Adventure District. It'd be out of place downtown...

Yep - the way the Florida Aquarium is out of place in downtown Tampa, or the way the Georgia Aquarium is out of place in downtown Atlanta, or the way the Shed Aquarium is out of place in downtown Chicago, or the way the Tennessee Aquarium is out of place in downtown Chattanooga, or the way.... well, you get the point.

Cid, how do you have high intensity mountain biking when we have no mountains in OKC, I get the low and even medium intensity, but for high intensity you have to have some reason to go to Colorado.

Cid, how do you have high intensity mountain biking when we have no mountains in OKC, I get the low and even medium intensity, but for high intensity you have to have some reason to go to Colorado.

A trail running up and down the back side of the Hefner dam might be a start. *shrug*

Complete the Landrun Monument as Originally Proposed

When announced, there were to be 77 statues (one representing each county). That number got cut back to 45 and the last article I read said that it has been cut to 38 (4/14/08)

This is a very worthwhile project and if you haven't seen it yet, even scaled back to the existing pieces, very impressive (would be even more impressive if the City hadn't allowed the irrigation system to fall into disrepair and the surrounding landscaping to be about 2/3 of what was planted).

Honestly..if we're going to spend the $25 mil of public funds, perhaps the best reason why a development loan fund is the best idea is that it would turn the $25 mil into much more by requiring majority matches from other sources, and being paid back in 8 years. Plus I am tired of the overwhelming majority of "downtown investment" being public projects. We need to ramp up PRIVATE investment.

Spartan,

You make good points and as long as the LOANS are exactly as you have described I don't have any problems with it. My only concern is that traditionally that isn't the format the City has used.

My suggestions have more to do with "promises made, promises kept" more than anything else.

I was never that excited about the Land Run Monument in the first place, and I still consider it a waste of money honestly, and a bad location--but hopefully I will think differently in a few years. Let's look at all the civic projects we have underway downtown..


Projects planned or underway and already funded:

I-40 Crosstown Expressway
Ford Center renovations
Cox Center renovations
New convention center
Myriad Garden renovations
Project 180
New downtown park
New downtown boulevard
OG+E substation (apparently the 8th MAPS project)
Oklahoma River cruises
Oklahoma River improvements
OCU Boathouse
OU Boathouse
UCO Boathouse
Land Run Monument
Downtown streetcar
Bricktown Canal extension
Police HQ
City Hall public art
Downtown elementary
Classen Drive extention
Film Row streetscape
American Indian Cultural Center
Medical Business District Red Cross bldg site
And more

Should I even bring up the Medical District?

Point is...how about some private development, what more do we have to do to "spur" private development with public projects?

Spartan,

Have you seen the Landrun Monument? I agree it isn't advertised the best and it was placed in the wrong place, but public art IS one of the functions that Government should subsidize (IMO). Gov subsidies of private, for profit businesses I don't agree with (development loans where the City is guaranteed to get a rate on return as you described is ok).

Not everything in your list has been funded: Boulevard (0%) and Land Run Monument (partially funded). Aren't the Boathouses mostly privately funded? Isn't the American Indian Cultural Center mostly State funded (and funding has fallen short). Point here isn't to nit-pick but to point out that some of those are the private developments you are talking about, aren't they?

Again, I am not advocating any new, additional projects, just completing the ones we started. Any new ones need to wait for MAPS 4, 5, 6....(in answer to your question "what more do we have to do to "spur" private development with public projects?", that will be the emphasis of those MAPS pitches. We will have to "continue the momentum" yet once again. That goes back to one of the arguments during MAPS 3, will the private economic development that we are still attributing to the original MAPS come to a halt if it hadn't passed? Depending on which set of Chamber numbers you believe has been $2 to $5 BILLION. Yet somehow we needed another round of public projects.

The Chamber report was including a huge amount of government projects, probably at least half of the total. And I was careful to say civic projects, not city projects, not state projects. I just mean that they are not exactly private development.

I am ready to test the downtown market with some actual real estate, but in order to do that, we need to get some real estate deals going.

fair enough...

If the $25 million were made available in the near future I would propose that it be temporarily loaned to MAPS for the purpose of jump starting the completion of the river projects. OKC is on the cusp of becoming the premier rowing venue in the world and completing these projects would accelerate and solidify that recognition. Additionally, the white water rafting course could become a prime recreational venue for a substantial segment of our community, plus I can envision it becoming a significant draw from the entire region. The rowing aspect of the projects should bring in more national and world events which equates to additional spending and sales tax dollars. When the funds become available from MAPS the dollars advanced would be paid back and redirected to other quality of life uses.

Hire back the Police, Fire and numerous city workers recently laid off to support the infrastructure that the city needs for future growth! Are you all serious? Aquatics, rafting, boats.......you've gotta be sh**#$ me.

Hire back the Police, Fire and numerous city workers recently laid off to support the infrastructure that the city needs for future growth! Are you all serious? Aquatics, rafting, boats.......you've gotta be sh**#$ me.

Please highlight where anyone said anything about spending $25 million on rafting, boats, etc. And would you mind once again going over that argument that more police officers will lead to future growth? (I'm presuming you weren't talking about future growth in the law enforcement budget but rather future growth on something else)

You threw the first punch.

I think you've unintentionally misstated his argument. Or perhaps I misread his position.

Seems to me his suggestion is this:
(a) OKC is clearly growing
(b) despite this anticipated growth, public safety, and other public services, have been subjected to cutbacks.
(c) if unexpected funds are floating about, those ought to first go to reversing the recent cuts in public safety.

The argument is this type of spending would better serve the growing community than accelerating MAPs venues or other niceties.

It's the same argument many in PS have made since back before MAPs3 passed, and have continued to make as the city bandied about cuts ranging from 12% down to the actual level of cuts. Although the actual cuts were well below the 12% bandied about, they were still cuts.

I don't know whether OKC needs the people PS says they need or not. It does seem there are some very real equipment issues. It also seems clear they are at a lower standing force, for both FD and PD, than the numbers from years gone by suggest the voters directed the city to provide back with the city passed the 3/4 cent tax.

What about recent cuts made to other city departments? There were good people laid off there, too. I am so annoyed by the superiority complex of these people, and keep in mind that Police and Fire got the least of the cuts because of how they'd milk any public attention around potential cuts.

What about recent cuts made to other city departments? There were good people laid off there, too. I am so annoyed by the superiority complex of these people, and keep in mind that Police and Fire got the least of the cuts because of how they'd milk any public attention around potential cuts.

This has happened for the past several years, anytime theres been budget cuts it's been on the backs of every department (EXCEPET PUBLIC SAFETY), it's about time they learn to do more with less.,

Seriously, we need to definitely give money back to the police department so they can make sure there are 7 cop cars at a routine traffic stop instead of 6

What about recent cuts made to other city departments? There were good people laid off there, too. ...

There were cuts there as well from what I read. And perhaps they were deeper than needed. I do not know. I would expect someone connected to those areas, presently or formerly, or someone well versed with their needs, to be their champion. Whether the city actually does, or does not, need more staff in FD or PD, it's really no surprise folks tied to those departments are more focused on those needs.

You're saying that the job of a police officer making $78k a year on avg (including benefits) is more important to the city's mission than the lady who's been the clerk for the water board for 10 years and makes half of that, or whatever.

I think you've unintentionally misstated his argument. Or perhaps I misread his position.

Seems to me his suggestion is this:
(a) OKC is clearly growing
(b) despite this anticipated growth, public safety, and other public services, have been subjected to cutbacks.
(c) if unexpected funds are floating about, those ought to first go to reversing the recent cuts in public safety.

The argument is this type of spending would better serve the growing community than accelerating MAPs venues or other niceties.

It's the same argument many in PS have made since back before MAPs3 passed, and have continued to make as the city bandied about cuts ranging from 12% down to the actual level of cuts. Although the actual cuts were well below the 12% bandied about, they were still cuts.

I don't know whether OKC needs the people PS says they need or not. It does seem there are some very real equipment issues. It also seems clear they are at a lower standing force, for both FD and PD, than the numbers from years gone by suggest the voters directed the city to provide back with the city passed the 3/4 cent tax.

This has been supported by the City Manager in the Budget Reports and most of the PS funding issues with manpower etc could be SOLVED if the City would stop diverting money from the dedicated 3/4 tax to the General Fund. I can only go back to the 2003-04 budget year (that is as far back as they are posted on the City's site) but since then, the charts in the yearly Budget Reports have clearly diverted (“Police Sales Tax to General Fund” & "Fire Sales Tax to General Fund” ) a total of $132,932,410 (presumably this practice has been going back to when the DEDICATED tax was passed). That's $132.9M in diverted funds (or an average of $18.99M/year)

Go and download the reports yourself if you don't believe me (I do have the pg numbers for each year in a document somewhere, but can't locate it right now). But for example: on page 43 of the 2009-10 Budget Report it states:


Fire Sales Tax to General Fund 10,963,561
Police Sales Tax to General Fund 8,417,092


In a video blurb played in between Council playback, from the 2010-11 Budget, approved 6/15/10

Public Safety Positions
51 uniformed positions cut ($5M "value")

To keep from cutting more than the 51 positions, they used $20M ($10M in "one time money"; $7M from the MAPS 3 Use Tax & $3M from fund balances). Money that may/may not be available in the next budget. But the point is, if they would simply keep the DEDICATED BY LAW funds going to where they are supposed to be going to, there wouldn't be any need to use any of those temporary funding sources. They could have used the Use Tax to save those 51 cut positions (which the campaign promised, we wouldn't have ANY cuts "NO MATTER WHAT" happened with revenue).

Last years diverted amount of $19.9M would easily cover the $5M "value" of the cut positions and covered 75% of the funds from other sources.

Yep - the way the Florida Aquarium is out of place in downtown Tampa, or the way the Georgia Aquarium is out of place in downtown Atlanta, or the way the Shed Aquarium is out of place in downtown Chicago, or the way the Tennessee Aquarium is out of place in downtown Chattanooga, or the way.... well, you get the point.

Bad example. I've been to Chicago. It's not in downtown, it's on the lake front. So you got 3 out of 4. BRAVO!!!

I would buy lots of fresco tacos, 2 for everyone in the metro, from Taco Bell then invite Mayor Mick to speak on his endorsed product at a massive block party on the weight loss initiative.

Hire back the Police, Fire and numerous city workers recently laid off to support the infrastructure that the city needs for future growth! Are you all serious? Aquatics, rafting, boats.......you've gotta be sh**#$ me.

Spartan, did you accidentally misread his post or were you just looking for proof of what you percieve as our "superiority complex"? We've learned to expect a complete misrepresentation of the facts from RC, so that's no suprise. You, not so much.

Blair, how would you spend $25 million to improve the quality of life in OKC?

Bad example. I've been to Chicago. It's not in downtown, it's on the lake front. So you got 3 out of 4. BRAVO!!!

Shed is certainly downtown, it's just in the park on the lake. A bunch of downtown Chicago is on the lake.

I should have asked Blair for a clarification on the source of the $25 million instead of speculating myself. In the scenario the money is a federal grant, in whatever benevolent disguise it comes in, it should never have been borrowed/taxed in the first place and it would be better for the quality of life in this city, state, and country if it goes back from whence it came. In the scenario it is actually city money that originated in the city or it is a private gift, I posted too soon.

I think giving it back would amount to about $50 per person in the city, and since people in the metropolitan area and from other states and municipalities contribute to sales tax, I'm not sure how we could give it back to all those who paid it. I don't see any way that $50 would improve my life regardless.

I'd much rather see it used to improve quality of life for the city as a whole. Personally, I'm going to go with the streetcar as well, although I like Spartan's idea too. $25 million would give us one extra mile, which could be used to take the streetcar to the Devon and Chesapeake boathouses, to the Health Sciences Center, to the new Central Park or to double track 3.5 miles. After a few days in Chicago, I am again reminded of the value of mass transit.

This has been supported by the City Manager in the Budget Reports and most of the PS funding issues with manpower etc could be SOLVED if the City would stop diverting money from the dedicated 3/4 tax to the General Fund. I can only go back to the 2003-04 budget year (that is as far back as they are posted on the City's site) but since then, the charts in the yearly Budget Reports have clearly diverted (“Police Sales Tax to General Fund” & "Fire Sales Tax to General Fund” ) a total of $132,932,410 (presumably this practice has been going back to when the DEDICATED tax was passed). That's $132.9M in diverted funds (or an average of $18.99M/year)

Go and download the reports yourself if you don't believe me (I do have the pg numbers for each year in a document somewhere, but can't locate it right now). But for example: on page 43 of the 2009-10 Budget Report it states:




In a video blurb played in between Council playback, from the 2010-11 Budget, approved 6/15/10

Public Safety Positions
51 uniformed positions cut ($5M "value")

To keep from cutting more than the 51 positions, they used $20M ($10M in "one time money"; $7M from the MAPS 3 Use Tax & $3M from fund balances). Money that may/may not be available in the next budget. But the point is, if they would simply keep the DEDICATED BY LAW funds going to where they are supposed to be going to, there wouldn't be any need to use any of those temporary funding sources. They could have used the Use Tax to save those 51 cut positions (which the campaign promised, we wouldn't have ANY cuts "NO MATTER WHAT" happened with revenue).

Last years diverted amount of $19.9M would easily cover the $5M "value" of the cut positions and covered 75% of the funds from other sources.


Larry,
Don't confuse the issues with FACTS and Reports from the politicians own mouths. It's clouds the issues........

Thanks for the links. Maybe those really hard hitting reporter or civic minded citizens that would like to know where their money is going will ask the same thing in a council meeting some day.......then again I don't think I'll hold my breath.

Did we ever find out, what this $25 million was all about?

Why was this tread started and the question never answered by the original poster?

Answer is on the way.

Thanks, Blair

Blair, can we have an estimated timeline......

Appreciate the thoughts and ideas everyone. I tried to include a few of your ideas more specifically, but ended up losing out to the all mighty word limit. I put a portion of the cut text in quotes just for the OKCTALK brethren. Let me know what you think, and since the money is real, keep the ideas coming... (see below):

MAPS 3.1
Blair Humphreys
September 01, 2010


How would you spend $25 million to improve Oklahoma City’s quality of life?

I have been asking that for more than a month, and I’ve been impressed with the diversity of ideas and thoughtful suggestions proposed by citizens willing spend a little time and imagination to dream up ways to enhance OKC.


Some of the most popular suggestions were somewhat expected, with public transit, economic development and beautification leading the way. A few commented that the money should be given to taxpayers (apparently hosting tea-parties is getting expensive!) and the summer heat no doubt affected the thinking of someone calling for free admission to White Water Bay! A few of the more intriguing options included funding the completion of the Landrun Monument on the canal, and a push for a “world-class” aquarium. Most of the ideas discussed were quite good – thought through, well presented, and evenly debated.

Usually, such an exercise is nothing more than that — a game, fodder for civic discussion, a way to keep online chatter, well, chattering. But in this case, the money is very real, or at least could be. If we choose to take a step back and apply some creative thinking and quality design, we very well could have $25 million to spend on another project (or projects) in an effort to enhance OKC’s quality of life. Think of it as MAPS 3.1!

Click here (http://www.okgazette.com/article/09-01-2010/MAPS_3_1.aspx) to read more on how to get $25 million for MAPS 3.1

Via another thread, there are seveal examples of disguising power sub-stations that cost no where near $30 million.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2248/2316154391_9dab696d4b_o.jpg

http://www.lbrca.org/picts/substation-allison.jpg

Strengthen our individually diverse communities:

I would put $25 million in a fund and award twenty-five $1 million dollar grants for communties/neighborhoods to come up with tangible ideas to improve their individual communities.

Good call Kerry. Meant to post these. Here are a few that I have come across:

BUILDINGS

Dal Grauer Substation
http://alexwaterhousehayward.com/blog/uploaded_images/Dal-Grauer-Substation-712314.jpg

http://www.beyondrobson.com/82176C.jpg


Portland Solar/Wind Array
http://jetsongreen.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c67ce53ef0120a7e61aab970b-500wi

NCYRR Substation
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_CQxI0Yhn97w/Skk0vc1FVmI/AAAAAAAABcQ/sYy2v3Wb-iA/s400/DSC_4729+small.jpg

Electric Substation Chelsea, NY
http://www.bspacearchitecture.com/images/commercial/substation/image1sm.jpg

http://www.bspacearchitecture.com/images/commercial/substation/image2big.jpg

ESB Substation Mural
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2267/4507733285_1ef5d719b3_z.jpg


WALLS

Light Wall
http://www.dimin.com/userfiles/image/light_wall.jpg

Mosaic Mural Wall
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2609/4009089647_044d15132d_z.jpg

Here are a few more.

San Francisco
http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/cjm-2.JPG

Chicago
http://www.chicago-l.org/operations/lines/images/Douglas/HardingSubstation01.jpg

Saratoga Springs, NY
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Saratoga_Gas,_Electric_Light_and_Power_Company_sub station_building.jpg

Chicago
http://www.chicagoarchitecture.info/Images/TheLoop/ComEdSubstation-001.jpg

Okay, let's say the new CC doesn't get built south of the Ford Center and therefore the substation $30 million is not necessary.

It is my understanding that the other proposed locations (lumber yard, co-op plant, and north bricktown) all come with higher price tags for land acquisition,(may be wrong about north bricktown though). The $30 million may be needed for these higher costs.

Does anyone know the 4 land price comparisons?

okclee: They plan on spending/moving the substation no matter where the C.C. is located (just because of the proximity to the Park if nothing else). The Mayor said something to the effect that it just made sense to lump the $30M in with the C.C. budget rather than a 9th project item.

okclee: They plan on spending/moving the substation no matter where the C.C. is located (just because of the proximity to the Park if nothing else). The Mayor said something to the effect that it just made sense to lump the $30M in with the C.C. budget rather than a 9th project item.

When you say 'they', who is part of 'they' beyond the city mayor? Does he have more support for the OGE gets 30 mil no matter what for relocation than he had for the prix racing proposal he was advocating? Not quibbling, just asking.

Sorry, but if memory serves, Steve has said that there has not been any vote by the Council on spending $30M for the relocation of the substation (to date). So, I think at this point it is just the Mayor/City Manager. Seems like I recall in the meeting where Spartan spoke, that the City Manager addressed a question from the Council, that the substation needed to be moved no matter where the C.C. ended up (again, because of the prox. to the Park). Hope that helps...

I'm liking some of the deisgns in this thread, and the balance of that 30 mil going to something else, and the gotta relocate crowd just getting over it. Talk about some political hey to be made, there be some room there for someone to lead the way down a different path.

kevinpate; agree...for some reason I am drawn to the older looking building with the boarded up windows...LOL

2nd choice is the faux open glass apartment/office front
3rd is the modern art looking one (the solar panels) maybe this is a place were they could apply the 1% art requirement??

i posted this question on twitter, but thought this community might have some different ideas to offer:

how would you spend $25 million to improve the quality of life in oklahoma city? #thinkbig

p.s. - the money is real, just a matter of deciding where best to spend it.

Extend the bricktown canal as per what has been discussed. Look at how the original canal has improved investment and ultimately quality of life in okc. We've already proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that infrastructure projects like this ultimately spawn private investment and grow revenues to the city over the long term.

I would buy 25 Million tacos for everyone in OKC tonight on $1 taco night at Qdoba. Hey that's about 23 taco's a piece!

Why would I buy $1 tacos at Qdoba when I can get them for $1 at Iguana? (Edit: ohhhh, I see that you posted this on Monday night. Oops)

I wonder too... especially coming from YOU, metro!

I would take that $25 million and start a technology company that would attract talent and create high-paying jobs. That in turn would pump money into Oklahoma City's economy and help improve the city's quality of life.

I would fix the joke that is Metro Transit. One thing that is frustrating to me is that you cannot depend on a decent bus system in this city. The routes are sporadic, fragmented, and just not usable for the average citizen. It is my belief that it is done this way by design. The Oklahoma City bus system named Metro Transit is a very poor example of a bus system. Our leaders such as our Mayor Mick Cornett use the argument that it is unwise to use the bus system in areas that do not have the density to make it economically feasible to serve. This argument though it may seem to have its merits on the surface do not address the whole picture. While not having population density in certain areas may seem to be a real issue, it ignores the spotty and sprawling nature of the Oklahoma City metro area. Sure there may not be the density in some areas but there are very dense areas just beyond those areas. In other words, excluding an area of the city from coverage simply for not having the population density, also excludes very dense areas just because they are slightly beyond the less dense area. An example of this would be that people in Del City, a low income area that is very densely populated, get no bus coverage at all because of a lack of density between downtown and Del City. And then you have no coverage to Tinker AFB, the largest single site employer in the entire state. Anyone that has been to the area knows that traffic is horrible around Tinker AFB both at the beginning of the day and at the end. They cannot use the excuse that Tinker is a secure base because I lived in Denver, Colorado and Tucson, Arizona, and Phoenix, Arizona, all of them having bus service right onto the base.

A bus does not have to stop at all at a stop where no one is present or no one wants off the bus. In the areas where the density is lower the bus can simply look at the stop and keep driving if no one is there. Many times I hear people say that it is not worth it to have a decent bus system because no one rides it. Of course no one rides it because they cannot be depended upon. If a bus only comes through twice a day, then it is not useful for anyone. Secondly if the bus takes a strange route similar to some of the Congressional districts where they snake around in no useful fashion then no one can depend on it to get them where they need to go. When a bus system is designed with population centers in mind and not through normal thorough fares then it is doomed to fail. It is my belief that our leaders know this and make these decisions for the sole purpose to be able to say that the bus has low ridership and therefore not worth the investment. They do not want to spend the money on it because they want to use it on their own projects.

I would be willing to put money down that would guarantee that if we had a bus system that went all the way through the city on all major North/South and East/West through fares over a period of time, that it would be a major success. Their making excuses is just another way to not do the right thing so they can build their train downtown that only benefits a rare few. I am not opposed to the MAPS3 so much as I am opposed to proposing new thing like a rail system downtown while ignoring the rest of the city. If the leaders would just “suck it up” and do the right thing in the beginning, they would be a success in the long run. I have nothing against Mick Cornett or any of the council members but I do think they are deflecting the issue in the name of density and everyone suffers. Even though Mr. Cornett’s own MAPS3 campaign had a web site where citizens were allowed to vote on things they would like to include in the MAPS3 initiative, the citizens chose public transportation as the number one item. The number one issue that people were willing to pay for and the Mayor and council ignored it completely. Mr. Cornett in his speech addressed public transportation as though it was going to be addressed and then submits a rail system for downtown as fulfilling this requirement. This was a slap in the face of those that voted for this initiative. Since then, the citizens have complained that we need public transportation and the Mayor and council talk about density. How many times are we going to hear this? How many times are we going to get a council that has such tunnel vision as to ignore the wishes of the city?

I support the efforts and successes of Mayor Mick Cornett on so many fronts but this issue is not going to go away. The population continues to grow and the South Central part of the city is falling apart with gang activity and yet they purposely ignore the wishes of those that put them there. It is rare to hear me complain about not spending public issues since I am a conservative but I think we can all agree that in this day and age large cities need a real, comprehensive bus system that can be depended upon for people to get to work. Our city covers more than 600 square miles not counting the suburbs and many people do not have cars. They can however afford to pay for a bus ticket. I say do the right thing and get us a real bus system.

So, how is the $25 million going to be spent?

I think living on the edge of 600 square miles should be considered a luxury where mass transit is concerned. People shouldn't be buying out there and expecting the city to provide transit for them. Of course I also think the city should deannex the outskirts, which would make the necessity of providing service a nonoption. I do not see us having the money to run buses to the outskirts of a city this size. What I would like to see is a transit analysis, with buses running frequently and reliably where we know there is significant ridership. If buses could manipulate the traffic lights, then perhaps they could run more reliably, and I would also like us to make bus tracking available for people with cell phones, so that there is never a question of where the bus is. I think using any additional ongoing funding to improve bus service is a viable, good idea.

However, I take exception to anyone saying that most MAPS voters were voting for bus transit. I believe most people knew they were voting for a streetcar, and knew if was going to be short mileage and downtown. I never heard any misdirection by the mayor or anyone else on this subject. As has been said multiple times on this forum, MAPS money, by nature of the fact that it is transitory, cannot be used to fund salaries or services that require ongoing funding beyond the time when MAPS expires. Most of us know that our MAPS money is used for high visibility projects that offer more lesiure time options, bring money into the city or help maximize other people's perception of our city.

So, how is the $25 million going to be spent?

Buying the OG+E substation.

Buying the OG+E substation.

Probably. More's the pity.