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.

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.

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.

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

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-gets-strong-march-tax-report/article/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.

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.

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

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/2010/06/06/1346552/how-oklahoma-city-officials-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).

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)

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

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 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 ..

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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-officials-consider-maps-3-projects-timeline/article/3560200#ixzz1K5GWrRys

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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/mi_qn4182/is_19980108/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/mi_qn4182/is_19980522/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)

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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%.

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".

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.

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.

Good point, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Good news!

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?

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.

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.

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 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.

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?