Only if the convention center is not planning to spend all of it's budget, and I am very sure that isn't the case.

They are going to spend their budget, plus the $30 million extra that was just allocated, plus contingency, PLUS more City assets in the form of land. And this is before we even have a design, let alone construction bids.

That was not the deal struck with voters and the reason there is a budget -- and subcommittees and all types of oversight -- in the first place.

Plus piggyback on public funding by hook or crook of a CC Hotel to attempt to make the CC viable.

If we put it on land the city already owns, would anybody care?

So far, it appears only mkjeeves would. The fact that Pete would apparently support THIS scenario but not a land swap is what confuses me about his argument.

By the way, my position on this is very consistent and has nothing to do with the CC itself, or even MAPS. If the City needs to build a public facility - a building, a park, or other infrastructure - and can locate it on land they already own or can do a fair land swap for the needed property I'm all for it. And if doing so allows them to more easily bring in a quality project within the identified construction funding, I would see that as a cause for celebration rather than a cause for consternation.

So far, it appears only mkjeeves would. The fact that Pete would apparently support THIS scenario but not a land swap is what confuses me about his argument.

By the way, my position on this is very consistent and has nothing to do with the CC itself, or even MAPS. If the City needs to build a public facility - a building, a park, or other infrastructure - and can locate it on land they already own or can do a fair land swap for the needed property I'm all for it. And if doing so allows them to more easily bring in a quality project within the identified construction funding, I would see that as a cause for celebration rather than a cause for consternation.

I wouldn't if that had been the plan from the start or they were going to be honest about the total cost and spend. They are making a sham of the MAPs voter approval process.

So far, it appears only mkjeeves would. The fact that Pete would apparently support THIS scenario but not a land swap is what confuses me about his argument.

My issue - and it should be everyone's -- is that they are changing the rules after they were already decided. Please name another MAPS project that has been handled in this way.

And they are effectively increasing the investment in this particular project (potentially by a very wide margin), which already has a very dubious track record of favoritism before it is even out of the gate. AND they are already planning to spend a ton more tax dollars on other cc "necessities".

Where does this end?

Only if the convention center is not planning to spend all of it's budget, and I am very sure that isn't the case.

They are going to spend their budget, plus the $30 million extra that was just allocated, plus contingency, PLUS more City assets in the form of land.

That was not the deal struck with voters and the reason there is a budget -- and subcommittees and all types of oversight -- in the first place.

I think you missed what I was saying. The 'budget' is based 100% on the CC's share of MAPS III money. If there is a land swap and no real money changes hands above the $17 million allocated, yet you charge the total value of the land to the CC budget, then that will produce a surplus in the MAPS III funds. The only way that doesn't happen is if there is a transfer of real money from the MAPS III bucket to the City's general fund and that would be totally ridiculous and a much bigger violation of the public trust than anything that is going on in this discussion. The City doesn't sell land to itself and it sure doesn't transfer money from MAPS to the general fund.

When the cc study was produced it identified 3 components that were required to be successful: 1) The MAPS III funded phase I, 2) A non-MAPS funded phase II, 3) A hotel. If the hotel can be funded off the MAPS III budget even though it is part of the same overall project and on the same land, then why is there an issue for item #2 - because ostensibly, the land acquisition includes space for phase II and the hotel. If you want to watch for funny business, during the hotel development see if they try and 'sell' the land the hotel is going to be on and then transfer those proceeds to the CC budget. If we stick with what you are proposing then that not only would be acceptable, it would be required - and I am sure all of us would cry foul if that happens.

Now I assuming the City Council will have to approve the land swap idea. I know here on OKCTalk this idea has been discussed and bandied about for at least 6 years.

...

So, why is the convention center being treated this way when no other MAPS project has been?

...



perhaps because its the project that matters most to certain folk who party on the corner of movers blvd. and shakers ave.?

perhaps because its the project that matters most to certain folk who party on the corner of movers blvd. and shakers ave.?

Look no further than who are the primary backers of this project.

No one can deny it has been treated very, very differently than any other MAPS project, past or current.


I have no issue with the convention center. It was part of MAPS 3 and that has all been agreed upon.

But the ends does not justify the means and we have an ever-growing list of unique and questionable decisions and tactics around this project and we are still in the early stages.

it seems like every week there is some new initiative working behind the scenes to increase the public investment.

I will reiterate that I would support use of City-owned property in the building of not only this project but ALL MAPS projects and in fact all publicly-funded projects. I find nothing objectionable or questionable about this...at all.

Has any other MAPS project been built on city owned land? And if so, has the effective value of the land ever been charged to that project's budget?

This is the most interesting "argument" I've read on here in a long time.

I have no issue with the land swap as long as a fair appraisal is used for both parcels. As far as the budget goes, could they not split this into two actions? Step 1: trade land. Step 2: hey look! We decided to build the CC on the land we just swapped. (That's an honest question.) I know because a municipality is involved, the same rules don't apply, but this isn't that different than transactions I've structured using 1031 exchanges.

The ballpark was built on land that was partly comprised of a COTPA maintenance facility. The arena was built on land that was partly comprised of a COTPA transfer terminal. The library was built on OCURA property. fairgrounds improvements were/are of course built on state fair property. And Riversport improvements are of course being constructed on land owned by the City.

Here's a question: at one point the City owned the Santa Fe station, before selling it in the 90s and then recently re-acquiring via eminent domain. This is completely theoretical, but if the City had never sold in the 90s and it had remained mothballed, then MAPS3 passed with the same lack of a certain location for the transit hub, would those of you against this CC land use be troubled if the City said "hey! Let's just use the train station we already own and save the site acquisition costs!"? Or would you just look at it as a no-brainer, and feel like the City was making good decisions with your taxpayer funds and assets?

I haven't heard anyone here begrudging the use of City-owned property at no charge to build the Whitewater facility, BTW. I think most of this criticism revolves around distaste for the CC project and its perceived champions.

I will reiterate that I would support use of City-owned property in the building of not only this project but ALL MAPS projects and in fact all publicly-funded projects. I find nothing objectionable or questionable about this...at all.

Yet, it's never been done.

The only reason it's being done here is to circumvent the existing budget.


Now, if the City wanted to come forward with a specific plan on how they could use existing assets to supplement ALL of MAPS, great. Let's talk about that and decide if we want to invest more in projects and how that would work.

But that's not what is happening here. This is only being done for this project and the reasons for that are pretty clear.

Why not do it for Central Park? They had to acquire a ton of parcels, several at great cost. Why not just trade out those parcels for land OCURA has been acquiring along the park's perimeter? And why not use those proceeds to save the MAPS funds to make the park bigger and better, or to start an operating endowment?

But of course none of that is being contemplated as far as I know.


This is nothing more than a ploy to increase public investment in the convention center ONLY. This is not an overall MAPS strategy.

Again Pete, you're being inconsistent. Earlier in the thread you said you would be supportive of the use of City land at no charge to the CC budget IF the building were being placed on the land in question but NOT if a swap was involved. I'm sorry, I think few if any posting here or voting at the polls would make that distinction. I don't agree with mkjeeves either, but at least he's being consistent.

Again Pete, you're being inconsistent. Earlier in the thread you said you would be supportive of the use of City land at no charge to the CC budget IF the building were being placed on the land in question but NOT if a swap was involved. I'm sorry, I think few if any posting here or voting at the polls would make that distinction. I don't agree with mkjeeves either, but at least he's being consistent.

I would be supportive only if that was decided before the budgets were set OR the land swap was part of an overall strategy for all of MAPS, rather than an exception being made for this one project.

That's fair, though I don't think it fully aligns with your previous statement. Like I've said, I would be supportive if this were a part of an overall strategy for MAPS - and believe that after-the-fact land USE (though not yet swap) already is - and really, for ALL public facilities projects.

Pete has a good point. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like one..............its probably a duck.
If this what they are trying to do behind the door, then make it transparent to the public.

It is being openly discussed in the media by public officials. I'm not sure how much more transparency you can ask for.

It's very obvious what is happening here and like too many things with the City, the details will only come out at the very end once everything has been decided and any necessary City Council approvals already banked.

I was told by a council member not named Ed Shadid that it's very well understood that 5 of the council votes -- the majority -- are lead-pipe cinches on anything that comes from the Chamber or big business.

And that's why this project continues to be handled very differently than all the others.

Good, I'm not against anything that will help facilitate the building of the CC. I also don't have a problem with land owners making a buck, but I don't want to see the tax payer get bent over either. Lots of bitter taste still in the mouths of people out there; remember the County Jail, or the bond issue for school air conditioners? You want another MAPS vote to pass don't you?

It is being openly discussed in the media by public officials. I'm not sure how much more transparency you can ask for.

Where?

The ballpark was built on land that was partly comprised of a COTPA maintenance facility. The arena was built on land that was partly comprised of a COTPA transfer terminal. The library was built on OCURA property. fairgrounds improvements were/are of course built on state fair property. And Riversport improvements are of course being constructed on land owned by the City.

I had a feeling that was probably the case.

Wasn't there a development proposal for the Ford site before it gained momentum as the CC location? This new land swap possibility makes me wonder if it might still be in the cards, just up a block and over.

Yes, there were rough plans announced to develop the Ford site before it was chosen as the cc location.

Just a FYI. The streetcar maint hub. Is being built in land that was not owned by the city. A land swap got Okc the land at no cost to the streetcar budget.

The site (across the street from the old Union station next to the new I40 was ODOT land and the city did a land swap with them.

I have no problem with either land swap.

Oh, snap.

Where has the outrage been on that one?

Just a FYI. The streetcar maint hub. Is being built in land that was not owned by the city. A land swap got Okc the land at no cost to the streetcar budget.

The site (across the street from the old Union station next to the new I40 was ODOT land and the city did a land swap with them.

I have no problem with either land swap.

What land did the City trade to ODOT?

Apples for Apples, no problem with that. In this case it private and public (taxpayers) swap, Apples to Oranges.

Quite the technicality. The only measure should be independent appraisal.

It sure sounds like this swap was planned around the I-40 relocation and was not done specifically for MAPS; COPTA already owned land on that block:


the land is part of a previous deal between the city and state dating to the relocation of I-40.

Site near I-40 picked for Oklahoma City streetcar garage | News OK (http://newsok.com/site-near-i-40-picked-for-oklahoma-city-streetcar-garage/article/3906764)

Even if so, the point remains that the site wasn't identified in the MAPS ballot or promotion (the litmus test you've cited previously) but only decided years later, yet it didn't reduce the streetcar budget. Your argument is inconsistent and you're clutching at straws on this one Pete, I'm sorry.

To be fair and honest in this discussion I need to admit that I could be wrong that this has been discussed in the media by public officials. After a cursory online search and asking around I think that might not be the case (though still might be). My understanding now is that it has mostly just been discussed at staff level and possibly in committee meetings as an OPTION, and is by no means a sure thing. I don't believe that there has been any attempt to obscure. It is of course the JOB of City staff and MAPS committee members to explore all options.

Even if so, the point remains that the site wasn't identified in the MAPS ballot or promotion (the litmus test you've cited previously) but only decided years later, yet it didn't reduce the streetcar budget. Your argument is inconsistent and you're clutching at straws on this one Pete, I'm sorry.

There is a related issue here but 1) I was unaware of it until now (I had previously asked for other examples) and 2) the value of this land is a very small fraction of what we are talking about in relation to the convention center.

The last assessment for the subject property was less than a million dollars.

If the value of the land traded for the cc site is similar, then of course it's not a big issue. But I suspect we are talking about tens of millions, not hundreds of thousands.

#whatcolorsarethisdress

There is a related issue here but 1) I was unaware of it until now (I had previously asked for other examples) and 2) the value of this land is a very small fraction of what we are talking about in relation to the convention center.

The last assessment for the subject property was less than a million dollars.

If the value of the land traded for the cc site is similar, then of course it's not a big issue. But I suspect we are talking about tens of millions, not hundreds of thousands.
Shouldn't make a difference. Right is right, and wrong is wrong.

I have learned a few things while reading the last 100 posts on this topic. 1. Some people love to argue 2. Some people love to hear themselves talk 3. I have been on occasions been a tad bit guilty of both to some degree, but not on this topic. As I have been reading these posts, it has been a magical cure for my insomnia. :wink: Anyways, however it gets done, I hope it is something that OKC will be proud of and will bring in much more conventions and people than what we have been getting for many years now.

As always, thanks for your insight.

#whatcolorsarethisdress

Fifty shades of grey, AKA ask the city attorney if we can get away with it.

It scares me more than a little that so many otherwise engaged people don't seem to care about budgets and tens of millions of public funds.

I suppose it's why the City Council doesn't feel any pressure to hold anyone accountable.

"Don't care" and "thinks this is a wise use of public assets" are two very different things. Despite attempts by some (not you Pete) to characterize this as somehow unjustly enriching "fat cats," I just think it's a good way for a business (in this case the City) to maximize its assets. That is, if that is even what happens here.

I like to think if I thought there was any deception or trickery taking place that I would be all over it. I just don't see it in what has been discussed so far.

Shouldn't make a difference. Right is right, and wrong is wrong.

That is a fair point but not strictly true when it comes to something like this.

Scale is very much a factor, even from a budgeting and accounting standpoint; it's specifically called relevancy.


If the amount of for the cc is not relevant/impactful then there really isn't an issue.

Let's step back, recall MAPS I; it would have never survived this much public and media scrutiny.

We need to take the same approach we took with MAPS III. We elected these officials now let them do their jobs. They have competent attorneys on board to advise them of potential pitfalls as the projects move forward.

"Don't care" and "thinks this is a wise use of public assets" are two very different things. Despite attempts by some (not you Pete) to characterize this as somehow unjustly enriching "fat cats," I just think it's a good way for a business (in this case the City) to maximize its assets. That is, if that is even what happens here.

I respect that viewpoint.

My goal, as always, is just to get the facts out.

It may appear I am arguing one side of things but I tend to only do that when I feel like it hasn't been properly represented.

I have the same exact issue with TIF districts, although I think they are often a good thing. They still deserve scrutiny.

Assets & expenses get accounted the same way, but I see what JTF & Urbanized are stating. Its an interesting debate in the least, and I'm not sure what side I fall on.

Using city owned land should be valued the same way as using money, but all the money that is being used for MAPS is from the citizens so there is a big difference. It's almost even a donation by the city to use its own land. Because of this I'd rather the city trade its own assets, than use the citizens money to acquire this land. Wasn't the budget set aside for this project with the idea of using a portion of the money to acquire land? This is kind of sketchy now because the entire budget will go towards actual construction, which means the convention center is basically getting a larger investment than we previously thought.

Since no 2 pieces of land are the same it will be interesting to see how they value the land they trade for, and what the city has to give up to get it.

BTW, if I was arguing in favor of the land swap, I would make these points:

1. The City property being traded might not be on the books at full value and thus not already counted on as an asset
2. A trade could be more expedient than trying to come to just a cash settlement
3. The seller may be willing to take less in land value to offset the capital gains tax they would otherwise incur for a huge cash only sale
4. The CC will still be a City owned asset and the City will own the underlying land
5. There is technically no cash out of pocket

I like to think if I thought there was any deception or trickery taking place that I would be all over it. I just don't see it in what has been discussed so far.
This is how I feel.

Honestly, I think the contract with citizens who voted for various MAPS projects was to collect a penny sales tax and to devote said tax wholly to the completion of the stated projects. I personally don't believe that implies no other City resources will be used to facilitate this. In fact, quite the opposite has historically been true; streets have been rebuilt around MAPS projects using non-MAPS funds, for instance.

I understand the views of people who believe differently (mkjeeves, for instance, though I think he mostly just has a general anti-City Hall establishment, anti-MAPS stance); I just don't agree. But Pete, my debate with you is just what I think is an inconsistent application of that stance.

Just FYI, I believe the scenario will work something like this:


The eminent domain process will identify a total fair market value of the land to be roughly $25 million
$10 to $17 million of land acquisition and site prep budget ($17 million is the total) will go towards the purchase
$8 to $15 million in City-owned land will be transferred to the sellers

Pete, my debate with you is just what I think is an inconsistent application of that stance.

I believe you are mischaracterizing my position.

I don't think these transfers or use of City-owned land are appropriate unless that was part of the deal up front, but to the extent the practice is utilized, there are degrees of severity, impact and relevance.

And that's always the case with anything of value.

This is how I feel.

Honestly, I think the contract with citizens who voted for various MAPS projects was to collect a penny sales tax and to devote said tax wholly to the completion of the stated projects. I personally don't believe that implies no other City resources will be used to facilitate this. In fact, quite the opposite has historically been true; streets have been rebuilt around MAPS projects using non-MAPS funds, for instance.

I understand the views of people who believe differently (mkjeeves, for instance, though I think he mostly just has a general anti-City Hall establishment, anti-MAPS stance); I just don't agree. But Pete, my debate with you is just what I think is an inconsistent application of that stance.

You would be wrong. I've stated at least a dozen times on this site that I've voted for every Maps project.* I probably would have voted for the package if they had included the fancy land swap footwork and the need to subsidize a hotel, which they didn't. Do not appreciate their practices on this project and do think it needs to be discussed, like we are.

*Full disclosure. Some have put money directly in my pocket, which I knew would happen directly or indirectly when I voted for them. Including the CC.

What I believe is inconsistent is that you previously indicated (without qualification) that you wouldn't have a problem if a project landed on City-owned land, but WOULD have a problem with a land swap. You since refined you position to say that you would only support it if the location were identified in a the ballot/public lobby process, which I read as a backpedal. Then, when it was pointed out that similar transactions have happened previously, you made scale the issue.

Honestly I think your complaint has more to do with thus particular project and the personalities and organizations associated with it.

What I believe is inconsistent is that you previously indicated (without qualification) that you wouldn't have a problem if a project landed on City-owned land, but WOULD have a problem with a land swap. You since refined you position to say that you would only support it if the location were identified in a the ballot/public lobby process, which I read as a backpedal. Then, when it was pointed out that similar transactions have happened previously, you made scale the issue.

Honestly I think your complaint has more to do with thus particular project and the personalities and organizations associated with it.

Again, very unfair characterization given the long course of this discussion.

And I've emphatically stated my distrust with many issues around this project and long before now, and the reasons why.

If I cast a particularly suspicious eye towards this project it's for reasons I've clearly outlined, not some sort of personal bias or agenda. I have zero to gain one way or another. I'll just leave it at that.

#whatcolorsarethisdress

I literally laughed out loud…Damn that was funny.

I'm with Pete on this.

What I am okay with: 1. paying $17M for the site and prep (and perhaps an overage of 10%, 20% at most because value of land downtown has increased quicker than expected since the original vote. 2. Swapping out land, this for that, and being done with it.

What I am not okay with: 1. Paying $17M for this site, without prep, and THEN including $10M worth of land (50% overage), when we specifically budgeted $17M for a specific purpose.

My problem, and I think Pete's as well, is including land IN ADDITION to a pre-budgeted amount, an amount that should be plenty to purchase a viable piece of land for the project and adding to that budget a significantly valuable piece of land.

This is also not strike-1 for the project. Were this the first time something happened that had us asking "What's really going on here", I think no one would really think twice about it.

If the land that we are building on is so valuable, maybe we need to reconsider the plans for the site. I think most here still agree that we'd prefer East-Parkside and we ought to at least test the waters on that location.

The city council could put another 50 mil of city funds to this project and it would not bother me one bit. That is what we elected them to do. (Control over a billion dollar budget). The maps vote and money is not the cap on projects.

Should the modern transit streetcar project not take other funds for the transit hub. Or if the city finds another 30 mil that could be used to extend the street car should that not be ok?

The city council could put another 50 mil of city funds to this project and it would not bother me one bit. That is what we elected them to do. (Control over a billion dollar budget). The maps vote and money is not the cap on projects.

Should the modern transit streetcar project not take other funds for the transit hub. Or if the city finds another 30 mil that could be used to extend the street car should that not be ok?

All this is fine with the proper public discussion and input.

Every dollar spent comes at the expense of something else, and there are many areas of need.

The city council could put another 50 mil of city funds to this project and it would not bother me one bit. That is what we elected them to do. (Control over a billion dollar budget). The maps vote and money is not the cap on projects.

Should the modern transit streetcar project not take other funds for the transit hub. Or if the city finds another 30 mil that could be used to extend the street car should that not be ok?

Again, if this were the first time that this project has caused consternation with regard to needing more money for it to be remotely successful, I don't think anyone would really give the story the time of day.

But it's not, and it's all happening a short time after they said "Oh no, we didn't budget enough for the whitewater facility or the sidewalks 'LET'S MAKE CUTS TO THE PROJECT'". There's the inconsistency in the argument on the opposite side here. A particular MAPS project, without any real reason given to the public, is receiving an incredibly disproportionate amount of contingency aid while being coupled with an inordinate lack of flexibility.

Can we at least investigate the substation land and see if that more closely resembles what was originally envisioned in terms of budget?

Just curious, is the white water facility going on property already owned by the city, or was it purchased with Maps money?

Just curious, is the white water facility going on property already owned by the city, or was it purchased with Maps money?

MAPS money. They have a $12.3 million budget for land acquisition and site prep.

MAPS money. They have a $12.3 million budget for land acquisition and site prep.

Both is the correct answer. Some odot trade and city land. Some land that had to be acquired

There was also land acquisition going on in the old Walnut Grove neighborhood (footprint of the WW facility) long before the location of the WW facility location was firm (which was well after the MAPS3 vote) and even well before the vote itself.