Bump:

Shouldn't we be seeing some updated renderings for this project by now? The architecture firms Populous/GSB were selected over a year ago...

No.

According the the MAPS3 timeline, A&E for the project isn't scheduled to be finalized until 2016.

We may see updated plans before that, but they have plenty of time to get this done.

Also, the CC can be significantly expanded to the west and the Convention Hotel will have lots of meeting space as well.


An advantage when it comes time to expand.

Glad to know that the convention center hotel will have its own meeting space in addition to those inside the new convention center. This would have been a tough sell to the voters who felt as though the new CC was pawned off on the voters.


http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif "Oklahoma City looks oh-so pretty... ...as I get my kicks on Route 66." --Nat King Cole.http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif

I'm ready for this to move forward. I had a hard time being patient during the OG MAPStoo.

I agree. At this point I'd be happy just to see renderings :p

Did the City move the convention center complex project to the back burner or put it on hold?

Bids have been asked for a number of projects; yet we haven't heard anything new on the convention center & hotel complex.


http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif "Oklahoma City looks oh-so pretty... ...as I get my kicks on Route 66." --Nat King Cole.http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif

Did the City move the convention center complex project to the back burner or put it on hold?

Bids have been asked for a number of projects; yet we haven't heard anything new on the convention center & hotel complex.


http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif "Oklahoma City looks oh-so pretty... ...as I get my kicks on Route 66." --Nat King Cole.http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif

See post 1586 by Pete. The schedule of the newer timeline has always been 2016 to start. The process of buying the land is already going on.

Did the City move the convention center complex project to the back burner or put it on hold?

Bids have been asked for a number of projects; yet we haven't heard anything new on the convention center & hotel complex.


http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif "Oklahoma City looks oh-so pretty... ...as I get my kicks on Route 66." --Nat King Cole.http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif

I hightly doubt that. The convention center is one of the primary pieces to MAPS3. If anything gets moved to the backburner or cancelled, it won't be the convention center. The hotel maybe, but not the center itself.

The likely to come convention hotel, while not unimportant, is not a part of MAPs

This is exactly why the CC should been sold as a quality of life project and not a financial/economic generator. Convention attendance by non-residents should have been the icing on the cake, not the main attraction.

Some of our key business leaders simply don't get this. By God this is going to be an economic development gold mine in their eyes. Everyone who doesn't see it that way is a hippie or naive or a fringe tea partier.

I get why we want a quality convention center. I do think it will be good for our city. Just don't try to snow me with exaggerated economic development claims.

Frankly, they would have done better by saying: "We want to be a big league city and we have a fourth-tier city convention facility. It's time for an upgrade. And if we don't make an upgrade in a few years, we are in danger of losing some of the conventions we regularly host."

This would have been an honest claim that a lot of people -- while not thrilled about a convention center -- would have grudgingly accepted.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what MAPS is. Most of these folks would call themselves conservative Republicans. To a lot of them, government investments in city amenities need "pay for themselves." Well, no. We invest in some things for which value is difficult to quantify, but they make our lives better, such as parks, and sidewalks, and public spaces. They don't "pay for themselves," but they make our lives better and more enriching, and they make our city more viable for growth and improvement.

Not saying the Convention Center is going to really improve our lives, but it makes sense that we have a bad one right now and would be better off as a city with a good one. It would be cool to host conventions beyond square dancing and multilvel marketing gatherings.

Maybe someday we could host a political party convention. Or something with a global interest. That would be great for our city. And we are proud of our city but would be highly embarrassed to host such events in a second-rate facility.

I do not see the old Myriad being razed and any grid restoration taking place. I can be ok with that.
I think the current location of the former Myriad will eventually be the site for a newer, better Peake arena when it is time to countdown the last useful years of the current Peake.

Yes, around 2024 (MAPS V); Oklahoma City will be ready to build a new 20,000-seat state-of-the-art NBA arena to keep the franchise here for another 20 years.


http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif "Oklahoma City looks oh-so pretty... ...as I get my kicks on Route 66." --Nat King Cole.http://www.thunderfans.com/vforum/images/smilies/okc.gif

Some of our key business leaders simply don't get this. By God this is going to be an economic development gold mine in their eyes. Everyone who doesn't see it that way is a hippie or naive or a fringe tea partier.

I get why we want a quality convention center. I do think it will be good for our city. Just don't try to snow me with exaggerated economic development claims.

Frankly, they would have done better by saying: "We want to be a big league city and we have a fourth-tier city convention facility. It's time for an upgrade. And if we don't make an upgrade in a few years, we are in danger of losing some of the conventions we regularly host."

This would have been an honest claim that a lot of people -- while not thrilled about a convention center -- would have grudgingly accepted.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what MAPS is. Most of these folks would call themselves conservative Republicans. To a lot of them, government investments in city amenities need "pay for themselves." Well, no. We invest in some things for which value is difficult to quantify, but they make our lives better, such as parks, and sidewalks, and public spaces. They don't "pay for themselves," but they make our lives better and more enriching, and they make our city more viable for growth and improvement.

Not saying the Convention Center is going to really improve our lives, but it makes sense that we have a bad one right now and would be better off as a city with a good one. It would be cool to host conventions beyond square dancing and multilvel marketing gatherings.

Maybe someday we could host a political party convention. Or something with a global interest. That would be great for our city. And we are proud of our city but would be highly embarrassed to host such events in a second-rate facility.

I agree with this completely.

The fact is the Cox Center is well below what is considered a decent facility for a city the size of OKC and this city will not likely keep the conventions it has let alone attract new ones without a new convention center. Most people who oppose the convention center don't realize the city needs a new one because they don't realize how bad the Cox center actually is.

Hosting a political party convention is the kind of thing to shoot for. Not just that but other conventions of national and global interest. Nobody thought Charlotte was ready to host the DNC in 2012 but we pulled it off. I think its something OKC should shoot for.

MAPS 3 convention center subcommittee favors "expanded" concept with more space, $35M higher price tag. #OKC
11:01am - 24 Sep 14 Bill Crum

MAPS 3 convention center subcommittee favors "expanded" concept with more space, $35M higher price tag. #OKC
11:01am - 24 Sep 14 Bill Crum

Of course they do. Which project will they have to steal from?

...

Of course they do. Which project will they have to steal from?

Wow! $35 million. There goes the $30 million in reserve for the entire MAPS program.

Wow! $35 million. There goes the $30 million in reserve for the entire MAPS program.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on what the revenues are.

Wow! $35 million. There goes the $30 million in reserve for the entire MAPS program.

...that was originally taken from the convention center budget...

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on what the revenues are.

Exactly.

Maybe Mick is backing off the $30 million to move the substation?

Maybe Mick is backing off the $30 million to move the substation?

I seem to remember reading something in the past 2 weeks where OGE was modernizing 2 substations and it would not be funded with the allocated MAPS money....IIRC
I've been off a bit before though.

This gives more detailed information about the expansion approval.

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/5345672?embargo=1


The MAPS 3 Citizens Advisory Board recommended the city council approve the conceptual design for a 550,000-square-foot complex of underground exhibit space, ground-level meeting rooms and an upstairs ballroom.

The board agreed on voice votes against recommending a smaller building and instead to go with a plan including 25 percent more exhibit space. In the expanded design, the underground exhibit hall would extend beneath Hudson Avenue

This gives more detailed information about the expansion approval.

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/5345672?embargo=1Sounds good to me.

Is it really impossible, given this is meant to be phase 1 of the cc complex, not the entire cc complex, to just stay on budget? At least that's the pitch I remember being made.

Is it really impossible, given this is meant to be phase 1 of the cc complex, not the entire cc complex, to just stay on budget? At least that's the pitch I remember being made.

Maybe there is a push to do this because they know phase II will be such a rough sell and might not pass at all?

When exactly are we going to see a conceptual plan, a finally site location, and a start date for construction?

The problem that we have is these decisions aren't being made by professionals looking at the entire city. A committee tasked to create the best convention center is going to do that, even at the expense of the rest of the city. Maps 3's palpable success is shaky and fragile with the way it is being managed.

We should give 'serious consideration' which concerns the recommendation for the new convention center by the MAPS 3 Citizens Advisory Board.

OKC's MAPS 3 board favors plans for larger convention center: http://www.oklahoman.com/article/5345672?embargo=1


The MAPS 3 Citizens Advisory Board recommended the city council approve the conceptual design for a 550,000-square-foot complex of underground exhibit space, ground-level meeting rooms and an upstairs ballroom.

The current budget for the MAPS 3 convention center is $252 million, including about $190 million for construction. Construction costs for the expanded design favored by the 11-member advisory group are projected at $221 to $227 million.

The board agreed on voice votes against recommending a smaller building and instead to go with a plan including 25 percent more exhibit space. In the expanded design, the underground exhibit hall would extend beneath Hudson Avenue. Both proposals include the option of future expansion to the west.

The convention center hotel which is not apart of the MAPS III projects will include space; however until we get that private sector phase of the convention center complex developed, we should study the feasibility of the recommended expansion.

We need to be in a position to bid for more Tier II type conventions. A good 700-900 room anchor convention center hotel with meeting room space could ensure that our facility would be in a position to accommodate some of the more elite gatherings that the industry has to offer on that level.

Our facility needs to able to compete with those venues in cities like Austin, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Minneapolis & Nashville.

Defining First, Second and Third Tier Meeting Destinations | Blog.empowerMINT.com | blog.empowerMINT.com (http://blog.empowermint.com/site-venue-inspection-selection/defining-first-second-and-third-tier-meeting-destinations/)

Where are we now (?): Oklahoma City is probably considered a Tier III (Leisure) market or below at best. Our current Cox Convention Center does not make the grade...

Maybe Mick is backing off the $30 million to move the substation?

From the Convention Hotel article in the Oklahoman:

"Ryan said the city could close the gap by drawing on $30 million originally assigned to the convention center.

That money was to be spent relocating an electrical substation on a proposed convention center site south of Chesapeake Energy Arena."

I get the feeling that they may already have an anchor hotel chain or two lined up with some serious inquiries. Hope they can build it along with the timed construction of the convention center.


The MAPS 3 Citizens Advisory Board favors a 550,000-square-foot convention center that would include a 200,000-square-foot underground exhibit hall.

Glass-enclosed upper floors in a 360-degree design would contain meeting rooms and a ballroom.

A 500- to 800-room hotel with meeting space would extend the convention center's footprint and increase flexibility for groups planning conventions.


Oklahoma City will study subsidy, developers for MAPS center hotel
http://oklahoman.com/oklahoma-city-council-will-gauge-developers-interest-in-convention-center-hotel/article/5348411

Let's hope we can get closer or exceed the 800 room hotel.

An update from Tuesday's city council meeting.

Oklahoma City Council gets on track to vote on 'expanded' convention center | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/oklahoma-city-council-gets-on-track-to-vote-on-expanded-convention-center/article/5358935)


The city council appeared Tuesday to be on a path toward approving an “expanded” downtown convention center that leaders think would give Oklahoma City an edge in a competitive business.

Council members were briefed for a vote Nov. 4 on a 550,000-square-foot complex of underground exhibit space, ground-level meeting rooms and an upstairs ballroom south of Myriad Botanical Gardens.

The “expanded” design would drive overall costs up about $35 million. The money likely would be drawn from contingency funds once earmarked — and now unneeded — to move an electrical substation. The substation is situated on a site formerly considered for the convention center.

An update from Tuesday's city council meeting.

Oklahoma City Council gets on track to vote on 'expanded' convention center | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/oklahoma-city-council-gets-on-track-to-vote-on-expanded-convention-center/article/5358935)naaaaa

naaaaa

Cue a comment from LarryOKC in 3....2....1.... :tongue:

Cue a comment from LarryOKC in 3....2....1.... :tongue:

Yep Larry, they lied to you.

The “expanded” design would drive overall costs up about $35 million. The money likely would be drawn from contingency funds once earmarked — and now unneeded — to move an electrical substation. The substation is situated on a site formerly considered for the convention center.

That $35 million was to be taken out of the general contingency fund for all projects; the substation was never part of the original MAPS 3 plan.

It would also mean we would have $35 million less to cover cost overruns (which always happen and we are barely out of the gate) on the projects that come later in the timeline.

And remember, the convention center was moved up in the timeline at the insistence of Larry Nichols, among others. AND we still haven't figured out how to pay the $50 to $100 million that will likely be needed for the convention hotel.


Bottom line is this $35 million never had anything to do with the convention center and now the council is looking to apply it for that purpose.

I really, really don't like the way this entire thing has been handled.

That $35 million was to be taken out of the general contingency fund for all projects; the substation was never part of the original MAPS 3 plan.

It would also mean we would have $35 million less to cover cost overruns (which always happen and we are barely out of the gate) on the projects that come later in the timeline.

And remember, the convention center was moved up in the timeline at the insistence of Larry Nichols, among others. AND we still haven't figured out how to pay the $50 to $100 million that will likely be needed for the convention hotel.


Bottom line is this $35 million never had anything to do with the convention center and now the council is looking to apply it for that purpose.

I really, really don't like the way this entire thing has been handled.

Yes. When the sidewalk SNAFU was revealed, members of the MAPS3 sidewalks committee suggested making up the difference out of the contigency fund. They were loudly scolded that, "it was way too early in the MAPS3 process to start spending contigency money because you never know what might happen with all the projects." Similar thing happened when the Whitewater facility came in over budget. Contigency funds were completely off the table as soon as someone on that committee suggested it.

But the Convention Center... That is a different deal.

Right! The sidewalk project, the whitewater facility and the fairgrounds Expo building -- the first three projects actually under construction -- have all been scaled back pretty significantly due to cost overruns. We all know about the whitewater problems but don't forget they cut about half the sidewalks due to real-world construction costs and then radically changed the design for the fairgrounds building, making a huge impact on the final design.

We don't even have a design for the convention center and thus don't even know the construction costs, and we are already looking to give them another $35 millions out of MAPS -- and who knows how much more for the cc hotel?? And by the way, there is no parking included in this project and there has not been a plan put forth on how that will be paid for either.

All of this was exactly what worried people when this project was moved up; that later projects -- like the streetcar and central park -- would suffer as a result.

That $35 million was to be taken out of the general contingency fund for all projects; the substation was never part of the original MAPS 3 plan.

It would also mean we would have $35 million less to cover cost overruns (which always happen and we are barely out of the gate) on the projects that come later in the timeline.

And remember, the convention center was moved up in the timeline at the insistence of Larry Nichols, among others. AND we still haven't figured out how to pay the $50 to $100 million that will likely be needed for the convention hotel.


Bottom line is this $35 million never had anything to do with the convention center and now the council is looking to apply it for that purpose.

I really, really don't like the way this entire thing has been handled.I don't either, but this needs to happen. They need to pass an extension for MAPS3 and do the damn thing right.

That $35 million was to be taken out of the general contingency fund for all projects; the substation was never part of the original MAPS 3 plan.

It would also mean we would have $35 million less to cover cost overruns (which always happen and we are barely out of the gate) on the projects that come later in the timeline.

And remember, the convention center was moved up in the timeline at the insistence of Larry Nichols, among others. AND we still haven't figured out how to pay the $50 to $100 million that will likely be needed for the convention hotel.


Bottom line is this $35 million never had anything to do with the convention center and now the council is looking to apply it for that purpose.

I really, really don't like the way this entire thing has been handled.

But are you surprised?

But are you surprised?

Actually, I am. This latest move is pretty darn brazen.


Let's take stock of where we are with this project: 1) the property has yet to be acquired; don't know the final cost; 2) there isn't even a design yet; and 3) actual construction costs have yet to be determined.

In every other MAPS 3 project that has reached the firm construction cost phase, each were way over budget. And each were scaled way back.

So now we have by far the most expensive project of them all (almost 1/3 of the total MAPS 3 budget) and we are looking to give them 75% of the contingency budget ($35 million out of $47 allocated) for something that has yet to go to bid??

What happens when those bids come back way over the mark? Thus, far the estimates provided in the MAPS 3 budgets have been way off. For example, they promised 70 miles of sidewalks then cut that back to 26! The whitewater facility was way, way over. The fairgrounds building was so far off they completely changed the design to accommodate. And the promised senior centers have gone from 4 to perhaps only 2.

We still have the park and streetcar to send out to bid, and those are #'s 2 & 3 on the budget allocation, $132 and $129 million respectively. But we are now talking about giving up 75% of the contingency budget before 66% of the MAPS 3 projects are even bid (cumulative amount for the CC, park and streetcar)??

MAPS 3 Budget in millions; * indicates yet to bid:
*Convention Center $252 (32.4%)
*Central Park $132 (17.0%)
*Streetcar $129 ($16.6%)
Whitewater $57 (7.3%)
Fairgrounds $58 (7.5%
Trails $39 (5.0%)
Sidewalks $9 (1.2%)
Senior Centers $50 (6.4%)
Contingency $47 (6%)

I've never seen a 6% contingency on projects this size. 10% is considered the bare minimum and 20% is common; and even then, it is often exceeded.

Why stop at the $35 Million? You think that's brazen? Why not go after the $80 Million in MAPS tax collections that is currently over target?

When folks in OKC held their collective noses and voted a blank check on the promise of just trust the city fathers & the movers and shakers, disappointment was always one of the potential covered dishes set out on the serving line.

Given the present status of several (most?) other M3 projects, this should not be a true surprise to anyone. A double serving of disappointment perhaps, but not a mystery meat dish.

The question stands, as it has since the day of approval ... if the trust is broken, will this become the final round of MAPs

This whole"MAPS is done" talk on here is way, way premature. When all is under construction, the streetcar is in, etc., and OKC is growing in size, services, and prestige, I think that MAPS will remain popular. Making that call now is like putting the book down after chapter 5 and thinking you know the whole story.

classic bait and switch- Mick learned the technique in one of his marketing classes.

Actually, the Mayor wanted the Convention Center where Russell Claus (former Planning Director) wanted it... on the substation site.

I think it was a total suprise to him when the Subcommittee put forth the Ford dealership site.

It's clear that the majority of the members on that committee wanted the "blight" in front of the Myriad Gardens and Devon Tower removed... Plus the additional push from Bricktown for a closer site location further enabled some limited cover to switch sites. The $35 mil was an added bonus.

classic bait and switch- Mick learned the technique in one of his marketing classes.

You hate Mick? Marketing? Or school? Which is it?

FWIW, had I been an okc resident at the time, I would have held my nose along with many others and voted yea on M3.
I'd also likely to be watching matters more closely than i tend to do as simply an okc visitor.

This whole"MAPS is done" talk on here is way, way premature. When all is under construction, the streetcar is in, etc., and OKC is growing in size, services, and prestige, I think that MAPS will remain popular. Making that call now is like putting the book down after chapter 5 and thinking you know the whole story.

Agree this talk is premature!

This is a critical decision time for MAPS. One councilman has been outspoken; he wanted to derail the whole MAPS' agenda. MAPS is responsible for Oklahoma City renaissance.

We're on a progress train which has left the station; if we reverse now, we will lose some valuable time and momentum. Our momentum must continue; we will look back on all of this as a process in which OKC took us over an obstacle that is associated with the pains and perils of growth.

It's time for our city to move further into the Big Leagues. It is not like we didn't see this coming...

When the personal impact is so small (no one feels the MAPS tax), there tends to be a more forgiving sense. The public will shut it down if corruption is proven, but tend to otherwise look at the final product and make a decision as to whether they approve or not. Most do not get nearly as emotional as those on this board. Most don't follow it day to day. So, in the end, when we have a shiny new center, a big name tall hotel, a streetcar running by it, a vibrant city that is still quickly growing, I think most will say that "on balance" they are willing to go at it again. Most will consider the ups and downs as normal. And fortunately, we DO have emotional, vocal and involved citizens who will continue to work to call out those involved and generally work to keep them in line. But the general public will ask "is the city better now because of what we did?", and will conclude, "yes". They won't continuously evaluate it against what it might have been like this board does.

I've been told that the MAPS 3 collections already have a $60 million surplus, which, even in the event some of this surplus goes to the CC, there still will be additional monies to ensure other projects are built right.

Well yes and no soonerguru. Though I am not a MAPs hater (hard to be one even if ya wanted to do so when you reside elsewhere)
Collections may be above projections, but that doesn't mean they are going through with all the original mileage on the trails (or does it?)
It doesn't mean the original number of proposed senior/aquatic centers will be built.
It doesn't mean the Core to Shore park will look anything like the pre-election pitches
etc., etc.

I would love for it to mean that what they told folks they would do gets done, rather than kinda sorta get done. Time will tell.

Well yes and no soonerguru. Though I am not a MAPs hater (hard to be one even if ya wanted to do so when you reside elsewhere)
Collections may be above projections, but that doesn't mean they are going through with all the original mileage on the trails (or does it?)
It doesn't mean the original number of proposed senior/aquatic centers will be built.
It doesn't mean the Core to Shore park will look anything like the pre-election pitches
etc., etc.

I would love for it to mean that what they told folks they would do gets done, rather than kinda sorta get done. Time will tell.

In order to guarantee no overruns or changes several things would have to be done:


Much shorter term MAPs periods. The longer the time to collect, the more uncertain the rate of income.
Much smaller programs. See above
Few projects at a time. This would mean only the most common denominator projects get done. Probably no water sports venues, probably no elder citizen projects, probably no center city projects, probably no streetcar projects, etc.
Greatly enhance the contingency funds. This means smaller amounts to budget initially with larger contingencies.
Run the risk of having lots of left over contingency funds to be used TOTALLY at the discretion of the city.
Do not consider changes on projects....of any kind. Don't make them larger or smaller or different, no matter how conditions have changed.
Pay for all designs and get bids PRIOR to the vote. These costs come from the existing city coffers.

If you did all this, then MAYBE you can deliver EXACTLY what the voters voted on.
But, given all that would have to happen to do all this, it would render it a mute point. We couldn't get a consensus for the watered down concepts anyway.

Can someone please help my understanding of the surplus. It's been posted several times the M3 collections are currently over budget. Does this mean if the trend continues there will be additional funding, in total, collected for the projects? Or was M3 capped at a certain total where over budget collections means the tax will cease earlier than expected because a target total has been reached?

Recently it was reported that we have a surplus post June 2014. We have had year(s) in question which we didn't meet the target budgeted for MAPS III & city sales tax collections.

Optimism is a great feel; can someone 'in the know' tell us where we are with the sales tax collection process?

My internet research stops around fiscal period June 2014: Oklahoma City sales tax collections exceed budget target for third month in row | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-sales-tax-collections-exceed-budget-target-for-third-month-in-row/article/4894087)

FWIW, had I been an okc resident at the time, I would have held my nose along with many others and voted yea on M3.
I'd also likely to be watching matters more closely than i tend to do as simply an okc visitor.

We like the concept of MAPS, but both of us voted no on this latest round precisely because of this kind of crap that we thought might happen that *is* now happening. MAPS has worked out fairly well, but I didn't/don't trust our city leaders to fulfill the promise(s) of this latest one, and have sadly been proven right...

We like the concept of MAPS, but both of us voted no on this latest round precisely because of this kind of crap that we thought might happen that *is* now happening. MAPS has worked out fairly well, but I didn't/don't trust our city leaders to fulfill the promise(s) of this latest one, and have sadly been proven right...

Until the dust settles and all is done, nothing has been proven. As I analogized earlier, this is like reading the first few chapters of a book and thinking you know the whole story. Til then, we are just projecting based on what we think we know now judged by our own notions. In the end, we will see if overall we got our money's worth. Nobody with their own single agenda will think so, but fortunately the city is a big composite of lots of interests to be served. It is the entire citizenry that will make up their minds, not just activists, not just posters, not just those that favor one project or another.

my issue is not maps and it is not Ed or the mayor or anything/body else other than the cc subcommittee and (to an extent) the chamber. I'm not drinking the Kool-Aide that Ed slings even if some of it is valid, because I know he is ultimately anti-MAPS (which to me gives me an issue about his potential bias). I'm also not drinking the Kool-Aide from people who keep saying we need big-league this and that either. OKC is developing nicely but this is not the issue here.

The issue we have with MAPS 3 and specifically the CC subcommittee et al is ETHICS!!! Why didn't they at the very beginning state the full cost of a full-blown convention center to compete in the Tier II world and that it would be located on the Ford site and underground? During the MAPS campaign I recall it being more of the Mayor's vision as the anchor of Central Park, which likely would have met the budget submitted. But it appears there has been all of the behind the scenes pushes from the CC members and they're being allowed to trump others and even the 'thought' of the CC appears to have other projects 'over-budget' suddenly with or without bid (or even hard proposal in some cases).

It is unethical for the CC folks to demand a full-blown center with all bells and whistles when
1) other projects have had to take hits for the sake of budget constraints or funding gaps
2) the cost of land is unknown and may end-up being a deal-breaker at that site
3) the true cost of the cc isn't even known or bid at this point, is it even modeled/pre-bid to get more accurate estimates based on expected size/design expectations?

It appears as if everyone else is REQUIRED to take a back seat or downsize for the sake of funding while the CC is expected to get carte blanche. To my recollection, CC was not the most popular project among the voters but it was slipped in at an apparently low-ball estimate anchoring another project (to create a master vision for C2S) when in reality it is the project that the leadership seems to have wanted all along (and thereby used the other projects to blanket submit). This is unethical.

What should have happened? The leadership should have been up-front about the need to replace the convention center. I believe, if they had been honest with their desires to become a Tier II market AND all the while stated their intention of "having a 500K sq ft modern underground center at the Ford Dealership lots to get rid of that dead space and anchor the boulevard", "along with a high-rise hotel", and had been realistic with the cost estimate, say $350m, that the OKC voters likely would have still approved MAPS 3 and we would not be in this situation. Again, to me it is about ethics, NOT if we need a new cc or even where (at this point).

Not only did they slip this gotta have overbudget cc in while everything else is getting downsized BUT they pulled the bait and switch on voters who approved the CC being the anchor of C2S. And on top of that, they allowed the CC to control other projects and allegedly manipulate MAPS itself at discretion of the CC boosters/leadership (such as phasing, implementation, budget assessment, and lest we not forget - contingency). This and only this is why MAPS 3 might 'fail' in the eye of citizens, the ethics might cause a lack of trust in future attempts. Had they been upfront all along and not done these unethical acts, I'm sure residents would have much of an issue with the new state of the art CC and likely none of the other projects would have had to move or be cut (or as much).

To me, THIS is the issue.

MAPS was never intended to be a 'satisfy all' attempt as it jump started our city's growth. I don't feel we know the magnitude of a convention center; or what it will do for our economy--especially the potential out-of-state new money it will bring to our community. The longer you wait to build; it will generate more costs.

Those who are ready to 'do away' with the MAPS brand; go to the polls and vote! 2017 (MAP IV) will be the next push to maintain our city's momentum.

Discontinue MAPS, you will kill a vehicle which has enabled us to build, upgrade and maintain the health of some structures which are vital to our city's growth. You also run the risk of losing key corporations who might follow the path of Fleming & Kerr McGee.

Take a step back pre-1990s, have we forgotten so quickly the appearance of OKC?

The initial MAPS vote; we built the arena, ballpark & canal. The private sector stepped up with developments in Bricktown and an NBA franchise.

Larry Nichols, who could have moved Devon Energy to Houston led the charge because he believed in OKC. He invested with a 50-story 'state of the art' skyscraper that energized the development that you will see chart our city's future. Mr. Nichols and Mr. McClendon were key players in bringing Sandridge to fill the void for the Kerr McGee complex and Continental Resources relocation to Oklahoma City.

I understand the way some people feel about our city as we enter the 'big league' stages; that's why they left for cities like Dallas, Denver, Houston, Kansas City and Seattle because the opportunities were not here...

Can someone please help my understanding of the surplus. It's been posted several times the M3 collections are currently over budget. Does this mean if the trend continues there will be additional funding, in total, collected for the projects? Or was M3 capped at a certain total where over budget collections means the tax will cease earlier than expected because a target total has been reached?

No. MAPS revenues can only be legally spent on MAPS projects. So the surplus is real and has to be spent on MAPS projects, by law. So even if additional monies are directed toward the convention center, the other monies will have to go toward MAPS projects. That means we could see more money dedicated to the streetcar, for example.

Laramie, it is not a scorched earth scenario where you have to drink the Kool Aide quietly in order to support MAPS. A person can be a supporter of OKC renaissance but also call out questionable and unethical practices when they happen. That has been part of OKC and many city's history, backroom deals. In OKC's case they usually end up benefiting the city and I don't object to the cc or the hotel; just how it has been handled and propped.

Now that doesn't mean Kill Maps. Instead it means, let's make sure this unethical practice is no longer tolerated. There may need to be moves made and the city could hire an ombudsman or project manager to oversee Maps more ethically going forward which could improve things. But it could also be a case where we have to accept what was done but ensure it doesn't happen again on the final projects and future maps.

We can have constructive government where mistakes and ills are reviewed and best practice is implemented. Rather than push this under the rug I personally would like to see OKC improve its leadership from this experience because transparency will ONLY make the city leadership team even more special than it already is. And THAT will positively impact MAPS, regardless of shortfalls since the people could trust that one project wasn't propped up at the expense of others.

Laramie, it is not a scorched earth scenario where you have to drink the Kool Aide quietly in order to support MAPS.

I understand this 'scorched earth policy' as well as 'selling wolf tickets' oh so well. Former NBA Commissioner David Stern used this term repeatedly throughout the Supersonics' relocation debacle. As far as the Kool Aide? Wow! You sip on that more often than you realize.

Voters need to arm themselves with information. Many of the sundry decisions you make in life will have an upside or a downside.

Hot Rod, don't get me wrong or 'read' anything into what's on the line in OKC; your genuine love for Oklahoma City is appreciated.

If there are questions or concerns about the way 'city hall' or the 'chamber' are selling things; direct it to those institutions--especially to those responsible for setting up the 'kool aide' stand.

We elect officials to make decisions which are in our best interests. Sometimes they get information they pass on that is misleading; regardless of the intent. Voters go to the polls; if they 'smell' a rat, they are easily spooked to vote something down in the name of caution than to support it.


We like the concept of MAPS, but both of us voted no on this latest round precisely because of this kind of crap that we thought might happen that *is* now happening. MAPS has worked out fairly well, but I didn't/don't trust our city leaders to fulfill the promise(s) of this latest one, and have sadly been proven right...

Good response by Rover:


When the personal impact is so small (no one feels the MAPS tax), there tends to be a more forgiving sense. The public will shut it down if corruption is proven, but tend to otherwise look at the final product and make a decision as to whether they approve or not. Most do not get nearly as emotional as those on this board. Most don't follow it day to day. So, in the end, when we have a shiny new center, a big name tall hotel, a streetcar running by it, a vibrant city that is still quickly growing, I think most will say that "on balance" they are willing to go at it again. Most will consider the ups and downs as normal. And fortunately, we DO have emotional, vocal and involved citizens who will continue to work to call out those involved and generally work to keep them in line. But the general public will ask "is the city better now because of what we did?", and will conclude, "yes". They won't continuously evaluate it against what it might have been like this board does.

Opponents of any issue will always spread their venom, just like proponents will tell you what you want to hear. There are always two sides to this coin.

An example of a 'convention center' model IMO is Dallas. Dallas officials value the attraction of 'out-of-state new money' to grow their local economy. Our city is in the process to build new facilities as they now recognize that you have to get ahead of the game, to be in-the-game.

Our current convention center must be replaced if we want to attract conventions that will grow our economy. Oklahoma City has the genuine hospitality to really serge ahead in this area; let's get it right with officials who are in charge.

There are so many 'intangibles' that result from conventions which often lead corporations to consider a new expansion or relocation market like Oklahoma City.