I am shocked and surprised by new negative comments anti telling the Oklahoma heritage of Indian culture and where it came from. LOL.

Finish it. It is important we do.

Somewhat recent photo below. Shows that most the external construction is complete and are awaiting additional funds before finishing the interior and exhibits.


http://ih.constantcontact.com/fs078/1102220562926/img/484.jpg?a=1108668378882

Does anyone know if there are any current plans for the large open area west of the Cultural Center? There is a lot of undeveloped land there.

WOW, all the negative people in this Great City simply amaze me !!. If I was that so anti-OKC, I would pack my bags and catch the next bus out of here.

Does anyone know if there are any current plans for the large open area west of the Cultural Center? There is a lot of undeveloped land there.

i their "master" plan that area is athletic fields .. and walking trails .

Didn't they also intend a hotel and golf course?

Didn't they also intend a hotel and golf course?

Really? They planned "tribal" stores. Where would they put the golf course?

Didn't they also intend a hotel and golf course?

Hotel yes, golf no.

This is starting to look more promising.

See update from this Gazette article a couple of days ago (http://okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-14037-state-of-nations.html):



Seemingly stuck in limbo, a public-relations effort was launched to boost the cultural center, complete with an advertising campaign featuring former Govs. Frank Keating and Brad Henry.

In hopes of accelerating the center’s opening, the state umbrella agency — the Native American Cultural & Educational Authority — in November named former Oklahoma Centennial Commission Chairman Blake Wade as its executive director.

His organization and the Legislature, Wade said, have agreed that if the center can raise half of the $80 million needed to complete construction, the state will cover the rest.

Within a month, about $20 million has been raised from Indian tribes, Oklahoma City and corporations in Oklahoma, Wade added.

“We couldn’t be happier,” he said.

“We’re almost halfway there, and we’ve got the momentum.”

The goal, Wade said, is to quickly raise the money and have the facility completed by the end of 2014.

This is starting to look more promising.

See update from this Gazette article a couple of days ago (http://okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-14037-state-of-nations.html):

Wow

I have a problem with using state money here. We can't get cash to fix the crumblng capital, but we'll build a new structure that is going to require money from the state to keep it's doors open later? It doesn't pass the sniff test for me.

I have a problem with using state money here. We can't get cash to fix the crumblng capital, but we'll build a new structure that is going to require money from the state to keep it's doors open later? It doesn't pass the sniff test for me.

Sometimes you have to do more than one thing at a time. Both of these things need to get done. I will venture to guess that both will get funded even though neither currently is now. Since they haven't even allocated the money yet I'm not sure what you're sniffing...

The state actually has money, what counts is when to determine what project is deemed to receive an allocation.

I think this state match idea is a fair compromise.

The state already has a ton of money sunk into this project and will also receive benefits once it's completed.

Hope they raise the remaining donations quickly because costs will only go up with a long delay.

Not sure if it is in the area asked but there were/are plans for a hotel retail complex etc...can't say I remember a golf course being mentioned but could be...

The State match isn't really anything new...have read the legislation authorizing the various bond issues (past/present) and it was always with the idea that the State would contribute X amount but the private sector would have to raise their part first. An earlier article had Wade indicating they could raise the money easier if the State would step forward first. the problem is, the State has stepped forward above and beyond what this was supposed to have cost originally and the other planned funding partners haven't kept up with the original commitmwnts, much less the escalted. The 3 parnters evenly splitting the cost were to be:
1. the Feds (only delivered half of what was promised early on)
2. the State
3. Private (tribal)

I have a problem with using state money here. We can't get cash to fix the crumblng capital, but we'll build a new structure that is going to require money from the state to keep it's doors open later? It doesn't pass the sniff test for me.


With respect, leaders from both parties over the years have chosen to not do much of anything in the way of repairs at the capitol (and elsewhere.) Please don't confuse the absence of will to address concerns about and needs of the structure with a financial inability to address the matter.

With respect, leaders from both parties over the years have chosen to not do much of anything in the way of repairs at the capitol (and elsewhere.) Please don't confuse the absence of will to address concerns about and needs of the structure with a financial inability to address the matter.

Interesting that resolution of these problems didn't happen when times were not so lean.

Interesting that resolution of these problems didn't happen when times were not so lean.

Other things were bigger priorities. Several cosmetic approaches for example, redo's of space into office space, nicer this or that. Those things get folks who clamor for them. The bare bones not readily visible basics non-sexy stuff, no one cheers for so it gets neglected. True of much beyond infrastructure, but true there as well

Other things were bigger priorities. Several cosmetic approaches for example, redo's of space into office space, nicer this or that. Those things get folks who clamor for them. The bare bones not readily visible basics non-sexy stuff, no one cheers for so it gets neglected. True of much beyond infrastructure, but true there as well

How true: The squeaky wheel.

Turn it into a casino. That will raise funds... Its on the river so I'm sure we can come up with a snazzy river themed name for it ;)

Turn it into a casino. That will raise funds... Its on the river so I'm sure we can come up with a snazzy river themed name for it ;)

Odd choice. Is there any other state agency besides the one responsible for this museum and cultural center which you'd opt to put into the casino business to raise funds for state operations?

Let's turn the OK Historical Museum into a casino. Great location at 23rd and Lincoln and we have lots of room for hotels on N. Lincoln nearby. We can use unused niches in the capital building nearby as poker rooms. Let's make every agency pay their way. OKC Museum of Art could open a slot machine parlor in the sitting area outside the gift store.

Odd choice. Is there any other state agency besides the one responsible for this museum and cultural center which you'd opt to put into the casino business to raise funds for state operations?

The state lottery?

There will not be a casino, other than Remington, within city limits. Guaranteed.

And people are forgetting that the Tribes will be providing the content of the museum which will be worth quite a bit.

The state lottery? ...


OK, I'll play along. Lottery proceeds go to prizes, administering the lottery and the excess is tied specifically to education. Should the prize money get shorted, or the education funds, in order for the lottery to establish its casino, and what doors open once a state agency enters the casino business?

I think it would be totally ironic and somewhat appropriate if the tribes were allowed a casino at the site....sort of completing their journey to OK. It would then seem sort of funny they would take our money by way of our societal gambling addition in the same sort of way carpetbaggers took their money in places like the Osage when they finally got some money out of the poor land they were given.

From today's Journal Record...

Measure would require voters’ OK for Indian museum bond debt

by M. Scott Carter

Published: January 24th, 2012

OKLAHOMA CITY – The struggling American Indian Cultural Center and Museum would have to take its case for additional funds to the voters of Oklahoma under a measure being proposed by a state lawmaker.

Filed by state Sen. Greg Treat, R-Oklahoma City, Senate Joint Resolution 86 would allow voters to decide whether the state should take on an additional $40 million in bond debt to fund the completion of the American Indian Cultural Center and Museum in Oklahoma City.

The state-funded AICCM, designed to portray Oklahoma’s diverse Native American history, has been at the center of a financial controversy for several years. Last year officials from the center requested $40 million in bonds to complete construction. State lawmakers took a pass on those bonds, saying the museum was bleeding money.

This week, Treat said the public should vote on any additional funds for the project.

“If approved, the bonds would have brought the state’s total investment in the project to $107 million, all of which has been funded through bond issues,” Treat said in a media release about his bill.

He said he opposed any additional bond debt for the state.

“If the Legislature is going to consider obligating Oklahomans to another $40 million in debt on a nonessential function of state government, the taxpayers of this state should at the very least be given an opportunity to have their voices heard,” he said. “I’m personally opposed to the state going further into debt.”

Tribal leaders said they supported the museum.

“The Choctaw Nation has made a $500,000 donation to the American Indian Cultural Center partially because of the importance it plays in the tourism future to all of Oklahoma,” Choctaw Chief Gregory E. Pyle said. “This is a tremendous investment in the cultural repository and potential hub of activity for Oklahoma City and our state.”

Pyle said the museum would draw visitors from across the globe.

“Visitors from all over the world will be able to learn of the history of Oklahoma and be directed to locations of interest across our state,” he said. “Remember, tourism has a huge impact on the economy across all 77 counties.”

Still, many lawmakers remain skeptical of the museum and projects that require bond funding. House budget chairman Earl Sears, R-Bartlesville, said there was little support for new bond debt by members of the House Republican Caucus.

“I think about the only thing that would fly this year is the renovation of the Capitol building,” Sears said.

In December 2011, Sears circulated a list of 12 bond proposals to members of the House GOP caucus. That list, which totaled about $1.04 billion, included $40 million for renovations to the Jim Thorpe office building, $270 million to fund the state’s share of endowed chairs for the higher education system, $5 million for the Wrestling Hall of Fame, $45 million for the AICCM, $40 million for renovations of the state medical examiner’s office and about $200 million for maintenance and improvements to buildings in the state Capitol complex.

Sears said the list was sent to the caucus to see which projects members would support.

“Right now, other than improvements on the Capitol building, I don’t see much support for the list,” he said. “It’s just not there.”

Treat said the state’s bond debt payment was $5.4 million on the AICCM project. He said those payments would increase by $3.5 million if another $40 million in bonds were approved.

Yet while many lawmakers claim the state’s bond debt is too high, only about 4 percent of the state’s general revenue fund goes to bond payments, according to documents from the Oklahoma State Bond Advisor’s Office website.

“Our bond debt is relatively low,” Deputy State Treasurer Tim Allen said.

David Blatt, director of the Oklahoma Policy Institute, said lawmakers have become reluctant to add bond debt.

“Annual bond packages used to be pretty standard to take care of infrastructure needs,” Blatt said. “But now they’ve become much less common. Clearly there is a growing reluctance for new debt. You can see it in both parties; they are concerned about creating obligations on the state.”

Blatt said the growing trend of sending bond proposals to a public vote concerned him.

“I think it’s a worrisome precedent,” he said. “On one hand, the voters of a particular area will be supportive of a project that will directly impact them, but they might be more difficult to convince on something such as refurbishing the Capitol. We need to be able to take care of our infrastructure needs.”

Treat said he would rather see funds for the AICCM project come from private donors.

“I’m simply proposing an alternative to the Legislature arbitrarily burdening Oklahomans with an additional $40 million in debt on this project,” he said. “Given that they are now making a concerted effort in that regard, I’m confident they’ll have continued success raising money.”

State lawmakers will consider Treat’s proposal when the Legislature returns to the Capitol in February.

This should kill it. Appeal to all the outposts of the state...easy to make them anti big city. Tulsa hates anything for OKC as well.

This should kill it. Appeal to all the outposts of the state...easy to make them anti big city. Tulsa hates anything for OKC as well.

Sadly, it appears you're right. About all of that.

I'm cynical about a lot of 4th floor activity, but I'm doubting this measure is anywhere near the final word on the matter. There are those, even in the R aisle, who do not totally disfavor bond debt. To send this one item to a vote of the people can have the result of items in their areas also getting routed out to the voters. I'm gonna speculate, as just one example, that the Tulsa area pop museum folk wouldn't like that particular idea one little bit for their pet project.

Division is the easiest thing in the world to achieve. Ignorance, fear, bias and greed will divide just about any non homogenous group. Just ask the politicians how this is done. Very effective. You need look no further than the vitriol that surfaces on this board from time to time. While posing this a a "will of the people" initiative it is a divide and conquer issue. Brilliant tactic. Maps worked by offering something to many groups and tying their desires together. This will fail because it doesn't pander to multiple groups but will isolate a singular interest and pit the other groups against them.

This is old school Okie politics...or new school Tea Party politics.

Division is the easiest thing in the world to achieve. Ignorance, fear, bias and greed will divide just about any non homogenous group. Just ask the politicians how this is done. Very effective. You need look no further than the vitriol that surfaces on this board from time to time. While posing this a a "will of the people" initiative it is a divide and conquer issue. Brilliant tactic. Maps worked by offering something to many groups and tying their desires together. This will fail because it doesn't pander to multiple groups but will isolate a singular interest and pit the other groups against them.

This is old school Okie politics...or new school Tea Party politics.

I guess I don't get the conspiratorial overtone of the theory. If anything, the described situation would work against the theory, because there is (apparently) "across-the-aisle" reluctance toward further bonded indebtedness. Putting this to a vote would seemingly work toward giving that indebtedness an opportunity that it apparently isn't likely to have in the Legislature. If anything, it would galvanize support for public funding, not water it down.

Put a different way, I'm very conservative, and don't think the State should be shuttling a penny in support of this center. Legislative sentiment appears to be tilted in the same way, not for the same reason, but the net result would be the same. Why would it be an inherent division to create a popular vote opportunity for an issue that doesn't seem to have a great deal of legislative support in the first place?

I guess I don't get the conspiratorial overtone of the theory. If anything, the described situation would work against the theory, because there is (apparently) "across-the-aisle" reluctance toward further bonded indebtedness. Putting this to a vote would seemingly work toward giving that indebtedness an opportunity that it apparently isn't likely to have in the Legislature. If anything, it would galvanize support for public funding, not water it down.

Put a different way, I'm very conservative, and don't think the State should be shuttling a penny in support of this center. Legislative sentiment appears to be tilted in the same way, not for the same reason, but the net result would be the same. Why would it be an inherent division to create a popular vote opportunity for an issue that doesn't seem to have a great deal of legislative support in the first place?

It would also give interests associated with this project the time and opportunity to organize a public campaign in support of the ballot proposal, though I'm not sure how much reason there is to believe the tribes would invest substantially in that effort either, given their reluctance to contribute to the actual bottom line requirement for the facility's construction.

Oklahoma City will be asked to help pay for completion of American Indian Cultural Center (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-will-be-asked-to-help-pay-for-completion-of-american-indian-cultural-center/article/3647283#ixzz1lqs1KIH0)

American Indian Cultural Center: Oklahoma City likely will be asked to contribute millions of dollars toward completion of the American Indian Cultural Center as fundraisers attempt to cover an $80 million funding gap.

BY STEVE LACKMEYER slackmeyer@opubco.com
Published: February 9, 2012

Oklahoma City likely will be asked to contribute “multiple millions” toward completion of the American Indian Cultural Center as two experienced fundraisers attempt to cover an $80 million funding gap.

Been waiting for this.... This is Oklahomas Big Dig boondoggle. Wont be surprised if we get shafted on the streetcar funds to cover this boondoggle.

Oh, here we go...

Everytime there is a story, rumor, or assumption about anything needing any amount of money for any reason, regardless of whether said project is $100 million or $25.76, and regarless of whether said project's shortfall would be covered publicly or privately... someone always says the same thing "I bet the streetcar gets nixed for this." It's like some sort of obsession.

We all need to send them a check for $50 bucks or so....this is a worthwhile project.

Been waiting for this.... This is Oklahomas Big Dig boondoggle. Wont be surprised if we get shafted on the streetcar funds to cover this boondoggle.

Can we say PARANOIA from the streetcar obsessives.

would this be put up to a vote by the population or a vote by council?

would this be put up to a vote by the population or a vote by council?

most likely they would create a new tiff or something like it .. but tie in the city's to be contingent on a state match .. and the city would be paid back over time ..

I would rather they find the couple of mil it will take to build the quiet zone

Can we say PARANOIA from the streetcar obsessives.

NO! I've not used this "excuse for any other funding shortfall, but watch it happen on this one. I'll be glad to be proven wrong. Like it not, the AICCM is a boondoggle.

would this be put up to a vote by the population or a vote by council?

It depends on the source of funding. If they have the money already in one of the 40+ funds (some dedicated) or in one of the untapped unspecified items from various G.O. bond issues or if the City's revenue is the highest it has ever been and we have been above pre-recession levels for over 2 years now like the Mayor stated in his recent State of the City speech last month, then the Council can probably commit to it on their own. However if they want to pay for it from a new revenue source (any new taxes or tax increases) are required to go to a vote of the people (G.O. bond issues, MAPS style taxes etc).

OKC could throw in $9 million to finish stalled American Indian Cultural Center
March 26th, 2012
Written by: Brianna Bailey
Journal Record

OKLAHOMA CITY – City officials are considering pledging $9 million to jump-start construction on the stalled American Indian Cultural Center on the Oklahoma River.

The city’s contribution is needed to help wrangle and additional $40 million in funding from the Oklahoma Legislature before the end of the current legislative session, to complete the half-finished museum Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett said.

State law makers last year failed to vote on a $40 million construction bond to continue construction on the museum. *The time and money it has taken to build the museum has attracted criticism from many state legislators. If and when completed, the total cost of building the cultural center will be $170 million. State officials broke ground on the project in 2007.

“If this Legislature has lost its passion to complete the project, if they don’t feel obligated to complete the intentions of previous Legislatures, then we need to stop and look at our options afresh and see what to do with a partially complete facility, because it won’t be an American Indian Cultural Center if we don’t get it done at this point,” Cornett said.

The Oklahoma City Council is slated to vote Tuesday on whether to commit the money to bridge the gap between private donations that have been raised to complete the cultural center and another $40-million in matching funding that the project is trying to secure from the Oklahoma Legislature.

The Native American Cultural and Educational authority has secured about $32 million in pledges to complete the cultural center through private donors and 23 Oklahoma tribes, Blake Wade said, NACEA executive director.

Wade said he wasn’t at liberty to disclose the names of specific donors, but said all of the pledges are contingent on the Oklahoma Legislature approving an additional $40 million in funding to complete construction.

If approved by the City Council, the city’s $9-million contribution would also be conditional on additional funding from the state.

“We hope we can persuade the Legislature by showing that the city, the tribes and also our business leaders are working together to get this done,” Wade said. “It’s now time to make this a reality. If we don’t do it all at one time it will be even more costly to piecemeal.”

The city has not yet decided how to fund the proposed $9-million commitment. The council will discuss various funding possibilities in the coming weeks, which could include borrowing the money from city reserves or from a bank, Brent Bryant said, economic development program manager for the city.

“We anticipate getting some direction from the council and then we will come back with a formal funding plan in the next few weeks,” Bryant said.

The money would eventually be repaid from future sales tax revenues that the cultural center would generate when open, Bryant said.

A 2009 study NACEA-commissioned study found that Oklahoma City stands to gain $4 million in new sales tax revenue and $1.6 million in new hotel occupancy taxes a year once the cultural center is open.

Wow, the good news is they have raised $32 million in private funds in a pretty short period of time.

This seems to be a good compromise where the state matches the $40 million and we get this thing finished.

Yakoke Oklahoma! :bow:

Oh wow, look.. $9 million just magically appeared.

And the quiet zone and two-way conversions are still unfunded.

My vote? NO. There are sooooooooo many other pressing needs within OKC that the 9 million could go towards....so many.

My vote... Yes. We have to finish this project. It will cost more if we wait.

How about $6 million for the Cultural Center and $3 million for the Quiet Zone? I think both are equally important for continued downtown development.

Wow, the good news is they have raised $32 million in private funds in a pretty short period of time.

This seems to be a good compromise where the state matches the $40 million and we get this thing finished.
Those are just pledges, the money isn't in hand...am sure there is a certain percentage of drop-off (just like Congress pledged they would fund a 1/3rd of the original cost and then didn't follow through).


Oh wow, look.. $9 million just magically appeared.

And the quiet zone and two-way conversions are still unfunded.

Not excatly...they don't know where the $9 million is coming from...yet
Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-considers-9m-in-funding-for-american-indian-cultural-center-and-museum/article/3661023#ixzz1qLDjGCS1

The city's potential pledge of $9 million would essentially be binding if the council votes Tuesday to approve it.
There's no state statute or city ordinance that makes the “commitment and pledge” ironclad, but the city would be subject to litigation if the state comes up with the $40 million and the city later backed out.
If the measure passes, city staff will present options on how to pay for the $9 million at future council meetings. An option listed in a memo to the council is to borrow the money internally or from a bank, and repay it over time using the $2 million annual influx in sales tax to the city's general fund that the museum is projected to provide.

The city has pledged 9 milly:

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-council-pledges-9m-to-finish-museum/article/3661301

I think this is good news.

Now, let's hope the state legislature will match the $40 million and get this project back on track.

My vote? NO. There are sooooooooo many other pressing needs within OKC that the 9 million could go towards....so many.

But name the ones that will bring 1000's of visitors (and money) to this thriving City.

I wonder if the economic impact of the National Cowboy and Heritage Center Museum has been approximated?

I would think the numbers would be similar with even bigger potential for the AICCM.

I wonder if the economic impact of the National Cowboy and Heritage Center Museum has been approximated?

I would think the numbers would be similar with even bigger potential for the AICCM.

the article in NewsOK, estimated (in tax dollars) 4 million per year.

Probably way too simple a solution for any number of reasons, but IIRC, sales tax revenues were up way above projections from the outlet mall. Waaaay above projections. How nice if that could make a simple solution to AICC (and the quiet zone too for those who are clamoring for it.)

the article in NewsOK, estimated (in tax dollars) 4 million per year.

I saw that the AAICM-funded study estimated $6.5 million in annual tax revenue for OKC.

What I'm wondering is if there has been a more precise analysis of the Cowboy Hall of Fame recently, because I think that would be another good indicator.

15 mil in donations from the tribes ... and another point is that this is a city donation to a state agency ... and doesn't happen without the 40 mil dollar bond match

They'll save a million a year on the old crosstown maintenance fund -

One article mentioned that part of the tax revenue was Ad Valorem (property taxes). I tried digging myself, but does anyone know if property taxes will even go to the City since this is a State owned entity? Does the State pay property taxes to OKC for the Capitol etc? Even with including the Property taxes I can't get the math of $6 million/yr to work out or the $2 million/yr to the General Fund? The City only gets just over 11% of property tax monies and that appears to be dedicated to paying for bond issues (not general fund). The Motel/Hotel tax seems to be completely dedicated to other places.

Government and nonprofit entities are exempt from property taxes.

The ACCIM has not paid and will not pay any property tax, just like the Cowboy Hall of Fame.

Thanks for the info Pete, that is what I was thinking but wanted verification on it, so where did the consultants come up with these numbers?
Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-commits-9m-to-american-indian-cultural-center-and-museum/article/3661332#ixzz1qRVobzzG

Tax revenue impact
A 2009 study by consultancy Applied Economics concluded the museum would generate about $6.5 million annually in sales tax, hotel use tax and ad valorem tax revenue for the city. About $2 million of that would go to the city's general fund, which could be used to repay the $9 million loan.

From what I am reading, the City gets no Ad Valorem taxes from it and the hotel tax goes to the Fairgrounds so that only leaves sales tax. Presuming the full City sales tax rate of 3.875%, what amount of "sales" are going to have to be generated? What does that amount have to go up to once you take out the various dedicated sales taxes (Public Safety, MAPS 3 etc)? According to the City's site http://www.okc.gov/maps3/maps3qa.html, it is only 2% that goes to the General Fund.

If I did the math correctly, to get $2 million in sales tax revenue into the General FUnd at the 2% rate that would require $325 million/yr in revenue from the AICC, that is more than 3 times the expected amount from the Outlet Mall is expected to bring in, in its 1st full year.

This is starting to look like the 900% increase in out of area business that will be required to get to the 300% increases promised by the consultants/Chamber w/the new Convention Center.