I wanted to correct a couple of things I posted earlier.

First of all, the original budget for the convention center was $280. Early on, Mayor Cornett stated that he had an agreement with the City Council to set aside $30 million of that amount to relocate the OG&E substation south of Chesapeake Arena. However, there was never any formal vote, most the council denied they had agreed to this -- in fact, there was nothing in the public records to indicate it had happened.

When that particular site was not chosen, the $30 million was placed into the contingency fund; although the exact amount is unclear. The convention center is now shown at $252 million and the overall contingency is now $47 million.

Also, even with the $47 million for contingency that only represents 6% of the total budget; a number I pointed out as being very low. Typically contingency is budgeted anywhere from 10% to 20% on large projects and even then it almost always exceeded.

What I failed to point out is that each project also has a contingency amount. There is an addition $11.6 million in contingency just for the convention center, which represents about 4.6% of the $252 million total budget.


I'm in the process of going back through all the meeting minutes and extracting the original budgets, then comparing to the new budgets. Very time consuming because there are a dozen subcommittees each with dozens of meetings.

However, it's necessary because of what I feel is an unacceptable practice on the part of the City: They merely change the budgets as they go along and never report back against what was originally budgeted.

For example, there are four phases to the MAPS 3 River Improvements project, with a total budget of just over $57 million. But when there was a huge discrepancy in the bids received for the whitewater facility versus what had been budgeted, the decision was made to take from the other phases (WW is Phase 3) and change the budgets accordingly. So, whereas the original budget for the Phase 1 (lighting and windscreen) was about $8.5 million, it's now been changed to just over $5 million. And of course, with that change it means there is no money in the budget to build the windscreens (about $.5 million has already been spent on A&E).

Two other things not tracked: Scope (work promised) and schedule. In the beginning, a specific scope was defined for each project but in addition to budget changes, they have also cut way back on basically every project that has reached the construction point. And they also never report against when the various stages of these projects -- and the overall completion -- stack up against what was planned.


Therefore, it makes it very difficult for anyone to really understand where we stand with any one of the projects or the MAPS 3 program overall. This is particularly troubling when asking the Council (and through them, the citizens) to support increasing the budget for the convention center.

That issue ($35 million extra for expanding the underground main hall) is going before the Council on Nov. 4th and we don't even know how far over we'll go on the land acquisition and site prep. Right now, there is only $17 million budgeted for that and the actual number is almost certain to be considerably higher, given the recent sales comparables, issues with underground construction, etc.


My hope is to have a complete summary of each project (expense vs. budget, change in scope and perhaps look at the schedules as well) before the Council votes next week.

Great work, Pete. Your work is so valuable for ensuring accountability with the projects. MMy question, once you have these numbers what can you and others do with them? Could someone present them at a city council meeting?

Great work, Pete. Your work is so valuable for ensuring accountability with the projects. MMy question, once you have these numbers what can you and others do with them? Could someone present them at a city council meeting?

I'm going to first summarize everything in a way that makes sense, then I plan to propose a new reporting format for all City projects; including Project 180, TIF districts, etc.

I've already talked to one City Council member and may speak to more before the meeting next week.

I also plan to write an article about this and not only highlight the proposal but also demonstrate how these budgets and scope and schedules keep shifting.

The purpose is not to place blame but to 1) understand exactly where we are at any point in time so proper priorities and decisions can be made; and 2) to have a historical record so there can be adjustments and improvement.

For example, on every MAPS 3 project thus far, the preliminary construction estimates have been WAY far off; in the case of sidewalks, they only budgeted half of what was needed for the scope promised. Similar huge variances for the fairgrounds, trails, senior centers -- basically everything that has been bid to date. So, it would be interesting to see those numbers and ask questions, specifically around how we can make changes in our process. (BTW, we've been off by similar amounts on most the other MAPS projects and Project 180 and it doesn't seem we've learned anything).

Similar issues and possible solutions can be raised for scheduling, etc.


What happens now is they just change things as they go along and then basically report "we're on budget/schedule".

Anyway, much more to come. I've got a lot to do in order to get this ready before next week.

Thanks for the update, Pete.

I recall the original argument about the convention center with the substation issue. When the bids go out, let's hope someone gives us a deal like they did with the downtown arena--something under what we budgeted; that mistake probably won't be repeated. It seems as though all the bids (on MAPS 3) are going over what was budgeted; hence the city has to trim down.

Question: Is it true that once your bid is selected; you're allowed to go 10% over?


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 Citizens Advisory Board recommendations may now have some teeth.

Reference: OKC's MAPS 3 board favors plans for larger convention center | News OK (http://newsok.com/okcs-maps-3-board-favors-plans-for-larger-convention-center/article/5345672)

What happens now is they just change things as they go along and then basically report "we're on budget/schedule".



Sounds like a certain city manager's typical answer when questioned about budget of items the good ole boys want. ....

This is a monumental task in that if successful we'd finally get to see the transparency that Ed and others have been asking for. I suspect that most on here are not against MAPS nor any of the projects, but I suspect we all could agree with Ed that things have been run behind closed doors and the leadership has not been forthcoming nor transparent on spending/budgeting. Its almost like this scenari:

-------------------------
Jim: All is well with project X and under budget, timing is fine.
City Council: Great Jim, you do such a wonderful job. City staff should be commended.
Ed: wait a minute, where are the figures to back up your claim Jim.
Jim: Oh, well, we didn't get that published yet. But I've seen the dollars and we're meeting milestones according to 'now speaking where nobody can understand'. So given this, I'd predict we'll be under budget and on target. :) hehe
Chamber Rep: Mayor, I have something to say here. This city needs blah blah in order to compete with cities in our tier.
Mayor: Don't disagree.
Chamber Rep: We met with city staff on the figures and all is well. With this, we'll be able to have a big league city and blah blah.
Mayor: True that. Any other comments, questions before we wrap this up.
Ed: Well, none of that answered my question and I can't believe this council is sweeping things under the table (again). But -

[now rant] why can't we spend this money on the bus system? (Ed, this is MAPS not the COTPA Operations). I have citizens who can't get to work and our bus system is a mess. We need 'dollars' to fix it (no, not necessarily. We really need to fix the schedules, instead of having every route into downtown, we should implement hub and spoke system). [rant over]

I'm not going to comment any more until I see more transparency here. The voters deserve our trust and they deserve to see how the dollars are being spent.
Mayor: O.K. if nothing else, cast your votes. Passes unanimous.

then, two weeks later

Jim: City Manager report illustrates that Project X is $$ over budget. Due to move Y and Z (that nobody knows who did what or what that means) we now need to revise the budget for Project X. The good news is tax collections have been higher that projected and we have contingencies to tap. So, with that being said. Since project X is over budget, I recommend we stall the other projects until this is resolved. Or, we could proceed but cut so that Project X makes its projection.
Ed: See, I told everyone here that we needed to see the numbers. But nobody listened.
Jim: I told you before that we were ok, but that assumed (something that shouldn't have been assumed).
Ed: But you didn't provide any documentation, nothing written as to what was budgeted, or what was even done with the dollars spent.
Jim: City staff has been working diligently on that, and will have something shortly.
Ed: Uggh
Mayor: Well, it will be nice to see that documentation, as I myself am a bit confused with the message being delivered here. You see kids, the citizens of this city voted for Maps III and we owe it to them to deliver the projects any way possible. Project X and the streetcar alone will catapult OKC's status as a big league city. I know, I was at People magazine and they told me. We want a city where young professionals will call home. So let's all keep working at it, and applaud the subcommittees for all their hard work.

Clap Clap Clap

Mayor: Any other issues, comments before we vote?
Ed: I wholeheartedly support the improvement of OKC and the voters have spoken, but I think we owe them better transparency of the dollars.
[now rant again] See, if we had this dollars spent on the bus system. We'd immediately be able to show the voters where their dollars are spent. The bus system is the most important thing in city government (because it is the only thing tangible I know what to talk about). We should have a robust bus system before a tourist streetcar that nobody is going to use. Furthermore, that convention center is a mess and is going to steal everybody else's budget just to complete. [rant over]
We haven't even got accurate figures on the CC land acquisition yet we're already voting to increase it's budget? I don't see it.
Ward 7: I can agree with what Ed is saying, we have these projections but dealing with people is the best way to get things done. [mini-rant] look at what we've done on the East side. We got leaders together and pulled ideas then got a business willing to invest. Im proud of our efforts and look forward to the future of a United Oklahoma City. [end mini-rant]
Council member (pro Project X): I think the city will move forward. Whatever it takes, we need project X completion. We have the support of the voters and the business community. I think we owe it to them to ensure this happens. We can go back and fix the shortfalls, but let's hit a home-run here with project X. It will seal our fate as a big league city.
Council member 2 (also pro project X): I second that
Mayor: it has been moved and second'd. All in favor cast your votes.
Mayor: measure passes 8-1.

Clap Clap Clap

Ed walks out of the chambers.

Mayor: Thank you to all of the citizens in the audience (none of whom are still there) who attended council session today. I think we've witnessed what makes OKC great, despite our differences (or knowledge of the dollars) we can agree to move forward together. That is what makes a big league city and that is why OKC is the city on the rise.

Now if you'll excuse me, I gotta make that non-stop flight to Newark to meet with Ellen for the show tomorrow. :D
-------------------------------

haha, this was a bit of humor (but also some truths). I hope you all enjoyed it and do look forward to Pete's analysis. I think our council does a great job but we do need to uphold transparency (particularly with MAPS).

Lolz. Awesomeness...

I mean, but isn't there a bit of truth in that? It's funny, but also . .. true.

Thanks for your work, Pete. And HOT ROD that was awesome.

From way out here away from downtown, there seems to be more than a wee bit of truth in your humor.
Some folks didn't start calling Project 180 Project 90ish without a reason.

The City Council is set to vote tomorrow to move $30 million from the infrastructure budget plus $5 million from the general contingency budget to the convention center, so it could be expanded beyond the original scope. $1 million would also be moved from general contingency to screen the OG&E substation near the proposed park.

I will do a separate, much more detailed write-up about how City projects are budgeted, bid, managed and reported as well as taking a detailed look at the budgets for each of the MAPS 3 projects and Project 180. But, I wanted to get this posted before tomorrow's meeting.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/maps3budget110314.jpg

In addition to the general contingency budget (2.2% of the total budget), each project also has contingency dollars allocated (ranging from 2.9% to 4.9%). Combining all these amounts into a total contingency, that amounts to $47.8 million, or 6.2% of the total budget.

With the proposed changes, that amount would be reduced to $41.8 million, or 5.4% of the total budget.

Keep in mind, none of the four largest projects have gone to bid and of those that have already been bid, they have been way off the mark. Virtually all those projects were cut way back due to the discrepancy in budgeted construction costs versus actual bids.

The outstanding amount to be bid is $549 million with only a $41.8 million contingency; $47.8 if the proposed changes are rejected by City Council.


Also, I included the "Obligated" and "Remaining" columns in the spreadsheet only because that is exactly how the City reports to the various committees and City Council. It is almost completely useless information because the reports don't show how that obligated money compares to line items that were budgeted, or how much work remains. Knowing how much you have spent only matters in the context of understanding what is completed and what remains to be done and how those things compare to the budget.

I am working up a proposed reporting format that I will share later and also send to the City Manager and everyone on City Council.

BTW, even 6.2% percent (before the vote tomorrow) is incredibly low for these types of projects.

You would expect to see at least 10% and closer to 20%.

Will be posting more about this later; this is based on best practices from cited sources in the industry.

Yes. At this stage in the design process, budgeting less than 15% contingency is ill-advised. Especially for a building with so much below-grade square footage. When a client is trying to get champagne on a beer budget, contingency is always the first to go.

Does this analysis factor in the extra money collected over the initial tax projections (6%, or roughly $24 million as of September)?

Not that the city should be counting on these things as most windfalls are usually temporary.

BUT - it is a windfall nonetheless and should be added to the count just like a deficit is negated from budget.

Does this analysis factor in the extra money collected over the initial tax projections (6%, or roughly $24 million as of September)?

Not that the city should be counting on these things as most windfalls are usually temporary.

The budget shown is for expenses, not revenues.

And while the overall sales tax collection is running 6% better than budgeted thus far (more than halfway through the collection time period) the tax dollars are actually below budget for last month and the fiscal year thus far.

We won't know how the sales tax will come in against budget until near the very end of the program.


However, the discussion of revenues is an important point. I'm putting together a sample MAPS 3 report that would show this data because it's a critical piece of information that is always shown completely separate.

Another key aspect of the Convention Center budget is land costs and site prep.

I took a look at all the recent sales in the downtown area in order to get a cost estimate for the 11.7 acres. Similar information will be used by the judge in the eminent domain proceedings that are still in process.

Conservatively, it looks like the land alone will cost the City around $20 million and could be considerably more.

The Land Cost and Site Prep line item in the CC budget is $17.86 million; site prep at this point is another big unknown.

It should also be noted that the current owners have been going through a process to close off the streets and alleyways that would be part of the convention center site, and there has been talk that they want to include that acreage in the sale, which could drive up the sales price even higher.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/downtowncomps.jpg

They voted 6-2 in favor of adding the money. With Shadid and White opposing. I wonder what part of this was their belief that the extra $30 million belonged to the CC, and how much to the Council just doing whatever the Chamber tells them.

I expected Greiner to oppose. Also I wondered about Pettis. So a little surprise that it was so lopsided.

I'm not surprised.

Still very worried about the budgets for the last three projects which combined represent 2/3rds of the entire MAPS 3 budget.

Will be very curious to see the price set for the CC land and the how the construction bids come back.


In the meantime, I'm going to work up my reporting proposal with the hopes that people can stay informed and better understand where we stand with the budget before any further big decisions are made.

Bigger plans: OKC Council adds $30M, 80,000 square feet to convention center | The Journal Record (http://journalrecord.com/2014/11/04/bigger-plans-city-council-adds-30m-80000-square-feet-to-convention-center-real-estate/)

Excellent decision.

was the total sq ft ever announced? has there ever been a solid design/plan announced?

what is the total sq ft now? we know it is +80K, but 'what' plus 80K?

I'm not surprised.

Still very worried about the budgets for the last three projects which combined represent 2/3rds of the entire MAPS 3 budget.

Will be very curious to see the price set for the CC land and the how the construction bids come back.


In the meantime, I'm going to work up my reporting proposal with the hopes that people can stay informed and better understand where we stand with the budget before any further big decisions are made.

The trolly will end up just being one vehicle that does laps around the convention center......... lol

Here is the full article from the Journal Record:

Bigger plans: OKC Council adds $30M, 80,000 square feet to convention center

By: Brian Brus The Journal Record November 4, 2014

OKLAHOMA CITY – The Oklahoma City Council approved an expansion of the MAPS 3 downtown convention center at a cost increase of $30 million on Tuesday, reducing the contingency fund for other changes by the same amount.

The new plan, which places the exhibit hall below ground, brings the overall cost of the center to $286 million. It does not include an adjacent hotel that is also being considered by the council as a separate project. The convention center design is being overseen by Populous architecture firm, with construction projected to begin by mid-2016.

The decision to dip into more MAPS 3 sales tax funds created a rift in the weekly council meeting, leading to a final vote of 6-2, with Councilmen Pete White and Ed Shadid passionately opposing the measure. White prompted Populous founder and senior principal Todd Voth to confirm that the change proposed by the MAPS oversight subcommittee does not correct a design mistake or budget shortfall in the plan.

“We’re saying we want to do this because we want to build a bigger one,” White said. “I think it’s a red herring to talk about cost escalation. We’re really talking about a bigger project.

“This item was the least popular on the (MAPS 3) ballot, and yet it’s the one we’re going to try to put more money into,” White said, referring to the temporary sales tax issue approved by the voters in 2010. “I have yet to have a constituent come to me during a neighborhood meeting and say, ‘Gosh, I wish you’d make a bigger convention center.’”

Many of the other council members expressed support from the position that it would be better to spend $30 million now for a bigger center than build additional space later. The convention center is the largest in a package of projects worth $777 million that include river improvements, walking trails and wellness centers. At the time of the vote, figures in campaign promotions focused on a target of about 470,000 square feet, a significant increase over the Cox Convention Center downtown. The expanded design that won the council’s support Tuesday brings the space up to 550,000 square feet.

Shadid asked his colleagues to defer the approval until after all of the land for the center is acquired and any court-resolved conflicts about the price set aside, but that motion failed 6-2. MAPS 3 Citizens Advisory Board Chairman Tom McDaniel said his group believes further delay would be counterproductive.

Councilman Pat Ryan said a larger convention center will improve the city’s competitive position to lease the space for major events, and he would rather be in eighth place than 12th among similar cities.

“We continually have conventions apply here only to find out that we don’t have the hotel space, the exhibit space, the exhibit quality space that they need, so they walk away and go someplace else. We’re missing those tax dollars,” Ryan said. “My constituents are in favor of this, by and large, making it as big as we possibly can.”

Shadid countered by suggesting that the center could be made even bigger, and he asked for data that would reveal a return on investment for increases in size.

White cut him off to avoid providing more leverage for even more expansion for the oversight convention center subcommittee.

“I think it’s a mistake to argue that, because tomorrow they’ll come back for another $60 million,” White said. “I think we ought to vote on it and count our blessings they didn’t ask for that anyway. It’s obvious this council would agree to whatever; there’s no limit.”

was the total sq ft ever announced? has there ever been a solid design/plan announced?

what is the total sq ft now? we know it is +80K, but 'what' plus 80K?

From that JR article:

"figures in campaign promotions focused on a target of about 470,000 square feet, a significant increase over the Cox Convention Center downtown. The expanded design that won the council’s support Tuesday brings the space up to 550,000 square feet."

40K of the 80K increase would be to the main Exhibit Hall, taking it under Hudson Ave (the graphic below shows the 200K hall the Council just approved)

A big benefit to this is that the street would not have to be torn up to do future expansion; previously, the hall stopped just short of Hudson.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc110514.jpg

Here is another view looking north; the yellow area to the left is the portion of the expanded Exhibit Hall that would be located under Hudson:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc110514b.jpg

Wow I really haven't paid attention, I didn't know so much of it was below grade. I think that's pretty common though right?

It's somewhat common at least in my anecdotal experience. The Moscone Center in San Francisco comes to mind as a convention center I have been to that has large underground spaces, though most of the others have been entirely above ground.

“We’re saying we want to do this because we want to build a bigger one,” White said. “I think it’s a red herring to talk about cost escalation. We’re really talking about a bigger project.

“This item was the least popular on the (MAPS 3) ballot, and yet it’s the one we’re going to try to put more money into,” White said, referring to the temporary sales tax issue approved by the voters in 2010. “I have yet to have a constituent come to me during a neighborhood meeting and say, ‘Gosh, I wish you’d make a bigger convention center.’”--The Journal Record November 4, 2014


https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608016053460143344&pid=15.1&P=0 https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.607998950900827294&pid=15.1&P=0 https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608053557120467245&pid=15.1&P=0
__________Nashville Convention Center_______________Indianapolis - J.W. Marriott______________Colombo, Sri Lanka - Hyatt Regency

This is all the more reason why we need to sell this point about the convention center; this will be our outside image in a nutshell. It will have the potential to be the biggest generator of 'out-of-state' money being pumped into our local economy.

While the convention center was the least popular on the (MAPS 3) ballot; it will be a big impact project because this will be the face of our city as it is presented to outsiders. OKC will not be a tier II convention city; however it will allow us to host some tier II events as we step into that direction. The key move next to the Chesapeake Energy Arena will allow us to expand; thus include 'The Peake' into future conventions and large gatherings.

Our convention center hotel-complex will be the key; especially if we are able to build something in the 700 -1,000 room range. We need to think & plan 'BIG.' The convention center-hotel complex will be our greatest physical ambassador as it will define what type of city we want to become.

Ive seen the JW Marriott in Indy and it isn't very appealing. Just a big wide blue box.

I'm kind of annoyed with the new boulevard-front parking lot. But I guess it's not permanent.

I'm kind of annoyed with the new boulevard-front parking lot. But I guess it's not permanent.

At least it provides the opportunity along the boulevard for retail or another use that would contribute to street life eventually. Though it begs the questions, would you rather that retail front the Boulevard or MBG?

I'm kind of annoyed with the new boulevard-front parking lot. But I guess it's not permanent.

The recommended longer term plan is for a parking structure at that location, hopefully with commercial at street level:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc032114f.jpg

At least it provides the opportunity along the boulevard for retail or another use that would contribute to street life eventually. Though it begs the questions, would you rather that retail front the Boulevard or MBG?

Personally, I feel urban design and pedestrian friendliness is more important fronting Reno and MBG than the new Boulevard. Not that it isn't important on the Boulevard side, but Reno is an opportunity for an awesome pedestrian-friendly corridor designed with downtown's best interests in mind rather than commuters from the burbs.

The recommended longer term plan is for a parking structure at that location, hopefully with commercial at street level:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc032114f.jpg

The convention center hotel site (5) will be within close proximity to the Chesapeake Energy Arena. Thought: Will the visiting teams stay there or continue their experience at the Skirvin?

Thanks for that data Pete. I assume it was available and if so I apologize if anyone was offended by my post.

Im in favor of having a big new convention center and totally agree with Laramie that it is the outside face of Oklahoma City. I just thought or at least it feels as if this is being developed behind closed doors and at the expense of other projects which have been cut. That seems shady to me, particularly when the cc was the least popular project.

Here's another question. There is an existing revenue stream that the chamber and cvb have at their disposal which likely is being used for the fairgrounds. Couldn't the hotel/motel tax also go towards the cc and/or the cc hotel(s)?

And while I'm asking this question, why is it that all MAPS always have a fairgrounds element, when it has a permanent funding source, is already existing/generating its own income, and does not directly add to the viable environment of the urban area nor its own neighborhood? Seems like the fairgrounds is a pork element that constantly shows up for MAPS, at the expense of NEW THINGS that OKC direly needs like the park, streetcar, even the NEW cc. None of these NEW elements have a funding source (well, cc sort of does), to me that would be like the zoo showing up for a piece of MAPS, or the police department.

Will we see an end to the pork in future MAPS and allow new and expanded projects to get full funding? Think if the sidewalks, lighting, and trails were fully funded. That alone would make a HUGE impact to OKC, that would feed expanded transit, beautification, and public safety and cost less than the pork that went to the fairgrounds (which tore down viable buildings/revenue sources so they could show up begging for MAPS).

People keep saying the fairgrounds has horse shows and this is big for OKC. Well, doesn't that generate money for the fairgrounds? Shouldn't that go to capital expenditure? They also likely enjoy all of the hotel/motel tax. So why do they ALSO need every MAPS?

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQKGqZOU9GnBnncnt7tEOXg4WyluJeFM A2WT7SMDA_NY6hvEoJW
Completion in 2016 of the county's $260 million, 600-room Hilton
Cleveland's new convention hotel could bring life to the Mall and connect a disconnected downtown | cleveland.com (http://www.cleveland.com/architecture/index.ssf/2013/07/the_new_cleveland_convention_h.html)

Currently, the Trade Shows & Rodeos at the fairgrounds are among our most productive instruments of pumping 'out-of-state' money into our local economy. We understand all of that.

However,
You would think that since MAPS has built a number of facilities on the fairgrounds; they (Fair Board) would have a 'nest egg' of funds to spend on upgrades at Fair Park. Why haven't they built something iconic like a new Space Tower or Monorail.


https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRvhZJBksQZe9GgItMKB0NIO3bYeJWqF tUQuJkuDbd-Ox4ekkOcWQ
Relics (Space Tower, monorail leftovers) are fine to have as 'conversation pieces.'

Come on, FAIR BOARD--it's time to build something...

my point exactly Laramie. I'd be in favor of more $ to the convention center to do it right if we didn't have to keep sending money to an already funded source like the fairgrounds. If they're already getting shows and already the largest horse market or whatever, then they should have revenues to start funding themselves without MAPS.

The convention center hotel site (5) will be within close proximity to the Chesapeake Energy Arena. Thought: Will the visiting teams stay there or continue their experience at the Skirvin?

I doubt the convention center hotel would host NBA teams. Currently, teams stay at the Skirvin, Colcord and Renaissance.

... ... to me that would be like the zoo showing up for a piece of MAPS, or the police department. ...

Not aware of the zoo ever showing up, but hasn't public safety actually received a fair (no pun intended) sum of the use taxes that get generated as a result of MAPs?

I think the convention center project is less about conventions and more about inflating property values downtown through massive capital investment. Plus a bit of civic vanity.

I think the convention center project is less about conventions and more about inflating property values downtown through massive capital investment. Plus a bit of civic vanity.

I disagree. When you compare the Cox Center to other convention centers in cities the size of OKC it comes in way, way subpar. This convention center will enable OKC to compete with peer cities for conventions and raise the city's national exposure in the business world. The thing about the convention center is its benefits are intangible, but they are no less real.

If that's the case (and that's like, just your opinion man :)), then stronger downtown property values should have a ripple effect on surrounding areas close to downtown and on outward in terms of increasing their property values as well. I firmly believe in what the mayor has always said that a city is only as strong as it's downtown.

I think the convention center project is less about conventions and more about inflating property values downtown through massive capital investment. Plus a bit of civic vanity.

You've been drinking the Ed Koolaid too long. Have you ever been to a convention in another city? Have you ever actually had a chance to compare our current facility against others in other cities? If the answer to either of those is yes, I don't know how you don't think we need a new and larger one. I'm not crazy about using additional funds to further increase the size, but I think the expansion is necessary.

Also, if you've actually followed development downtown and paid attention to property values, you would realize that a new convention center is not needed to increase them.

Ive seen the JW Marriott in Indy and it isn't very appealing. Just a big wide blue box.

Agree, and it's location is a bit odd, kind of away from the CBD a bit

You've been drinking the Ed Koolaid too long. Have you ever been to a convention in another city? Have you ever actually had a chance to compare our current facility against others in other cities? If the answer to either of those is yes, I don't know how you don't think we need a new and larger one. I'm not crazy about using additional funds to further increase the size, but I think the expansion is necessary.

Also, if you've actually followed development downtown and paid attention to property values, you would realize that a new convention center is not needed to increase them.

Took the words right out of my mouth. Anyone thinking this is just a way to line "corporate interests'/rich individuals pockets" obviously hasn't been to our convention center or to a convention in another city with a better convention center.

I disagree. When you compare the Cox Center to other convention centers in cities the size of OKC it comes in way, way subpar. This convention center will enable OKC to compete with peer cities for conventions and raise the city's national exposure in the business world. The thing about the convention center is its benefits are intangible, but they are no less real.

'...way, way subpar.' Chris, you a generous with your free speech.

The Cox Convention Center is the PITS.

Oklahoma City will need to invest as much into the convention center as possible. Again, this was the least popular of the MAPS 3 projects; however, many cities have ungraded or continue to build new convention center complexes.

The key to the success of the convention center complex will be the hotel piece. Conventioneers prefer cities who can accommodate all of their convention participants on one site. So, we will need a hotel with no less than 600 rooms; preferably in the 700-1,000 range if we want to attract those prime conventions that pull a lot of 'out-of-state' occupancy.

You've been drinking the Ed Koolaid too long. Have you ever been to a convention in another city? Have you ever actually had a chance to compare our current facility against others in other cities? If the answer to either of those is yes, I don't know how you don't think we need a new and larger one. I'm not crazy about using additional funds to further increase the size, but I think the expansion is necessary.

Also, if you've actually followed development downtown and paid attention to property values, you would realize that a new convention center is not needed to increase them.

Plus 100.

I understand the hesitation with adding the extra $30 million to the convention center. Personally I'm not opposed to it. I wouldn't be opposed if they added the money to any of the projects. I think the streetcar, the park, the convention center, the sidewalks, the white water course, the old folks activity centers, etc., could all use more money. I think the convention center is worthy of the money, but so are the others. These are all desperately needed projects.

I agree. I wish we didn't have to cut back other projects only to send more money to the cc. That to me is the ONLY sticking point.

Im all in favor of a new cc and think it should be as modern and big as possible since we're doing it (go big or go home). But it just feels weird that other projects are being downsized while we're going gung-ho on this one (which has to be underground and this and that). And we have the fairgrounds constantly asking for MAPS (despite having dedicated revenue streams and events). Just feels weird, that's all. ....

Anyway - let's do it and I agree about the 1000 room hotel. Let's go big with the CC. I think it will pay dividends in the long run and we can add to transit in the next Maps and revisit some of the projects that didn't succeed this time.

Excellent decision.

Sarcasm?

I agree. I wish we didn't have to cut back other projects only to send more money to the cc. That to me is the ONLY sticking point.

I'm all in favor of a new cc and think it should be as modern and big as possible since we're doing it (go big or go home). But it just feels weird that other projects are being downsized while we're going gung-ho on this one (which has to be underground and this and that). And we have the fairgrounds constantly asking for MAPS (despite having dedicated revenue streams and events). Just feels weird, that's all. ....

Anyway - let's do it and I agree about the 1000 room hotel. Let's go big with the CC. I think it will pay dividends in the long run and we can add to transit in the next Maps and revisit some of the projects that didn't succeed this time.

Definitely need to go big on the hotel; without an anchor hotel in the complex--the convention center can't maximize its full potential. Is there any reason why two 350-400 room hotels couldn't occupy the convention center complex (example: Marriott and Hilton brand) ?


https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608029294853948571&pid=15.1&P=0 https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.607999470596721168&pid=15.1&P=0 https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608053110437380280&pid=15.1&P=0

Can we compete with Tulsa?


...go big or go home.-- Originally Posted by HOT ROD

Let's hope this is the last time they put anything into the Fairgrounds coffers.

You've been drinking the Ed Koolaid too long. Have you ever been to a convention in another city? Have you ever actually had a chance to compare our current facility against others in other cities? If the answer to either of those is yes, I don't know how you don't think we need a new and larger one. I'm not crazy about using additional funds to further increase the size, but I think the expansion is necessary.

Also, if you've actually followed development downtown and paid attention to property values, you would realize that a new convention center is not needed to increase them.

If downtown property values are self-sustaining then a new convention center hotel will NOT need a public subsidy.

I have been to many convention centers in other cities and have found that the facilities are not the major attraction, but the city itself. The data suggests they are not a good return on investment, especially for taxpayers. As the Populus study suggested, Oklahoma City has some serious challenges which inhibit convention center bookings...lack of direct flights, bad weather, lack of public transit from the airport which a new convention center will not fix. It is reasonable to say we need a bigger facility, but let's be honest about the projected earnings, how much it will cost taxpayers, and the reality of the market conditions.

hehe, Laramie!

I totally agree about the two convention hotel idea. it may be easier for the OKC market to handle AND give the city two flags with both at the cc. One brand could be higher end, say JW Marriott with 400 rooms. While the other brand could be more mainstream/cc oriented like Omni or Hyatt at 600+ rooms. In this case, OKC would be getting two brand new flags, both higher end than any existing flag in the state, and both at the convention center.

having two would allow the city to promote two properties/price points; I'd think thereby expanding the reach of the cc enabling it to handle multiple event nights. As I said, go big!

I have been to many convention centers in other cities and have found that the facilities are not the major attraction, but the city itself. The data suggests they are not a good return on investment, especially for taxpayers. As the Populus study suggested, Oklahoma City has some serious challenges which inhibit convention center bookings...lack of direct flights, bad weather, lack of public transit from the airport which a new convention center will not fix. It is reasonable to say we need a bigger facility, but let's be honest about the projected earnings, how much it will cost taxpayers, and the reality of the market conditions.

This whole CC/hotel discussion would sit a lot easier with me if there were more openness, better care of public input throughout the MAPS process, and more accountability in place (Pete is looking at projections, budget changes, contingencies, etc.). For example, what's wrong with civic leaders being straight up and saying, "We want a very nice facility with which to host meetings?" That honesty, while a bit naked for some tastes, would still be acceptable because people would not feel taken in by hidden or adverse studies.

here here. be honest about wanting to go big on this. People would be more willing to accept imo than undercutting and sliding dollars acting like the public is ignorant. ./..

OKC needs a new cc and needs one that is modern and can compete against other tier 2 markets. So, say so and be honest about it. Transparency is the key to good government. There was no need to underfund projects while overfunding one venue and sliding dollars to another.

The $30 million that went into the contingency fund was what Mayor Mick Cornett was vehemently lobbying to set aside for the OG&E substation removal.

I felt all along that the money in the contingency fund should have gone to the Convention Center since this was tied to the proposed original site.

As far as a convention center anchor hotel(s), I feel the city has plans that they have not revealed or at liberty to discuss at this time for the cc (something's in the pot). Agreement with HotRod, they could use a higher & lower brand combination for the convention center complex.

I just don't see a mega 700-plus room hotel at the convention center under one flag without some kind of financial incentives.

Here is another view looking north; the yellow area to the left is the portion of the expanded Exhibit Hall that would be located under Hudson:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/cc110514b.jpg

World's largest tornado shelter? lolz At least its in the right place. I can hear poor Mike Morgan now. Head to the downtown shelter now! Lines of cars trying to get into the Boulevard garage.... Wow! Now we know why the Boulevard is designed that way!

I'm not sure that any roadway could ever achieve a decent Level of Service during a Mike Morgan tornado panic..not even an ODOT-designed one.

When is construction supposed to Start on the Convention Center?

April 2016. To be finished by early 2019.