Just Metro.

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.

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.

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(?)

...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.

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.

NewsOK (http://newsok.com/cornett-nominates-11-to-maps-3-board/article/3449556)

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 group’s 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 ward’s 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
• Wayne Williams, Ward 7, operations engineer for Oklahoma Natural Gas
• Rusty LaForge, Ward 8, attorney for McAfee & Taft
• Larry McAtee, Ward 3 councilman

NewsOK (http://newsok.com/cornett-nominates-11-to-maps-3-board/article/3449556)

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.

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 1,500 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?

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.

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).

The MAPS 3 Advisory Board has been announced; some didn?t make the cut | OKG Scene.com (http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/5988/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBkAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA)

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?

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.

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)."

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 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.

Is this meeting's video on-line somewhere?

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).

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.

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).

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

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

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.

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).

MAPS 3 Citizens Advisory Board plans second meeting to help $777-million project come to life | OKG Scene.com (http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/6567/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBEAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA)

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.

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

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.

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=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=35.466769,-97.511194&spn=0.007969,0.013797&z=16&msid=114564274036136809344.00048ce137b26f436980d

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
-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?

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=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=35.466769,-97.511194&spn=0.007969,0.013797&z=16&msid=114564274036136809344.00048ce137b26f436980d

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
-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?

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.

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

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=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=35.466769,-97.511194&spn=0.007969,0.013797&z=16&msid=114564274036136809344.00048ce137b26f436980d

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
-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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Good point betts, about the aesthetics.

http://www.okgazette.com/article/09-01-2010/With_marching_orders_from_the_Oklahoma_City_Counci l_the_MAPS_3_board_turns_its_attention_to_the_seni or_wellness_centers.aspx

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.

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=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=35.466769,-97.511194&spn=0.007969,0.013797&z=16&msid=114564274036136809344.00048ce137b26f436980d

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
-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?

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

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.

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.

http://www.okgazette.com/article/11-03-2010/The_MAPS_3_advisory_board_taps_Architectural_Desig n_Group_as_program_consultant.aspx

http://www.okgazette.com/article/11-24-2010/MAPS_Movement.aspx

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

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

http://www.newsok.com/oklahoma-city-council-hears-maps-3-timeline/article/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

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.

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.

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?

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

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!

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.

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...

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.

^^^
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.

duplicate posting

^^^
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.