going into negations with the first 2 possible wellness center partners 

city county health .. 

and a non profit connected to FBC putnam city

----------


## shawnw

I saw a report on this same story last night on TV news...

OKC considers paying $5.4 million for 2 police helicopters | The Journal Record

...anyway, my question is, on the news report they said we're funding these helicopters at least partially out of MAPS 3 money.  Huh?  Can someone please explain?

----------


## warreng88

> I saw a report on this same story last night on TV news...
> 
> OKC considers paying $5.4 million for 2 police helicopters | The Journal Record
> 
> ...anyway, my question is, on the news report they said we're funding these helicopters at least partially out of MAPS 3 money.  Huh?  Can someone please explain?


Possibly with the Use Tax?

----------


## shawnw

> Possibly with the Use Tax?


Yes, I forgot that detail, they did specify use tax, but I don't understand how that works.

----------


## Pete

Cool!

OKC will be officially big-time when we have the ghetto birds flying overhead!   :Wink:

----------


## Urbanized

Actually these would be replacing the ones we already have (they are over my neighborhood nearly every night). I guess we're ALREADY big-time!

----------


## warreng88

> Yes, I forgot that detail, they did specify use tax, but I don't understand how that works.


Here you go:

Every state with a sales tax has a companion tax for purchases made outside the state. In Oklahoma, that tax is called "use tax". If you have purchased items for use in Oklahoma from retailers who do not collect Oklahoma sales tax, you owe Oklahoma use tax on those items. Use tax is paid by the buyer when the Oklahoma sales tax has not been collected by the seller. Individuals in Oklahoma are responsible for paying use tax on their out-of-state purchases. 

Hope this helps.

----------


## shawnw

I understand Use Tax from a tax return perspective, but I don't understand the combination... "Maps 3 Use Tax"

----------


## warreng88

> I understand Use Tax from a tax return perspective, but I don't understand the combination... "Maps 3 Use Tax"


I believe it is just the use tax from the same time period as the Maps 3 sales tax runs. $60 million was raised in use tax when Maps for Kids was running.

----------


## shawnw

Okay, so not part of the original $777M?

----------


## warreng88

> Okay, so not part of the original $777M?


Correct. A seperate tax altogether. The MAPS3 tax pulls in the sales tax from within the metro area. The Use tax is a tax on items purchased outside of the state for use in Oklahoma from retailers who do not collect a sales tax in Oklahoma.

----------


## shawnw

Makes sense, just super confused about why the news station would put them together like that.

----------


## warreng88

> Makes sense, just super confused about why the news station would put them together like that.


I understand. It is confusing to me too. Again, I think it is just to show the tax would only be collected during the MAPS3 collection period.

----------


## LakeEffect

> Cool!
> 
> OKC will be officially big-time when we have the ghetto birds flying overhead!


We've had two MD 500Es for a long while now. I love their sound - very unique and maneuverable. However, they can only be used for surveillance/pursuit type activities. I'm not a fan of the look of the Eurocopters, but I do like their capability, which includes the ability to begin doing water drops for wildfires. If OKC starts doing that, it could speed up response times during wildfire season. I also see that they note small rescues, another big help in times of need.

When we were planning the 2007 GOB, I remember Police coming in and giving a presentation on their needs. Even back then, they were aware that the two existing birds would need to be replaced in the near future.

----------


## bradh

> Cool!
> 
> OKC will be officially big-time when we have the ghetto birds flying overhead!


We already have one, or is that operated by the county?

And thumbs up to the use of the word "ghetto bird."  I say that all the time in reference to police choppers and always get strange looks.

----------


## CuatrodeMayo

Here is a particularly well-written piece from News 9:




> OKLAHOMA CITY - Oklahoma City Police are getting two brand new state of the art helicopters. The aircraft will replace the two current helicopters which are to cost the department a lot money in repairs.
> 
> The new helicopters will allow officers to perform more tactical operations and even repel out of the aircraft.
> 
> A basket can be attached, so the $3 million helicopter can assist with a fire, or air rescue.   
> 
> Current aircraft can't be either.
> 
> The current fleet started to cost the department a lot of money in repairs, according to the Chief.
> ...

----------


## HangryHippo

> Here is a particularly well-written piece from News 9:


HA!  Just wonderful editing!

----------


## bradh

Dear God, was that written by a 6th grader?

----------


## warreng88

> Dear God, was that written by a 6th grader?


Probably not, but I read it in a 6th grade voice... Try it.

----------


## LakeEffect

> We already have one, or is that operated by the county?
> 
> And thumbs up to the use of the word "ghetto bird."  I say that all the time in reference to police choppers and always get strange looks.


We have two (as referenced by others and myself). The county does not have one of their own. OHP has one Bell Jet Ranger with hoisting capability (that I know of) and a few fixed-wing aircraft. National Guard helicopters are used for firefighting currently. It'll be nice to be able to not have to wait for their response, or to add to it.

----------


## bradh

So these new OKCPD choppers will have capabilities to have water buckets/bags/scoops (whatever the official term is) for fighting wildfires?  That is very cool if true.

----------


## LakeEffect

> So these new OKCPD choppers will have capabilities to have water buckets/bags/scoops (whatever the official term is) for fighting wildfires?  That is very cool if true.


According to the City Council memo, yes.

----------


## catch22

Maybe they can fly some water up to Canton?

----------


## shawnw

From the City home page:




Really surprised me to see that the zoo gets a fraction of every sale permanently. That's a good thing. But if we can do this, there's no reason we can't do a permanent fractional-cent transit tax.

----------


## LakeEffect

> From the City home page:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really surprised me to see that the zoo gets a fraction of every sale permanently. That's a good thing. But if we can do this, there's no reason we can't do a permanent fractional-cent transit tax.


Uh oh, you just dug up a can of worms.  :Smile:  

Oklahoma City councilman questions dedicated zoo funding | News OK "Oklahoma City councilman questions dedicated zoo funding"

Redirecting Oklahoma City Zoo tax revenue not a good idea | News OK "Redirecting Oklahoma City Zoo tax revenue not a good idea"

----------


## shawnw

Thanks for that, not sure how I missed it before. When I saw that movie it immediately brought to mind the MAPS4/Transit/RTA funding debate.

----------


## Laramie

Why not make the MAPS sales tax a permanent tax and then decide on which capital projects the city should undertake?

The Zoo has been enjoying their 1/8 cent sales tax for years and we should keep that like it is and decide on a MAPS permanent tax which could be used for city capital improvements separate from a bond funded capital improvement projects.

As far as deciding piece meal sales tax for various projects; we need to look at the overall picture.

Here are some 'brainstorming' items the city will probably be considering in the future:

1.  Expand Bricktown canal.
2.  Expand Rapid Transit Commuter Rail.
3.  Replace and/or renovate Cox Convention Center/Chesapeake Energy Arena.
4.  City Football Stadium:  Retractable roof, domed, open air, 25,000-seats, 50,000-seats 75,000-seats
5.  Incentive money to attract businesses/hotels etc.
6.  Continuous upgrades/improvements at Fair Park.
7.  Continuous upgrades/improvements to the Riverfront.
8.  Continuous upgrades/improvements to City schools.
9.  More iconic structures which landmark our city like the Skydance Bridge.
10.  Bricktown Ballpark:  Upgrades, improvements.

These are just a few ideas and I'm sure we could use a whole thread dedicated to a *MAPS for Futures*.

Are we planning for our city's future?

----------


## shawnw

I've long thought MAPS should be a permanent 1-cent (but it could even be a 7/8s-cent tax so that combined with the zoo it's a cent) with repeal votes every 5-years, managed by a "MAPS commission" that selected the "next 5" projects to be worked as funds became available, where the project candidates were submitted to the commission by council members via feedback from their wards. If we ever have another MAPS vote, it should be to make it permanent with periodic repeal votes.

----------


## CaptDave

> I've long thought MAPS should be a permanent 1-cent (but it could even be a 7/8s-cent tax so that combined with the zoo it's a cent) with repeal votes every 5-years, managed by a "MAPS commission" that selected the "next 5" projects to be worked as funds became available, where the project candidates were submitted to the commission by council members via feedback from their wards. If we ever have another MAPS vote, it should be to make it permanent with periodic repeal votes.


That is a very interesting proposition Shawn and worthy of consideration. But I can only imagine the histrionics of the usual suspects should it ever be implemented. To use a Shadidism, transparency in the processes would have to be paramount; and results would need to be obvious to sustain the willingness of the voters to continue their support. The main issue I see is making the selected projects "immune" from selective targeting as the people on the City Council change over time. It would work with 6 of the 9 people we have now because they are willing to work together to achieve consensus - but if the attitudes often displayed by the other three ever become dominant, the program would end at the next repeal vote for sure.

----------


## OKVision4U

> I've long thought MAPS should be a permanent 1-cent (but it could even be a 7/8s-cent tax so that combined with the zoo it's a cent) with repeal votes every 5-years, managed by a "MAPS commission" that selected the "next 5" projects to be worked as funds became available, where the project candidates were submitted to the commission by council members via feedback from their wards. If we ever have another MAPS vote, it should be to make it permanent with periodic repeal votes.


Wow... in theory, it works.  BUT, the more hands that touch this process, the greater the % of failure.  Lets keep it like it is for the next few initiatives.

----------


## Laramie

Let's go back to the original MAPS projects which passed in 1993.  

Mayor Ron Norrick took this behind closed doors; he knew that the more hands and people you had scrutinizing the projects the less likely you were to get anything done.  Keeping this *closed* to the media was another key element.  

Let's forget about the Zoo for now and grandfather in that 1/8 penny sales tax.  

The question becomes one of making the MAPS a permanent one cent sales tax with periodic checks and/or benchmarks in place every five to seven years where we evaluate where we are and where we want to go.

The committee would mirror that of the original members of the 1993 group.

Members of a MAPS committee would need to have their terms staggered so that we keep a host of veterans and rookie members together at all times.

----------


## kevinpate

Trying to take the MAPs tax permanent, with scheduled reviews to cancel it, is probably the second fastest way to sour folks on the entire process.
Many already view it as semi permanent. Though it has been allowed to expire before, it's certainly been in place many more months than not since MAPs was first birthed.

Today, the people know if things do not go well, they are not stuck long term. The politicos know well, the funds are finite. Turning that on its head could create a scenario where politicos say ah, they may kill it after this, but let's build something X wants before they do.

----------


## Plutonic Panda



----------


## ou48A

There is going to come a point where the various maps projects will need significant and costly maintenance.
At some point there will be an end to what can be responsibly built and maintained.

Commuter rail should be on the next maps vote and packaged with other needed projects.
OKC schools still need a lot of improvemnts.

----------


## Snowman

> There is going to come a point where the various maps projects will need significant and costly maintenance.
> At some point there will be an end to what can be responsibly built and maintained.
> 
> Commuter rail should be on the next maps vote and packaged with other needed projects.
> OKC schools still need a lot of improvemnts.


If I remember right they were bending the rules as it was to even do MAPS for kids, the funding for the other issues of the schools may have to go through a different funding mechanism.

----------


## Jchaser405

Would a "MAPS for transportation' be a good idea? Unfortunately, I could foresee majority of the funds being focused on expanding highways and improving sprawl roads rather than HSR and other forms of public trans.

----------


## warreng88

> Would a "MAPS for transportation' be a good idea? Unfortunately, I could foresee majority of the funds being focused on expanding highways and improving sprawl roads rather than HSR and other forms of public trans.


I think that has been the consensus on the board for MAPS IV. More streetcar, buses, bike lanes, side walks. Some people have mentioned an RTA (Regional Transit Authority) as more of a county-wide tax for rail (commuter, light, high-speed, whatever you want to call it) and other transit option that would help out the whole county, not just OKC. 

There was $835.5 million GO bond in 2007 that was a 10 year bond and that will come due around the same time as another MAPS tax would start. So, instead of asking people to pay $500 million for street repairs in OKC as part of MAPS, it could be worked into the next bond issue and those be kept seperate.

----------


## Tier2City

Who is Excited About the Future Core to Shore Park? | News OK

----------


## Steve

Read the whole post folks....

----------


## Dustin

Our park is gonna suck compared to Tulsa's...  lol

----------


## Mississippi Blues

> Our park is gonna suck compared to Tulsa's...  lol


Really, really suck compared to Tulsa's. Ours is just going to be a huge Myriad Gardens, which the Gardens aren't bad, we just had an amazing chance to build something spectacular & we end up with a large version of something we already have.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

Wow, I guess I just see these two parks completely differently here. Tulsa's park will be in more of natural setting. Tulsa's park looks bad ass and there is nothing to say we couldn't get something built like that in the future maybe around the AICCM. The central park is going to be placed in downtown surrounded by mid and high-rises. What am I missing here? Are we doubting development is going to happen?

This park looks fine. Tulsa's park looks like a park that will be an attraction and our park looks like something that will resemble a scaled down NYC Central Park. Our park is something bigger cities would seem to build for their residents and not necessarily trying to attack horde of tourist like the one in Tulsa probably will. Anyhow, both parks will be cool. I really fail to see what all of the fuss is about.

----------


## betts

> Really, really suck compared to Tulsa's. Ours is just going to be a huge Myriad Gardens, which the Gardens aren't bad, we just had an amazing chance to build something spectacular & we end up with a large version of something we already have.


I don't think it's going to be at all like the Myriad Gardens.  The design is a little pedestrian, but all I really wanted was grass, trees and trails.  I didn't want a really weirdly shaped lake, but it looks the rest is about what I'd hoped.  The less programming, the better, as far as I'm concerned.

----------


## Snowman

My biggest concern is it almost looks like in some of the renderings the hardscaping looks like they are ignoring the possibility that anyone might be coming from the local streets adjacent to the park, which seems totally backwards if you are trying to entice medium to high density buildings to be constructed on the edges.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> I don't think it's going to be at all like the Myriad Gardens.  The design is a little pedestrian, but all I really wanted was grass, trees and trails.  I didn't want a really weirdly shaped lake, but it looks the rest is about what I'd hoped.  The less programming, the better, as far as I'm concerned.


Agreed. This looks like a park that will be great for families living next to it and being able to just walk around, enjoy life, watch the kids chase each other(if you're a mom and/or dad), feed the birds while sitting on a bench(if you're an elderly lady), etc. This will be a great park I think and will become an awesome addition to downtown. The Myriad serves an entirely different purpose.

----------


## dankrutka

> Agreed. This looks like a park that will be great for families living next to it and being able to just walk around, enjoy life, watch the kids chase each other(if you're a mom and/or dad), feed the birds while sitting on a bench(if you're an elderly lady), etc. This will be a great park I think and will become an awesome addition to downtown. The Myriad serves an entirely different purpose.


Every reason you just described could be considered a reason why people go to the Myriad Gardens. Maybe the MAPs 3 park is different, but it's certainly not _entirely different_.

----------


## Mississippi Blues

> The Myriad serves an entirely different purpose.


Not trying to be argumentative, but what's the entirely different purpose that the Myriad Gardens serve? When I go to the Myriad Gardens, it's to walk around, enjoy life, if I had kids, I would take them there -- I know I would because I've thought to myself "If I had kids, I would bring them here" lol -- , I enjoy feeding the fish / ducks. Your points are great, so I'm not trying to take that away, I just thought the Myriad Gardens served the purpose that you listed our new park as having.

----------


## betts

The Myriad Gardens is a series of outdoor "rooms" to me.  When you walk from area to area, it changes fairly dramatically.  It reminds me of a more contemporary version of an English garden.  The different rooms make you look around, pay attention, observe the differences.  If you have a large park with long swathes of green, very little changes.  To traverse the park, you go for a stroll.  It's a very relaxing exercise where you can basically chill out.  It's more like being out in nature.  On great big lawns, you see people sleeping, reading, playing frisbee.  It's very social, and yet you don't really have to interact. I see the two parks as very different and appealing for different reasons. But, for me, the big green space with trees, paths and not a lot else is what I'm looking for on a sunny afternoon when the temperature is perfect.

----------


## Mississippi Blues

> The Myriad Gardens is a series of outdoor "rooms" to me.  When you walk from area to area, it changes fairly dramatically.  It reminds me of a more contemporary version of an English garden.  The different rooms make you look around, pay attention, observe the differences.  If you have a large park with long swathes of green, very little changes.  To traverse the park, you go for a stroll.  It's a very relaxing exercise where you can basically chill out.  It's more like being out in nature.  On great big lawns, you see people sleeping, reading, playing frisbee.  It's very social, and yet you don't really have to interact. I see the two parks as very different and appealing for different reasons. But, for me, the big green space with trees, paths and not a lot else is what I'm looking for on a sunny afternoon when the temperature is perfect.


I know it's just a matter of personal opinion & what you're saying makes complete sense to me. I suppose it's because I go specifically to just sit, chill out, breathe in the fresh air & if they're out, it's always fun to watch the people working out in the open lawn area, in a non-creepy way. The Myriad Gardens is like a place of rest, peace, & restoration in the middle of the heart beat of our city. I'm hoping that's what the new park will be like, but on a much larger scale.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Not trying to be argumentative, but what's the entirely different purpose that the Myriad Gardens serve? When I go to the Myriad Gardens, it's to walk around, enjoy life, if I had kids, I would take them there -- I know I would because I've thought to myself "If I had kids, I would bring them here" lol -- , I enjoy feeding the fish / ducks. Your points are great, so I'm not trying to take that away, I just thought the Myriad Gardens served the purpose that you listed our new park as having.


naw I completely understand where you're coming from man. Luckily Betts responded before me because I have trouble putting thoughts into words sometimes.

But what I was trying to say what pretty much what Betts said. To me, the Myriad Gardens seems more like a showcase type area where you go to have a "tourist" kind of experience with the Botanical atrium, thunder fountain, restaurant etc. and is something people will plan to see.

The new Central Park is more of a "hey family, you want to spend the evening playing in the park tonight" or perhaps having your kids if they can go play with their friends in the park while you're cooking dinner or whatever a few stories above, or perhaps just sitting around your home bored and you decide to just take stroll out in the park or go lay down in the grass and take a nap(that might be weird here in Oklahoma but people in bigger cities do it all the time) or just decide to go for a late night jog at the last second before you goto bed.

I will still likely go to the Myriad Gardens more though. I usually visit there like 3-4 times a month. I love that place.

It will be so exciting to have this new park though with an amazing urban district around it. Hopefully it isn't ruined by the new boulevard. Can't wait for all this stuff to be built though. I find myself going downtown more and more. Especially with Native Roots, I've been shopping there a bunch! All the more reason to go I guess. 

Anyhow, I totally get what you're saying though. Hopefully we get some cool park like Tulsa's along our river someday. I just think this park should be more like NYC's Central Park. Just matter of preference I suppose though. That's what makes new things better is public input though  :Smile:

----------


## ljbab728

> I just think this park should be more like NYC's Central Park. Just matter of preference I suppose though. That's what makes new things better is public input though


True, plupan, because Central Park in New York is more about people just having a nice green area to relax than having a multitude of activities to engage in.

----------


## Mississippi Blues

> naw I completely understand where you're coming from man. Luckily Betts responded before me because I have trouble putting thoughts into words sometimes.
> 
> But what I was trying to say what pretty much what Betts said. To me, the Myriad Gardens seems more like a showcase type area where you go to have a "tourist" kind of experience with the Botanical atrium, thunder fountain, restaurant etc. and is something people will plan to see.
> 
> The new Central Park is more of a "hey family, you want to spend the evening playing in the park tonight" or perhaps having your kids if they can go play with their friends in the park while you're cooking dinner or whatever a few stories above, or perhaps just sitting around your home bored and you decide to just take stroll out in the park or go lay down in the grass and take a nap(that might be weird here in Oklahoma but people in bigger cities do it all the time) or just decide to go for a late night jog at the last second before you goto bed.
> 
> I will still likely go to the Myriad Gardens more though. I usually visit there like 3-4 times a month. I love that place.
> 
> It will be so exciting to have this new park though with an amazing urban district around it. Hopefully it isn't ruined by the new boulevard. Can't wait for all this stuff to be built though. I find myself going downtown more and more. Especially with Native Roots, I've been shopping there a bunch! All the more reason to go I guess. 
> ...


As with betts post, I see where you are coming from. I never saw it as a showcase / outdoor room because I've always went there to relax & I don't really walk around a ton unless I'm arriving / leaving. I didn't expect everyone to see the botanical gardens the way I did, but I just never really considered the different opinions others might have of it, but now that you guys have gone into detail about what you see the Myriad Gardens as versus the expected setting of our new park compared to other large parks -- the only large park in the middle of a city I've been to is the Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta, which is more of a dedication space but also has the park elements you & betts mention -- & it makes complete sense to me. 

I never disliked our future park, I've been excited for it since I first heard about it, I just never really considered the differing setting that betts, ljbab728, & yourself have mentioned & now I "see the light" so to speak. It will definitely be a spot many others & myself will visit fairly regularly, I just never considered the "NYC central park, family setting, stroll in the park, get away from life" type setting you all speak of.

----------


## Paseofreak

Maybe it's just the rendering style, but despite it's large size, The Gathering Place looks far more welcoming and intimate to me.  Like a long string of differing spaces.  Perhaps that's the influence of the river.  I also really like the boardwalks over the pond in Moore's Central Park.  And for what it's worth, it seems that each set of renderings from Hargreaves has shown less and less of interest to me.  I'm quite underwhelmed for $132MM.  I understand the concept of limiting programming to keep O&M cost manageable, but the Tulsa design seems to do a much better job of creating separate beautiful spaces with trees and rocks and water.

----------


## betts

Remember though, you're looking at the parks from a different perspective.  The Tulsa pictures are an artists' rendering of what it would look like walking through the park, while you're looking at a landscape architecture design with the OKC park.  They can make an artists' rendering as pretty as they want.  Also, lets be honest, Tulsa's climate is much more vegetation and water feature friendly than ours.  I think ours will be fine.  We can add features later if we want them.  I don't think our design is groundbreaking (sorry about the pun!), but I think it will still be a nice park.

----------


## Paseofreak

I hear what you're saying, but accounting for a duplicate image, four of the images Steve presented are from a ground level perspective.  As I said, maybe it's just rendering style, but I think I'll take the image presented in the Tulsa renderings every time, and I think the strangely unnatural shape of our water feature might be off-putting to me as well.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

Steve's update on the Maps Legacy

MAPS 20th Anniversary | News OK

----------


## ljbab728

Continuing good news for Maps 3 viability.

Oklahoma City update: MAPS 3 tax collections ahead of projections | NewsOK.com




> MAPS 3 tax collections are running 6 percent ahead of projections.

----------


## David

Also from that link:




> o The city council on Tuesday will get an update on plans for a hotel to be built adjacent to the MAPS 3 convention center.
> o A MAPS 3 construction outline for the next five years also is on the agenda for Tuesdays council meeting.


Sounds like today's Council meeting may be fairly interesting. They usually stream the meetings online on the city's YouTube channel, so hopefully I'll have time to tune in.

----------


## David

Said stream, if anyone is interested. I tuned in late, though, so I don't know if the MAPS 3 update is already out of the way. They are currently discussing the rideshare ordinance.

----------


## ljbab728

An update by Bill Crum on what the city council will be looking at from the various advisory committee recommendations.

Oklahoma City Council to review advisory committees' recommendations on latest MAPS 3 projects developments | Oklahoman.com

----------


## ljbab728

http://www.okc.gov/news/2015_06/MAPS...ee_events.html




> MAPS 3 West River Trail to open June 27 with inaugural bike rides and free events
> 
> (June 11, 2015) - The community is invited to celebrate the opening of Oklahoma Citys new West River Trail with bike rides and a free family festival from 9 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Saturday, June 27.

----------


## soonergooner

Is the west trail actually open all the way to downtown?  I heard a bit of grumbling it was still not connected to the river.

----------


## OKCinsomniac

I rode it from Regatta Park to Overholser Monday night and connected via the south river trail without too much difficulty. The south river trail ends behind the chinese buffet on SW 15th and Meridian; you just hop down into their parking lot and then go back north across the bridge to get on the west river trail.

There were a few places where more work is needed (one section lacked the top asphalt layer, a little more signage, etc.) but overall it was a nice ride!

I will say next time I will be spraying myself down with DEET. It was a little more like the "west nile river trail" with all the mosquito action.

----------


## ljbab728

An update in William Crum's interview with Tom McDaniel.

NewsOK Videos | MAPS 3 has ground to make up

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/544...o%20consultant

----------


## AP

My only question is, the say they are 6% ahead in sales tax so if they stay on that pace, what are they doing with the extra almost 50 million?

----------


## LakeEffect

> My only question is, the say they are 6% ahead in sales tax so if they stay on that pace, what are they doing with the extra almost 50 million?


I don't think they'd plan on spending it until the final project... because sales tax collections for the coming year or two might end up lower than expected. It would be prudent to wait and then expend it on sidewalks or trails or some other community amenity.

----------


## AP

I agree. I just didn't know if they hit their projections early if they would end the tax or just continue until the end of the collection period.

----------


## LakeEffect

> I agree. I just didn't know if they hit their projections early if they would end the tax or just continue until the end of the collection period.


In the past ones, they've always continued to the end. I'm not sure they could even suspend collection early since it as a voter-approved tax.

----------


## AP

Yeah, that makes sense. In the past have the over collected and just come up with a smaller project at the end?

----------


## Bellaboo

> Yeah, that makes sense. In the past have the over collected and just come up with a smaller project at the end?


Not sure about over collecting, but the MAPS with the arena had to have an extension to fund it, IIRC. It seems like they added a 6 month extension....

----------


## Pete

Great video showing a fly-over of the new west river trail:

----------


## 5alive

Where are some of the access points to this trail?

----------


## Pete

http://www.okc.gov/trails/documents/...rTrail_Map.pdf

----------


## OKCinsomniac

I've ridden the West River Trail a few times now; I like it a lot. It is almost eerie in certain places because you get the feeling that you're way out in the middle of the woods somewhere.

----------


## Pete

I need to dust off my bike and ride it as well.

I can easily jump on the OK River trail from where I live and ride all the way up to Lake Hefner.

----------


## CCOKC

I have walked the entire trail a few times and I really like it. There was a lot of thought put into this trail and look forward to seeing the other MAPS 3 trails projects. You can tell there was pent up demand from the bicycling community because it was used before it was even completely finished. Probably my second favorite trail after the part of the trail between Meridian and the Boathouse district.

----------


## Pete

The main thing for the biking community is you can now get in some decent distance on a dedicated bike lane, all the way from the east of the river trail up to and around Lake Hefner.

They will also be connection Lake Hefner to points south with a dedicated bike trail along I-44.

Normally I don't care that much for dedicated trails but in OKC there are almost zero dedicated bike lines and people here are no used to having cyclists on the road with them.  Truthfully, I don't think I would ride alone apart from the dedicated trails and I used to do 80% of my rides alone.

----------


## Mr. Cotter

What is the timeline on the I-44 trail? I can't find the project map on the city's website anymore.

----------


## LocoAko

> I've ridden the West River Trail a few times now; I like it a lot. It is almost eerie in certain places because you get the feeling that you're way out in the middle of the woods somewhere.


Definitely. The only time I've ever ridden it was at the grand opening, but at one point I saw a buffalo behind a fence. I had no idea that was even legal (perhaps it isn't?).

----------


## Pete

> What is the timeline on the I-44 trail? I can't find the project map on the city's website anymore.


They are supposed to start construction soon and be finished near the end of the year.

----------


## Pete

Here is the map for the northern portion of the I-44 trail; looking for the southern portion but it goes all the way down to the OK River:

----------


## Mr. Cotter

This is the MAPs project that will honestly have the greatest impact on my personally.  I love to bike, but getting to a trail I can enjoy without dodging cars is not easy now.  Once this I-44 portion is complete, I'll be able to safely ride from my house at about NW 30th and May all the way to both lakes and the river.  I'd rather have safe bike lanes on the street grid, but for just exercise and recreation, this is excellent.

----------


## Pete

^

Agree completely.

Can't wait for it to be finished.

----------


## OKCinsomniac

> Definitely. The only time I've ever ridden it was at the grand opening, but at one point I saw a buffalo behind a fence. I had no idea that was even legal (perhaps it isn't?).


Yeah! I swear I saw a deer in the same pen along with that buffalo a couple times. Not sure what's going on there (I could have been hallucinating due to exertion?).

----------


## CCOKC

No hallucination there.  I have a friend that bikes all of the major trails every Saturday.  The tricky part is the Katy trail that turns into a sidewalk coming into downtown or the Grand trail from the Dell campus to the park at South 29th which is just the street with no sidewalk.  I hope the I44 isn't a glorified sidewalk on that northern section. I was out of town last year and missed the presentation the city did. Did anyone here go?

----------


## shawnw

I went to a BikeWalkOKC meeting and griped at the planners about things like the sidewalk being part of the trail in that one little stretch, among many other things...

----------


## ljbab728

> Here is the map for the northern portion of the I-44 trail; looking for the southern portion but it goes all the way down to the OK River:


I'm not a biker but I will enjoy the northern part of that along Meridian and 63rd.  That's about a block from where I live and there are no sidewalks at all in that area along those streets.

----------


## zookeeper

> *I'd rather have safe bike lanes on the street grid*, but for just exercise and recreation, this is excellent.


Interesting comment. Maybe this is different than what I thought. What exactly is this trail (in this I-44 part) if not dedicated bike lanes? Are the trails running near the I-44 corridor going to be actual off-street trails like the others?

One other quick question. Looking at the route map that Pete posted, I'm curious if the Northwest Expressway and Meridian intersection will be some kind of fly-over? 

Great video Pete in #579.

----------


## Mr. Cotter

There is a difference between bike trails that are used for recreational cycling, and bike lanes that are used for transportation.  The trails we're building are great if you just want to ride, but if you'd like to use your bike to get somewhere that otherwise requires a car, we need to integrate bike lanes into the streets.

----------


## warreng88

Fifth senior wellness center considered

MAPS 3 has extra money

By: Sarah Terry-Cobo  The Journal Record	December 14, 2016

OKLAHOMA CITY – A MAPS 3 overage could be a boon for seniors.

Most MAPS 3 subcommittee members are in favor of considering a fifth senior wellness center in Oklahoma City. Committee member Terri Watkins said she wasn’t yet convinced adding a fifth wellness center should be a priority.

The Metropolitan Area Projects 3 senior health and wellness center subcommittee discussed on Wednesday a measure to support adding another facility. Residents aged 50 and older need access to reasonably priced fitness facilities. Another wellness center could improve the health of the city’s aging population.

Subcommittee chairman Mike Dover said his group is not asking for money yet, and they haven’t yet decided on a location or a contractor to run another center. If there is broad support for another senior wellness center, then his subcommittee would examine the best place to put it, he said.

Subcommittee member Sam Bowman said if voters responding to polls supported trails, sidewalks and wellness centers, then the committee should consider supporting another wellness center.

Watkins voted against the resolution, but she said she isn’t necessarily opposed to a fifth center. She said the city needs wellness centers because those facilities are vitally important to improve Oklahoma City residents’ health. Better health outcomes will improve the local economy, she said.

“I’m not there yet on whether a fifth wellness center is a priority above sidewalks,” Watkins said, “when I see people walking in the streets in neighborhoods and I know the economic impact of a park.”

She said it’s too soon to determine the best priority, because the city needs more sidewalks.

MAPS program manager David Todd said early discussions of MAPS 3 projects included four or five senior wellness centers.

Dover said the resolution provides a signal to the City Council that if there is surplus money after the convention center and the downtown Central Park projects have received bids, subcommittee members have suggestions on how to spend it. Members passed a resolution Wednesday to recommend consideration of an additional wellness center to the MAPS advisory board. If the advisory board approves the recommendation, then it will send a report to the City Council identifying the interest.

The project is contingent on excess revenues generated from MAPS 3’s 1-cent sales tax, Todd said. The first senior wellness center is nearing completion and is slated to open in February 2017. It cost about $9.6 million. Each of the four approved centers are slightly different, but should provide similar services, Todd said.

----------


## shawnw

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottbey.../#5f4380054783




> With pending completion of MAPS 3, locals are already weighing the possibility of a 4th MAPS. If that's approved, it will, said Williams, arrive within a different context than the previous three. The initial point of the program was to bring the city through tough times. Now Oklahoma City is an emerging global city that's competing for companies and workers with nearby rivals like Houston and Dallas. This means, he said, that the nature of the investments must be more targeted.


Article is about MAPs in general. Interesting mention of MAPs 4 though....

----------


## Pete

^

That's all code for the Chamber and powers that be wanting to make a big push in the Innovation District and provide more corporate incentives.

----------


## shawnw

I see

----------


## Spartan

> ^
> 
> That's all code for the Chamber and powers that be wanting to make a big push in the Innovation District and provide more corporate incentives.


Amazing.

We started doing MAPS bc our piles of incentive dollars weren't cutting it. At least when we did that, it was for AA, which would have heavily diversified our economy.

These people are cognitively and philosophically bankrupt if they want to incorporate any amount of incentives in MAPS 4. Yet there isn't any money for place-based improvements like the 235 cap, they just want a war chest for cash incentives.

I will oppose the entire ballot if they go that route.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

I think that there is a fair amount of naivety by some of the establishment with regard to how much the electorate may have changed and what may or may not motivate it to support initiatives.

----------


## Spartan

Well if this is true, and I don't want to assume, but if it is, then they want to masquerade the fundamental opposite of MAPS as the next MAPS.

In 1993, we arrived at MAPS by realizing the folly of trying to incentivize companies to come with cash.

I also think we are done with the days of this being a non-binding resolution. This has evaded accountability, and if they keep it up to further their own narrow interests, they are going to face a bloody renewal battle. It's unfortunate bc the Trump years will likely see a fire hose of federal matching funds and innovative tax credit schemes that could further what we did in MAPS 4 if we stay true to building things for quality of life and economic development, instead of just writing fat checks.

Also note how many of these "incentives" have gone to oil companies, which has clearly worked out great toward economic diversification.

I just increasingly don't see a future for MAPS until Jim Couch retires and goes back to North Dakota.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

> In 1993, we arrived at MAPS by realizing the folly of trying to incentivize companies to come with cash.


That is a great point as it relates to MAPS and it's history. Very astute.

----------


## Spartan

That's why they could propose so many other bad ideas that would still be less stinging.

I'm not at all against incentives, really of any kind. Just not as a part of MAPS.

----------


## Laramie

Oklahoma City will need to revise & resize its MAPS project proposals if we want to continue the momentum.  We need future initiatives that will reduce the number of projects from 7-9 to 3 or 4 with no more than a 3 1/2 to 4 year collection period. 

Sales Tax collections will rebound; therefore you may see a future 'surplus' with the shorter collection periods.

----------


## Spartan

Yeah, I don't think anyone wants to get into why people voted for a Trump, especially on OKC Talk.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

Not sure where the Draper Trail thread is(I looked and couldn’t find it) but that trail is officially open.

----------


## Pete

*$40 million in excess MAPS 3 funds to be allocated*

Today, the MAPS3 Board voted to return $15 million from the convention center which will not be needed for that project.


_Historic Union Station bordering Scissortail Park_

Combined with approximately $20 million in excess sales tax collections, interest and contingency funds, plus an estimated $5 million that is likely to be returned at the completion of the convention center, the total is likely to approach $40 million.

MAPS 3 Project Manager explained that two key elements of the convention center -- the *4th Street Experience* and the *reconstruction of Robinson Avenue* between the center and Scissortail Park -- would be able to be completed and still return the nearly $20 million to the general MAPS budget.

Board Chair Tom McDaniel reported that he had previously met with Mayor David Holt and City Manager Craig Freeman and determined that city council would be the appropriate body to make decisions regarding the funds.

The Board voted to send requests from the various MAPS3 subcommittees to the mayor and council to consider.

Those requests include:
$9 million for the state fairgrounds MAPS4 coliseum project$30 million for the park subcommittee towards connecting the lower park directly to the Oklahoma River as well as an estimated $25 million needed to *renovate Union Station*$4 million to be spread between senior centers numbers 1, 3 and 4.$7.9 million to the whitewater facility for a new filtration system, zip line and improvements to meeting rooms$20 million for a trail for connecting South Oklahoma City to the river trails via the May Avenue or Portland Avenue corridors.

The total requests of approximately far exceed the estimated overage and city council will likely have additional items that will compete for funding.



_Proposed 4-person zip line over the whitewater facility_



_Proposed renovation of Union Station_

----------


## runOKC

Good news that we have some extra butter to put on our pancakes. However, is it a little concerning that the white water facility already needs a new $8mm filtration system?

----------


## Pete

Filtration, zip line, meeting rooms, other small improvements.

The filtration is to stop the water from being so brown.

----------


## PaddyShack

> Filtration, zip line, meeting rooms, other small improvements.
> 
> The filtration is to stop the water from being so brown.


I would be okay with just the filtration system... Zip Line doesn't look to be anything special

----------


## Pete

Personally, I'd like to see it all go toward Union Station then everyone else can compete for what remains.

----------


## BoulderSooner

> Personally, I'd like to see it all go toward Union Station then everyone else can compete for what remains.


i would love the full union station renovation  and then half of the budget  .. for the lower park river connection

----------


## okccowan

I'd like to see it go to Union Station and connecting the park to the River.

----------


## PaddyShack

Wait, what about a couple miles of streetcar track!

----------


## Pete

It's interesting that the fairgrounds is already asking for $9M more for the coliseum before MAPS4 has even started.

Seems like at every turn, we are pouring more money into the fairgrounds and the boathouse area.

----------


## Pete

As a reminder, the lower park will basically stop at SW 15th.

The city owns the land to the south of 15th (commonly known as Riverfront Park) but there is currently no budget to include that section and tie it into the larger park.

As of now, Riverfront Park is not much of anything apart from the existing trail that runs through it.

----------


## PaddyShack

We need someone to pony up and have the park over pass 15th, similar to the Gathering Place!

----------


## shawnw

Yeah the fairgrounds ask when we're not even executing on MAPS 4 yet is friggin annoying. What they're going to do I bet is get started with that 9M and then when the prioritization for MAPS4 spending comes up they'll say, well, now we have to be first because we already started. I'm so chapped. No lack of appreciation for the money they bring in, but damn.

But I love money going to Union and more bike trail (and south side love!). In particular, loving that the CC is turning out to be cheaper than expected. We were all worried it was going to be a $400M debacle and I'm cool with being wrong on that for what we're getting.

----------


## Pete

The southside trail would be similar to the Will Rogers Trail on the north side, from what was discussed at the meeting.

----------


## shawnw

> The southside trail would be similar to the Will Rogers Trail on the north side, from what was discussed at the meeting.


long overdue and a disappointment initially with MAPS3, not getting more south side trail expansion (I mean, yeah Draper, but...), glad for it to be rectified.

----------


## jedicurt

for me, trails should get it first. then Union station. but i'd be okay with the other way around, and have 30 go to union station and then the rest go to trails

----------


## Dob Hooligan

Personally, I think fairgrounds and boathouse district still have strong visitation potential to maximize. 

I think they should spend all the money on traffic control in and around the fairgrounds, which IMO is currently selfish, And Totally Impossible To Make Any Sense Of.

----------


## Jersey Boss

> long overdue and a disappointment initially with MAPS3, not getting more south side trail expansion (I mean, yeah Draper, but...), glad for it to be rectified.


What chaps me about Draper is they built a concrete trail around the lake for walkers, runners, and cyclists and there is no charge to use it. However on the land that the OEF leases from the Water Board on the east side of Post, the Water Board charges MTB's to pay a $25.00 annual fee to use the trails they had no part in constructing.

----------


## shawnw

whoa, had no idea. that is very chap-worthy...

----------


## ditm4567

> It's interesting that the fairgrounds is already asking for $9M more for the coliseum before MAPS4 has even started.
> 
> Seems like at every turn, we are pouring more money into the fairgrounds and the boathouse area.


Remind me again if you would, I saw a breakdown on KFOR that allocated $63 million to the "fair ground coliseum." Is that correct? I have also seen Maps4 breakdowns that state the money isn't allocated into portions yet, and is more on a first come, first serve allocation system. Could you please clarify?

----------


## Laramie

> What chaps me about Draper is they built a concrete trail around the lake for walkers, runners, and cyclists and there is no charge to use it. However on the land that the OEF leases from the Water Board on the east side of Post, the Water Board charges MTB's to pay a $25.00 annual fee to use the trails they had no part in constructing.


Good point Jersey Boss.  

Decisions like these we need to address in any MAPS and future initiatives; especially the White Water Rapid facility that was among the first MAPS 3 projects to be completed, many of us applauded this project's construction, now we're hearing about the many funding vices in operating this facility that now needs a new filtering system; they need to figure out some immediate cost cutting measures because this facility will be a future drain on any funds used to support it.  Figure something out in this off season...

----------


## Pete

> Remind me again if you would, I saw a breakdown on KFOR that allocated $63 million to the "fair ground coliseum." Is that correct? I have also seen Maps4 breakdowns that state the money isn't allocated into portions yet, and is more on a first come, first serve allocation system. Could you please clarify?


$63M is the amount that has been proposed, not counting this additional request.

The money isn't officially allocated to get around election rules, but there has been a commitment from the mayor that these budgets will be honored:

https://www.okctalk.com/content.php?...MAPS4-projects

----------


## Pete

Also interesting to note that due to an existing fairgrounds project for MAPS 3, they had the opportunity to put in a request for additional MAPS 3 funds for the coliseum which is a MAPS 4 project.

In other words, almost all the MAPS 4 project groups are not represented in MAPS 3, so they did not get the same opportunity.

For example, the soccer stadium, the animal shelter...  If we're going to open this up to MAPS 4 projects, then they all should get a chance to submit requests.

----------


## shawnw

So 72M for the fairgrounds arena. Uncomfortably close to the cost of the MAPS1 downtown arena. I realize not entirely apples to apples because of inflation but still, I bet it won't be nearly as solid as the original Ford Center.

----------


## Canoe

> Filtration, zip line, meeting rooms, other small improvements.
> 
> The filtration is to stop the water from being so brown.


Is the source water the oklahoma river or the city water system?

----------


## David

> I'd like to see it go to Union Station and connecting the park to the River.


Ditto.

And a hard no on letting the fairgrounds grab yet more tax money to spend with zero oversight.

----------


## Laramie

The economic impact of the horse industry & related trade shows staged at State Fair Park justifies putting money into State Fair Park complex which generates $230 million a year in direct spending and more than $400 million a year in total economic impact: https://statefairparkokc.com/new-col...shows-benefits

The horse & trade shows need to be addressed ASAP before we lose many of these events to Fort Worth who is well equipped to lure these annual events to Cowtown--much like the NFR's Las Vegas adventure; we won't get them back.

Bennett Event Center & State Fair Coliseum dual will be equivalent to a convention center complex at State Fair Park. 

Know that many of you on this forum have a bad taste in your mouth (justified IMO) about the State Fair Board Trust (SFBT)--City possesses these records.  The SFBT issue should have been put to rest at its beginning because there seems to be an after affect about its trust & stewardship that has left a bad taste about anything related to the State Fair Park's 440 acre parcel.

You bet Fort Worth is waiting for Oklahoma City to drop the ball.  

The International Finals Rodeo (IFR) now staged at the _Lazy E_ in Guthrie (accommodates 7,233 mostly non chair back seats) needs to be brought back to OKC where we can maximize the IFR's potential in a new 5,000 seat arena at SFP with chair back seats.  The Meridian hotel corridor will benefit from the construction of the new State Fair Coliseum.

Lazy E Arena:  https://www.lazye.com/facilities

----------


## Laramie

SMG manages Chesapeake Energy Arena & Cox Convention Center:  https://facilitiesonline.com/uncateg...oth-facilities

----------


## emtefury

How about we get some of our  money back due to excessive taxation.   Surprised this has not yet been discussed.

----------


## mugofbeer

How about using some to get theft resistant street and highway lights?

----------


## OKCRT

> How about using some to get theft resistant street and highway lights?


How about an unbiased Lotto making 40 new instant millionaires in OKC?

----------


## Canoe

I would like the connection to the river or the central station proposal. Is there any chance a wealthy person would take on either of these projects?

----------


## thunderbird

> Is the source water the oklahoma river or the city water system?


City water. It just gets so dirty from wind blowing dirt in. Im sure the constant churning doesnt help the look either.

----------


## Midtowner

...

----------


## chuck5815

I'm fully prepared for Holt and the gang to screw this deal up. The zip-line is just an awful idea, as is giving more money to the senior shelters. 

100% of this should be (a) returned to the OKC taxpayers in one form or another; (b) invested in local tech startups; or (c) used to lure Fortune 1000 companies

----------


## BoulderSooner

> I'm fully prepared for Holt and the gang to screw this deal up. The zip-line is just an awful idea, as is giving more money to the senior shelters. 
> 
> 100% of this should be (a) returned to the OKC taxpayers in one form or another; (b) invested in local tech startups; or (c) used to lure Fortune 1000 companies


no

----------


## Mott

Well, if maps is going to build the west river bike path, then why can’t they use some of this money to fix the now closed off trail at I-40?

----------


## mugofbeer

> I'm fully prepared for Holt and the gang to screw this deal up. The zip-line is just an awful idea, as is giving more money to the senior shelters. 
> 
> 100% of this should be (a) returned to the OKC taxpayers in one form or another; (b) invested in local tech startups; or (c) used to lure Fortune 1000 companies


I have no vote but this is a big no.

----------


## Pete

Press release:

********************

Oklahoma City Council uses extra MAPS 3 capital funds to boost park, senior center and coliseum projects
04/14/2020

Scissortail Park, MAPS 3 Senior Health and Wellness Centers and the MAPS 4 Fairgrounds Coliseum will have boosted budgets thanks in large part to MAPS 3 capital sales tax collections that exceeded expectations.

The Oklahoma City Council voted Tuesday to allocate about $33 million in additional MAPS 3 sales tax collections to the projects:
$19 million to buy and renovate Union Station to incorporate it into Scissortail Park, along with improvements to the park’s lower section and a connection to the Oklahoma River.$9 million for the MAPS 4 Fairgrounds Coliseum.$4.975 million to three of the MAPS 3 senior centers:$2.2 million for Center No. 4 (to be located on Western Avenue south of SW 134th Street).$1.8 million for Center. No. 3 (to be located at NE 36th Street and Lincoln Boulevard).$975,000 for Center No. 1 (11501 N Rockwell Ave., healthylivingokc.com).


A strong economy throughout most of the MAPS 3 temporary sales tax collection period boosted collections beyond projections. MAPS 3’s Oklahoma City Convention Center project also came in well under budget, returning more money to the program. Other additional money comes from interest and unused contingency funds.

MAPS 3 sales tax collections are by law required to fund capital improvement projects. The City Council has discretion on how to spend the funds, as long as it’s for capital projects and not operations or other uses.

About the projects

Union Station sits at the southwest corner of Scissortail Park’s upper section. The City’s Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority (COTPA) owns the building and has offices in it. The City will buy and renovate it to incorporate it into the park.

Other parts of the newly approved funding will pay for further improvements to Scissortail Park’s 30-acre Lower Park, including a better connection to the Oklahoma River south of SW 15th Street. Construction is scheduled to begin this year and finish in 2021.

The Fairgrounds Coliseum is partially funded by $63 million of MAPS 4 funds. The rest of the funding will come from Tuesday’s Council action and at least $25 million from hotel tax revenues already earmarked for fairgrounds improvements. It will be the new home of major national, state and local events that attract visitors from around the world who boost the local economy with their spending.

The improvements at the MAPS 3 Senior Health and Wellness Centers are to ensure parking lots, locker rooms and other facilities will meet anticipated demand. The first center has already been expanded with additional public and private funds after initial demand exceeded expectations. That prompted the use of the additional funding for the new centers to help meet needs from day one.

----------


## Pete

These were the requests made by the MAPS Board.

Fairgrounds got the full $9M requested; senior centers got the almost $5M they wanted.

Union Station got $19M of the $30M they asked for; trails got $0 despite asking for $20M.

----------


## Dustin

Nvm...

----------


## shawnw

Trails should have gotten the 9 over the FG...

----------


## TheTravellers

> Trails should have gotten the 9 over the FG...


Yep, fairgrounds should've gotten nothing, the citizens need more trails and senior centers, just glad Union Station didn't get screwed completely.

----------


## mugofbeer

Maybe they should hold off on thinking there's any extra money until they see how COVID affect revenues?

----------


## shawnw

MAPS3 dollars are fully collected and just have to be allocated. MAPS3 ended prior to Safer Streets, which just ended 3/31. 4/1 began MAPS4 collection.

----------


## David

Seriously unimpressed with the Fairgrounds taking MAPS 3 money for a MAPS 4 project.

----------


## Laramie

Drive north on I-40 Amarillo Junction, you'll see the impact of the horse shows with all the trailers parked where All Sports Stadium use to sit. The Bennett Event Center accommodates the trade shows associated with the horse related activity.  Like it or not, many on this forum questioned the State Fair Board Trust management of the fairgrounds; the new State Fair Coliseum will be a game changer for Oklahoma City to retain and keep these events; also notice the hotels on the Meridian Hotel Corridor as many improvements are being made.  The new State Fair Coliseum will be an engine to generate out-of-state sales tax dollars.


State Fair Park, in Oklahoma City is one of the largest and busiest event facilities in the country, as well as the center of Oklahoma City’s status as “Horse Show Capital of the World.” --https://businessviewmagazine.com/okl...rsatile-venue/






> Over the past five years, an average of 836,000 horse show visitors have spent *$175 million each year in Oklahoma City hotels and restaurants, adding $8.16 million to the city’s sales tax coffers.*


*
Horse shows are big business for OKC* https://www.velocityokc.com/blog/eco...ack=super_blog

----------


## 5alive

I think the problem, at least for me, is the State Fair Board let most of us think we still had a "fairgrounds"...instead it has been transformed into a horse show venue. Nothing wrong with that but just let the people know.

----------


## Laramie

*Bennett Event Center, $58.7 million, 279,000-square-foot expo building.*






State Fair Park has primarily transformed into an exposition
grounds.  The State Fair of Oklahoma operates 10 days annually in September.

The SFA will be replaced with a new venue, the State Fair Coliseum estimated to cost in the range of $100 million.  

The $9 million in funds (MAPS 3) will be a starter to help with construction and anticipated MAPS 4 penny sales tax shortages anticipated from the Covid-19 pandemic.  

*Forecast:*  Oklahoma City voters may be asked to extend MAPS 4 _(One or two years)_ in order to complete the package of 16 projects approved by voters in December 2019.

*Concern:*  The new Big House will have a maximum seating capacity for basketball 7,300 (4,700 fixed seats & 2,600 lower/upper level retractable seats).  The State Fair Arena could seat 10,300 for high school basketball playoffs.

----------


## jdg78

> Trails should have gotten the 9 over the FG...


Absolutely ZERO chance the council was going to let $20MM for trails south of the river into South OKC.   Heaven forbid South be connected to the trail system.  Remind me again how much funding Hefner and the Katy trail been awarded in the last few years?

----------


## SouthSide

> Absolutely ZERO chance the council was going to let $20MM for trails south of the river into South OKC.   Heaven forbid South be connected to the trail system.  Remind me again how much funding Hefner and the Katy trail been awarded in the last few years?


It is the status quo for this city. In the MAPS 4 meetings on parks, the parks directory admitted that south okc has been neglected when it comes to parks and the whole city council and mayor just moved on without addressing the issue. I loathe our city government.

----------


## Jeepnokc

Not really sure where to put this and doesn't deserve its own thread but I am surprised to see them resurfacing and putting new curbs in on S Walker between 59 and 74th.  What is surprising is putting in new curbs without the handicap access ramp in the curb.  If they ever get around to doing sidewalks which this area needs, we will have to pay for all the curbs to be redone again

----------


## Laramie

> Not really sure where to put this and doesn't deserve its own thread but I am surprised to see them resurfacing and putting new curbs in on S Walker between 59 and 74th.  What is surprising is putting in new curbs without the handicap access ramp in the curb.  If they ever get around to doing sidewalks which this area needs, we will have to pay for all the curbs to be redone again


Probably funded by Oklahoma City 2017 Go Bonds Better Streets, Safer City, 13 bond propositions...

City of Oklahoma City:  https://www.okc.gov/residents/better...-city-projects

----------


## mugofbeer

> Not really sure where to put this and doesn't deserve its own thread but I am surprised to see them resurfacing and putting new curbs in on S Walker between 59 and 74th.  What is surprising is putting in new curbs without the handicap access ramp in the curb.  If they ever get around to doing sidewalks which this area needs, we will have to pay for all the curbs to be redone again


I'm pretty sure this is covered under the ADA.  New sidewalk construction with barriers to wheelchairs aren't compliant.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

Article from VeloCity on the remaining Maps 3 projects:

https://www.velocityokc.com/blog/ins...J_wvA-ttvFJqHE

----------


## Plutonic Panda

https://www.velocityokc.com/blog/lif...ack=super_blog

----------


## Plutonic Panda

Video update of both of the wellness centers U/C

----------

