That West Park site is a real winner. Most Xs, fewest stars, tied for most dollar signs.

As someone looking to book at the CC hotel for an event (or not), they'll want to know it's proximity to public transit and the rail line will be a huge factor.
I'm sure most of us on here know this. Question is, do they?
Who is "they"? The consultants? If so, the answer to your question is pretty obvious in that graphic, which lists "located on streetcar route" on the very first line.

That West Park site is a real winner. Most Xs, fewest stars, tied for most dollar signs.

Broker-driven location. It was never actually in contention. That would be a bad site even if it were free.

I dunno, "free" makes up for a lot of things.

I didn't include the site summary because it specifically excludes the cost of land acquisition, which is by far the biggest variable.

For the preferred site, the City plans to trade the western half of the Cox site (all the park frontage) and then take the south Clayco parcel for the hotel site. And of course, there is still parking to be considered, which will likely go on the Peacock Restaurant block immediately west of the hotel.

But that just gets left out of this seemingly very detailed evaluation and will only be revealed at the last minute when a deal has been finalized and they ask City Council to approve, probably by the end of the month.

Lets count billboards and # of property owners and not worry about the actual cost to taxpayers.

Who is "they"? The consultants? If so, the answer to your question is pretty obvious in that graphic, which lists "located on streetcar route" on the very first line.

"They" being city leadership. You know, the ones who will ultimately make the decision.
4/7 sites are not within proximity to the currently proposed rail line (specifically, on the route itself).

"They" being city leadership. You know, the ones who will ultimately make the decision.
4/7 sites are not within proximity to the currently proposed rail line (specifically, on the route itself).

...which is why those sites score low in that area. Obviously the City leadership thinks proximity to streetcar is important or that criteria would not have been a part of the ranking.

it appears to me that their ranking system is "again" fundamentally flawed and stacked in favor of the North Park. Here's why.

* Didn't the hotel developers prefer the E Park locations the most? then why didn't E Park 1 and 3 get 5 stars?
* Why do they keep saying that E Park is farther from Bricktown or unfavorable to the CBD?

E Park 1 is 4 walking blocks away from the Reno/EKG entrance and 5 blocks from Robinson/Sheridan (really 1 regular and 2 superblocks).

E Park 3 is 4 walking blocks away from the Reno/EKG entrance but you could argue that it is 2 blocks from the convention hotel entrance since this plan has it integrated, CBD is 4 blocks away (or 2 super blocks).

Assuming entrance to North C2S B is Harvey then it is 4 walking blocks (two reg and one superblock) to Bricktown Reno/EKG entrance and 4 walking blocks (2 normal and 1 superblock) to the CBD. Either E central park location is only one block further than N C2S from B town and CBD. So why the big difference in rankings?

If we are to assume North C2S A has the hotel in the block next to the arena, then I'd still argue the same for N C2S as the B hotel spot, since the CC still has entrance at Harvey and is not directly connected to the CC.

* How and the heck can they say E Central Park isn't ajacent to the Arena? Isn't that why developers preferred it the best (closest to Arena, Bricktown)?

E Central Park 3 is right across the boulevard from the Arena. The hotel is integrated with the Convention Center, so there likely WOULD be a CC entrance on the Boulevard side.

E Central Park 1 is a block away from the Arena, but the Hotel is right across the street.

N Central Park is a block away from the Arena. for Hotel site A, the hotel is across the street from the Arena but the hotel would NOT have a CC entrance. Hotel site B is on the other side of MGB, 2 or more blocks (depending upon where the doors would be) away from the corner the Arena sits. Now why did N C2S get a higher ranking for Arena than E Central Park?

* Streetcar so far away. What?

Streetcar is only two blocks away from E CP 3 and three blocks from E CP 1.

Streetcar would ahve a stop at the N Central Park Loading Docks, but the likely front door along Harvey would still be a block (or more) away.

* Far from existing convention quality hotels? Nope.

Say the Sheraton OKC is the closest large scale convention quality hotel to any of the cc sites under consideration: Sheraton's entrance is Broadway and Sheridan. So

E CP 3 is 5 blocks away. E CP 1 is 6 blocks away. N C2S (Harvey entrance) is 5 blocks away. How is N C2S closer to existing hotel stock? And I'd argue that N C2S B site is the FARTHEST from the Sheraton (entrance at Hudson) at 5 blocks away but a hotel on site A would be the closest at around 3/4 blocks depending upon where the entrance is.

In the next post, let me CORRECT the rankings a little bit to make things more fair/accurate and less STAGED considering the above revelations.

http://www.okctalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11048


Now let's rethink this CC ranking system being a bit more fair and not mix together the CC and hotel when the design doesn't call for it:


Reno/Dewey West Park E CP 1 E CP 3 N C2S A N C2S B CPark
Located on streetcar route NO NO NO NO OK YES NO
Adjacent to CPk Arena NO NO NO YES NO NO NO
Suppts existing Planning YES NO YES YES YES YES NO (NO CHANGES)
City Owned Property NO NO PARTIAL PARTIAL NO NO NO
Location from CBD * * * (bng genrous) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Loc from Bricktown * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Loc from Sheraton * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Loc from Film Row (?) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Other Dev Options * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0
Hotel Developer feedback * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 0
Site Demo $$$$ $$ $$$ $$ $$ $$ chargeback
Utility Removal $$$ $$$ $ $$ $$ $$ $ (NO CHANGES)
Site Development Cost $$$ $$$ $ $$$$ $$$ $$$ $$$
Misc Cost as in purchase?? $ $ $$ $$ $$$$$ $$$$ chargeback + $$

I believe this is most accurate, fair, and equitable considering the two options and without swaying toward one or the other. My personal preference is the West Park because you could fully develop a convention district complete with its own hotels and amenities, growing OKC and leaving the other sites to private, highrise development. But clearly, that scored worst of all options so:

Cost 11$ 9$ 7$ 10$ 12$ 11$ 6$ + 2 chargebacks
4th 2nd 1st 3rd 6th 4th 7th

Stars 18 13 16 20 22 19 10
4th 6th 5th 2nd 1st 3rd 7th

X&Os 1 0 1.5 2.5 1.5 2 0
5th 6th 3rd 1st 3rd 2nd 6th

Summary: 4.333 4.667 3 2 2.833 3 6.67

Final Ranking: 5th 6th 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd disqualify

1. Central Park 3 .............. 2.0
2. N C2S A ....................... 2.833
3. Central Park 1 .............. 3.0
3. N C2S B ....................... 3.0
5. Reno/Dewey ................ 4.333
6. West Park .................... 4.667
7. Cent Park .................... 6.67 I would disqualify

This is how the ranking should come out, with CP3 leading N C2S A by just a touch. I suspect the city/consultants keep massaging N C2S or rather unfairly ranking CP 3 and CP 1 lower than it should to give N C2S A and B the edge in their ranking as was the case in the original consultant rank from populus.

Interesting that the consultants did not factor in opportunity costs into MISC for the N C2S but DID so (and overestimated it) for E Central Park when N C2S has highest market value of ANY site that would be repaid by either swap of Cox lands (and renting it) or upfront payment; either way the cost is in the $100's of M, yet they ranked it with just one $? I suspect there will be underground costs associated with E CP but not any more than what would be needed for N C2S, so I gave $$. I FAIRLY gave E CP 3 the highest site dev cost with N C2S next.

Also Interestingly, this ranking more or less follows the urbanist view that the CC should be located in the block bound by the Boulevard, Shields, 4th? and Robinson Ave; due E of the new Central Park and adjacent to the Arena. This would require a significant highrise component and underground uses since the entire development would be bound in this space. This would also create likely the most significant urban frontage in the entire state, since the entire site would be utilized and there would be NO GAPS. This could set the precedent for Urban Design for Downtown Oklahoma City if Central Park 3 site is duly (and by my ranking) rightfully so selected. In fact, if one were to factor in SITE USE compared to Existing Surroundings, all sites would score higher EXCEPT both of the N C2S since it would cut MGB from Central Park.

I wonder how I can submit my fair rankings to the city/council?

http://www.okctalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11050&stc=1
Here is my revised ranking in Excel format. Pete, can you resize

Here is the subsequent rankings:

http://www.okctalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11053&stc=1

Sorry everyone that this didn't reproduce correctly with my original post, but i hope you get the idea that our city/consultants appear strongly to favor N C2S and have unfairly ranked it to get the desired result. This is especially true when considering the Costs, which are totally under-valued for the N C2S for each of the city's ranks.

So this morning, on KOSU, their Journal Record reports stated that the city authorized staff to proceed with negations on two locations. Core 2 Shore East and Reno/Dewey.

Maybe I missed something. If that was literally true, then the old Ford Dealership site is not being pursued by staff through direction via yesterday's meeting.

^That is also what I understood from reading Ben Felder tweets.

Then there is this- Council OKs negotiations for convention center land | News OK (http://newsok.com/council-oks-negotiations-for-convention-center-land/article/5432324)

I managed to miss the very end of the stream after the executive session, and the vote isn't in the Youtube video of the council meeting. I assume it'll be in the minutes, but those aren't up yet.

The two primary sites are the North Core to Shore B and East Park 1.

However, Reno & Dewey and East Park 2 are fall-backs.

Unless there is some dramatic change at the very end for the negotiations, it will go to North Core to Shore B (REHCO).

So am I reading this right? Instead of some ridiculous land price, Howard/Hall (Rehco) want to be given the ground of where the Cox Center is, on top of some money? I think its time to ignore Howard/Hall and move on to other properties. It may be the best location but it sounds like a losing situation for the city and taxpayers.

So am I reading this right? Instead of some ridiculous land price, Howard/Hall (Rehco) want to be given the ground of where the Cox Center is, on top of some money? I think its time to ignore Howard/Hall and move on to other properties. It may be the best location but it sounds like a losing situation for the city and taxpayers.

Another way to put it is the City really wants their land and is moving heaven and earth to try and get it.

I honestly just don't understand why the city wants that parcel so ridiculously bad. Both sites would work well for a convention center, but East Park 1 would be much less of a headache. It seems like negotiating this land swap deal would still result in a much higher cost for the REHCO property - though some of that cost would be deferred (i.e. the leaseback arrangement that's been speculated for the Cox site). The City needs to be very careful to ensure they don't hurt the city with this deal.

For anyone who cares: Top Value Destinations | www.themeetingmagazines.com (http://www.themeetingmagazines.com/cit/value-destinations/)

For anyone who cares: Top Value Destinations | www.themeetingmagazines.com (http://www.themeetingmagazines.com/cit/value-destinations/)

Obviously they didn't get the message that convention business is doomed to extinction and OKC can't compete anyway. Lol.

For anyone who cares: Top Value Destinations | www.themeetingmagazines.com (http://www.themeetingmagazines.com/cit/value-destinations/)

This is a very interesting comment from that article, giving the perception about airfare by most of our posters.


Oklahoma City represents substantial savings over doing the same meeting in Chicago or Dallas, Huckaby says. “And one reason for that is lower airfares,” she says. “And because the airport is very close to downtown, it’s a very convenient destination and you save money on ground transportation. You also get good value in hotel rooms, food and beverage and meeting space. You get good value on everything.”

I recently hosted a friend from London who was here for the first time and he had similar thoughts as this about all of the things there are to do here in a fairly compact area.


Over and above that, Huckaby was surprised to discover how much there is to do in Oklahoma City. Popular with attendees is Bricktown (pictured), the former warehouse district on the Bricktown Canal, offering entertainment, shopping and dining. “There’s a lot of nightlife downtown,” she says. “There are a lot of fine-dining restaurants and a wide range of inexpensive restaurants.” And she notes that the Boathouse District offers a range of outdoor adventures such as kayaking, paddleboarding, zip lining and bicycling. “I don’t think most planners realize how much there is to do in Oklahoma City. And a lot of things are within walking distance of the hotels. The city also has great infrastructure.”

That lower airfare comment is simply not true.

Just depends on where you are flying from, and what airline flies in and out of the city you're traveling to/from. But let's not derail this thread into another argument about airfares and air service to OKC.

Here's a pretty clear indication the convention center is going south of the Myriad Gardens and the convention hotel will be going to the south half of the Clayco property...

The City is set to sign leases and move 3 of the tenants currently housed at 428 W. California to the Arts District Parking Garage.

We had reported this was going to happen almost a year ago but then everything stopped when no progress was made with Clayco to develop any of their property, so there was no rush to move the tenants.

Now, suddenly, this is been moved to the front burner.

Also, looks like the OKC Public Schools foundation will take the one remaining space in the parking garage.


Still no official word where the Arts Council will go (they are also in 428 W. Cal) but I stand by the previous report that had them relocating to Union Station.

A special meeting of the Convention Center Committee has been called for Oct. 6th and a special meeting of the MAPS 3 Board has been called for Oct. 7th.

I believe they will officially reveal their location choice.

I also believe it will be the west part of the REHCO site for the CC and the south Clayco parcel for the hotel.

How long would it be till construction were to begin on the CC and hotel? Would be awesome to see the hotel, CC, OG&E HQ, and 499 going up all at the same time

Anyone who flies regularly out of WRWA knows that the airfare is actually pretty high compared to other mid market airports. WRWA is also one of the nicest airports I ever see (in a nation of crumbling infrastructure), but cheap it is not.

It's actually a good thing. Airlines discount flights at ICT for example bc demand isn't as strong as at OKC.

As for the meeting this week - While I know they aren't listening outside the bubble, I can't wait to find out how much extra money and physical impact they will demand. Here's hoping that Hudson remains open and no new superblocks... Ugh

This CC has yet to bring a single convention to town, but it's already postponed the possibility of an operational streetcar to more than EIGHT YEARS after voters agreed to tax themselves to fund transit and parks. Let's keep that in mind as we are told this week how much extra money the CC subcommittee wants.

This CC has yet to bring a single convention to town, but it's already postponed the possibility of an operational streetcar to more than EIGHT YEARS after voters agreed to tax themselves to fund transit and parks. Let's keep that in mind as we are told this week how much extra money the CC subcommittee wants.

Hold on. No one ever said the transit improvements would be immediate. At best, it was scheduled to be under construction right now, I believe. And we're not too far off from the beginning of that.

Hold on. No one ever said the transit improvements would be immediate. At best, it was scheduled to be under construction right now, I believe. And we're not too far off from the beginning of that.

Thanks for the clarification. To be fair, my comment was directed in part toward our refusal to bond out parts of MAPS, as well as the actual two years or so we've added to the delay (the full system, which has done been broken into two "phases")

OKC citizens don't seem to demand much w regards to project delivery, but if they did... The citizens would turn against transit as a "boondoggle." (Not knowing te CC and "fiscal conservatism" have been the wedge)

Anyone who flies regularly out of WRWA knows that the airfare is actually pretty high compared to other mid market airports. WRWA is also one of the nicest airports I ever see (in a nation of crumbling infrastructure), but cheap it is not.

It's actually a good thing. Airlines discount flights at ICT for example bc demand isn't as strong as at OKC.

As for the meeting this week - While I know they aren't listening outside the bubble, I can't wait to find out how much extra money and physical impact they will demand. Here's hoping that Hudson remains open and no new superblocks... Ugh

This CC has yet to bring a single convention to town, but it's already postponed the possibility of an operational streetcar to more than EIGHT YEARS after voters agreed to tax themselves to fund transit and parks. Let's keep that in mind as we are told this week how much extra money the CC subcommittee wants.

The CC needs to be a 1st class facility and they don't have enough money to make it that way. Maybe they should divert some more money from Park or Streetcar funds to get at least one 1st class project done with this maps? Might as well do it right or not at all.

The CC needs to be a 1st class facility and they don't have enough money to make it that way. Maybe they should divert some more money from Park or Streetcar funds to get at least one 1st class project done with this maps? Might as well do it right or not at all.

Trollin', trollin', trollin'... :)

The CC needs to be a 1st class facility and they don't have enough money to make it that way. Maybe they should divert some more money from Park or Streetcar funds to get at least one 1st class project done with this maps? Might as well do it right or not at all.

Are you a Chamber of Commerce plant? Maybe they shouldn't divert money to the CC since it would never have passed as a standalone project and polled lowest of any of the major MAPS projects. As far as making OKC more appealing to businesses and college graduates, a park and streetcar far outweigh the appeal of a convention center.

Are you a Chamber of Commerce plant? Maybe they shouldn't divert money to the CC since it would never have passed as a standalone project and polled lowest of any of the major MAPS projects. As far as making OKC more appealing to businesses and college graduates, a park and streetcar far outweigh the appeal of a convention center.

Second this opinion.

The CC needs to be a 1st class facility and they don't have enough money to make it that way. Maybe they should divert some more money from Park or Streetcar funds to get at least one 1st class project done with this maps? Might as well do it right or not at all.

I would support diverting money from the park but not to the convention center. The city could get more streetcar by putting the money there instead of into the park and it would also be investing in neighborhoods that are already up and coming vs neighborhoods like Core 2 Shore that are decades away from being viable. OKC already has an amazing Central Park in MBG that it isn't taking full advantage of.

The CC will have to be done in stages. The majority of Cities have added on over time(Ph. I:biggrin:n. No). The same will apply here, only difference is there will be No Debt.

I would support diverting money from the cc to make the streetcar better!

Honestly, I think Spartan has a point - why are we funding all of the infrastructure projects with MAPS? I'm looking at you streetcar, actually my most favourite of the projects, why did we limit ourselves here with just MAPS funds? We use bonds all the time for road improvements, so why not throw RAIL in there and have bonds fund the rails and MAPS fund the vehicles, buildings, and power? Again, we already use bonds for street improvements and most if not ALL of the rails will be in the streets. Also another benefit of using bonds is they surely wouldn't waste funds and would time rail construction AND street maintenance (here's looking at you P180).

Imagine if we had $123m to fund the streetcar without having to use any of that money for rails? Perhaps going forward we can better utilize bonds for expanding the rail system; again, we use bonds for streets anyway and rails are streets (and in case of streetcar, they're IN the street). Then, we could use MAPS money for actual buildings and vehicles/infrastructure and get much more bang out of our buck. Perhaps I should bring this up in the streetcar section (Pete feel free to move) but IF we were to bond the rails we 'could' throw throw the cc a bone with the 'savings' or better yet - go ahead and fully fund the 'Santa Fe Intermodal Transit Hub' (which would fully incorporate streetcar, commuter rail, Amtrak, Embark, and Intercity bus, rental car, and taxi) and perhaps purchase some commuter rail cars NOW with MAPS III to go along with the streetcar vehicles!!!.

I don't think any monies will be taken from the park, at least I hope not. I'm all for the upper park as it will change the landscape in downtown IN A BIG WAY.
As far as the need of a Convention Center, let me ask this question:

Where are all of out state/town pedestrians going to ride the streetcar to? PUTT PUTT?
Not trying to be curt, and I'm an advocate for the streetcar also, but the current facilities are a joke.

Where did this commentary about shortchanging projects come from? Internally, there hasn't been any sort of play between one committee or another to take anybody's allotted monies...

Is this just some sort of broad paranoia about the CC?

The way projects are timing out, they could easily phase in a "finish MAPS right" sort of extension with transit, neighborhood improvements, etc. I am not advocating for that, just saying it is a possibility.

Where did this commentary about shortchanging projects come from? Internally, there hasn't been any sort of play between one committee or another to take anybody's allotted monies...

Is this just some sort of broad paranoia about the CC?

The way projects are timing out, they could easily phase in a "finish MAPS right" sort of extension with transit, neighborhood improvements, etc. I am not advocating for that, just saying it is a possibility.

At times you have to step back and take a look at whose making those kinds of posts. There's a pattern.

Where did this commentary about shortchanging projects come from? Internally, there hasn't been any sort of play between one committee or another to take anybody's allotted monies...

Is this just some sort of broad paranoia about the CC?

The way projects are timing out, they could easily phase in a "finish MAPS right" sort of extension with transit, neighborhood improvements, etc. I am not advocating for that, just saying it is a possibility.

Thank you so much for being the voice of reason on this. Most of the talk/paranoia of one project robbing the other has emanated almost exclusively from one poster on this board who has beaten that drum for years now. You can read through this thread and easily see it, though I would recommend against such a colossal waste of time unless you are truly masochistic. I'd like to say a lot more, but will bite my tongue.

The fact of the matter is that if the CC and associated hotel require additional budget, it will most likely come from non-MAPS sources, or as you point out even a "Finish MAPS Right"-type extension. It's fair to agree or disagree with that approach, but pitting MAPS 3 projects against one another and spreading baseless speculation and paranoia about them is reckless and irresponsible, ESPECIALLY if...wait sorry, again I will bite my tongue.

At times you have to step back and take a look at whose making those kinds of posts. There's a pattern.

Exactly. EXACTLY.

I'm all for doubling the MAPS tax collection period. I know the process isn't perfect... but extend that damn sales tax for a few more years and give the cops a little bit so they won't try to fight it. With the energy downturn, OKC needs to continue to fuel it's great momentum. For the entire time I've earned money and spent it, I've never thought "Oh, I won't go shopping in OKC because of the sales tax". I am ALL for keeping MAPS tax going until we have $2 billion to spend. Why stop at a mere $750 million?

I'm all for doubling the MAPS tax collection period. I know the process isn't perfect... but extend that damn sales tax for a few more years and give the cops a little bit so they won't try to fight it. With the energy downturn, OKC needs to continue to fuel it's great momentum. For the entire time I've earned money and spent it, I've never thought "Oh, I won't go shopping in OKC because of the sales tax". I am ALL for keeping MAPS tax going until we have $2 billion to spend. Why stop at a mere $750 million?

Good point!

Include Safety (Fire & Police) Capital Improvements $100 million ($50 million for each area).

Let's start with $1 billion over a 7 year period where we collect .0125 cent (1 1/4 penny) instead of .01 (1 penny) collections for the MAPS sales tax; expand the amount of money in the MAPS contingency fund (10%) to account for total project cost overruns.

If you guys aren't careful with the MAPS model you will end up with what we have in Jacksonville. 20 years of bonded debt and a collection of half-ass projects (plus a few good ones), with most of the money eventually being diverted to roads and one giant poorly planned courthouse.

COJ.net - Better Jacksonville Plan (http://www.coj.net/departments/better-jacksonville-plan.aspx)

Thank you so much for being the voice of reason on this. Most of the talk/paranoia of one project robbing the other has emanated almost exclusively from one poster on this board who has beaten that drum for years now. You can read through this thread and easily see it, though I would recommend against such a colossal waste of time unless you are truly masochistic. I'd like to say a lot more, but will bite my tongue.

The fact of the matter is that if the CC and associated hotel require additional budget, it will most likely come from non-MAPS sources, or as you point out even a "Finish MAPS Right"-type extension. It's fair to agree or disagree with that approach, but pitting MAPS 3 projects against one another and spreading baseless speculation and paranoia about them is reckless and irresponsible, ESPECIALLY if...wait sorry, again I will bite my tongue.

Thanks for that clarification. The way that people were going on about it, I thought there had been some sort of article or something.

I can understand the "paranoia" to some degree. The CC Committee is full of people who carry a great deal of weight in our community. They have indeed had influence on the overall MAPS 3 schedule, the way the program plays out, and obviously have impacted the site selection process.

However, ironically, things haven't played out the way the CC committee had hoped and anticipated. The schedule as it was originally intended is virtually meaningless and require further revision.

At the same time, MAPS 3 streetcar has moved ahead. We are committing that $23 million to actually purchasing the vehicles, the rail procurement process is about to move forward, and overall construction bidding will commence in the early spring.

At the moment, there is no tug-of-war between committees regarding funding. I guess that could change if our hard costs come in high on multiple projects once construction bids are let on the streetcar, park, and CC. Should proposals be amplified to move budgets around, then ring the alarm bell then. It would be totally appropriate.

And quite honestly, there are some projects that have an easier time moving forward. Others, like the Wellness Centers, have had trouble. We will probably all have a much better picture where finances truly stand in the spring of 2016.

If you guys aren't careful with the MAPS model you will end up with what we have in Jacksonville. 20 years of bonded debt and a collection of half-ass projects (plus a few good ones), with most of the money eventually being diverted to roads and one giant poorly planned courthouse.

COJ.net - Better Jacksonville Plan (http://www.coj.net/departments/better-jacksonville-plan.aspx)

The beauty of MAPS, projects are selected & listed on the ballot; the prior to construction, the projects are debt free--pay-as-you-go...

You don't have to concern yourself with OKC falling into Jacksonville's 20 years of bonded indebtedness.

The beauty of MAPS, projects are selected & listed on the ballot; the prior to construction, the projects are debt free--pay-as-you-go...

You don't have to concern yourself with OKC falling into Jacksonville's 20 years of bonded indebtedness.

You do if the City follows Spartan's idea of issuing bonds to build the stuff up front, and then pay them off with MAPS money. Jax was supposed to be a 20 year pas-as-you-go plan, but all we have now is debt on 15 year old projects.

Bonding projects would be the antithesis of MAPS. The financial model has always been pay-as-you-go and should remain that way. That doesn't mean that appropriate parallel infrastructure projects couldn't be done with bonds at the same time. MAPS for Kids combined the MAPS tax with a school bond issue, for instance.

Everyone keeps assuming specific known funding vehicles would be used should the CC require additional funding (possible) and to fund the City's participation in a connected hotel project (almost certain). But there are multiple other potential sources for the City to consider, and a very qualified group of people looking at them. Some of these mechanisms haven't been discussed here, including some I've heard about and surely some I haven't.

But it is very, VERY unlikely that such funding will come at the expense of other MAPS projects, despite the multi-year speculation campaign to that effect, led by a poster on this board, in this and other threads. That type of reckless speculation has been damaging to the MAPS brand, in my opinion, and is even more damaging when it comes from a person with influence.

Thanks for your posts, UP. I know you have had other stuff on your plate and haven't had a lot of time to spend in this particular thread, but hopefully your posts will inspire confidence and put that type of dangerous (and baseless) public speculation to rest.

You do if the City follows Spartan's idea of issuing bonds to build the stuff up front, and then pay them off with MAPS money. Jax was supposed to be a 20 year pas-as-you-go plan, but all we have now is debt on 15 year old projects.

It would still be 'paid in full' once the MAPS' sales taxes are collected. You won't have to wait until all the money is collected. So, Spartan does have a valid point. You can begin immediate construction which in some cases could cut down on cost overruns...

The problem with that is that you would still have to pay interest for the bond period while collections come in, which would reduce the spending power of the tax. Right now we get the opposite effect in that the collections start nearly immediately after a vote, and expenditures don't roll in until much later, so we COLLECT interest, which INCREASES the power of the collections (assuming commodities like steel don't rapidly increase in the interim).

I don't think any monies will be taken from the park, at least I hope not. I'm all for the upper park as it will change the landscape in downtown IN A BIG WAY.
As far as the need of a Convention Center, let me ask this question:

Where are all of out state/town pedestrians going to ride the streetcar to? PUTT PUTT?
Not trying to be curt, and I'm an advocate for the streetcar also, but the current facilities are a joke.

This post is so fascinating to me. Do you really think that A) out of town visitors really want to go to Putt Putt; B) Downtown has a Putt Putt; C) That is all that the streetcar service area has.

Where did this commentary about shortchanging projects come from? Internally, there hasn't been any sort of play between one committee or another to take anybody's allotted monies...

Is this just some sort of broad paranoia about the CC?

The way projects are timing out, they could easily phase in a "finish MAPS right" sort of extension with transit, neighborhood improvements, etc. I am not advocating for that, just saying it is a possibility.

Do you think the CC subcommittee is going to call the streetcar subcommittee to ask for the funding or timeline or their own TIF? Which btw is going to constrict funding options for more streetcar or even operations...

There will be a TIF for the hotel. Who knows what else. Probably at least parking facilities.

They don't even have the slightest interest in building an "on-budget" or even "on-increased-budget" convention center. Next they'll prepare the expansion site so that we have to live with that until we decide to build it. Just like that we've been held hostage. This CC and the jail will be the reasons that OKC doesn't build enough rail in the next 20 years.

Do you think the CC subcommittee is going to call the streetcar subcommittee to ask for the funding or timeline or their own TIF? Which btw is going to constrict funding options for more streetcar or even operations...

At the current time I know of little public support for expanding streetcar utilizing TIF. My guess is that expansion will be funded through GO Bonds, a future MAPS, Regional Transit Authority, or Federal Funds.

I do think that there are savvy developers out there who do value what the streetcar could bring to their development in terms of access and the fact that it would serve as another urban amenity for their tenants or workers. Obviously, should a developer value the system, there might be the opportunity for them to make a case for expansion using TIF.

The Convention Center Subcommittee really has issued no current threat on our project. Of course, that can always change. Several members have been quite vocal in the past about their disdain for the streetcar system and would probably gladly accept our funds. But until the construction bids come in on all of these projects, the current state of affairs suggests that the Mayor and the majority of our City Council will protect the promises made to voters.

Right, and I know you've fought for those assurance, and thank God.

Regarding TIF - has any project utilizing TIF in OKC ever done polling to gauge support for doing so? I'm going to guess no, but that's just a guess. I imagine public sentiment is going to be worse when the CC parking and hotel are TIF'd, probably to the tune of at least $75M squeezed out of downtown ad valorem.

This is probably the real reason they can't TIF Clayco's towers, because they know they'll need those sites to support the CC TIF. I'd rather have the private development myself...which would do more IMO to support the streetcar and surrounding businesses. But that was a choice that was made behind closed doors, to forsake all of that, for the chance to build a CC just a small iota bigger on the hopes that it makes a tangible difference. We are invested ALL-IN on the idea that a 20% bigger CC surrounded by nothing is better than a 20% smaller CC surrounded by Clayco's towers.

Oh and by the way regarding timeline - when TIF is leveraged for long-term funding, it's usually as a revenue stream to back the issuance of BONDS for short term projects. Which is fine, but the streetcar should be getting bonds, when instead it gets pushed back in the timeline and no access to more immediate funding.

This is ALL about trade offs and I'm not saying don't do the CC, but there are things behind the other doors that would even make the CC more attractive. This project is just being ran into the ground by people who are deluded enough to think we can compete on size.

Nobody is ever going to have a CC in OKC because we had the biggest facility available. We'll be lucky to scrape the Top 40 in size. We need to compete on innovation, destination, and strategy. Build a facility for THAT, not for size. We could have a much more successful CC than what we are probably going to get and it drives me crazy.

This post is so fascinating to me. Do you really think that A) out of town visitors really want to go to Putt Putt; B) Downtown has a Putt Putt; C) That is all that the streetcar service area has.

I was being ironic.


Lets look at this another way.
Say you have $2500 of household disposable income and you have a TV that is a 50"
LED HD that is six years old. It's not a bad picture; could be a lot better though. In the other
room you have refrigerator that is 18 years old, still works but is starting to make some noise.
Now of course the average guy wants to buy the technology advanced TV, but you could lose
all your food if you forego the purchase of the refrigerator.

KINDA the same way everyone feels about the CC. It is a must if you want to make to
the next tier.

The problem with that is that you would still have to pay interest for the bond period while collections come in, which would reduce the spending power of the tax. Right now we get the opposite effect in that the collections start nearly immediately after a vote, and expenditures don't roll in until much later, so we COLLECT interest, which INCREASES the power of the collections (assuming commodities like steel don't rapidly increase in the interim).

Not only that, but what happens if MAPS collections fall short of projections and isn't enough to pay the bonds back? We don't need a magic 8 ball to understand the dangers of debt financing. It is around us all day every day. Why do it if you don't have to?

Not only that, but what happens if MAPS collections fall short of projections and isn't enough to pay the bonds back? We don't need a magic 8 ball to understand the dangers of debt financing. It is around us all day every day. Why do it if you don't have to?

As if we haven't already had to make hard choices to cut sidewalks and trails, and move money from other senior centers to the one at NW 122nd.

This is the only item on the agenda for next Tuesday meeting of the CC Committee:


Enter into Executive Session to Discuss the Purchase and Appraisal of Real Property for the MAPS 3 Convention Center,

Does "Executive Session"=Closed to public?