I thought all the discussion about needing to go back to a vote of the people for re-approval on the convention center & hotel was interesting to say the least. Wasn't the original vote simply for a sales tax that the council tied to a series of projects? Technically speaking, it's not like there was a vote for the convention center in the first place, or any of the other projects.

(Not to hfry in particular) Why is using OCURA an idea? Can you spend more money and hide it under the OCURA mantel that way? Does it allow the city to spend more money on the Convention Center (or hotel) without using MAPS money (why in the world wound any city do that?)? Can OCURA buy the original plot of land at any price and sell / give it to the City for the budgeted price?

Just watched the meeting.

In response to Shadid's questioning of how eminent domain might affect the future convention center and hotel site, Cathy O'Connor and the Municipal Counselor both said that they could use OCURA to acquire the land (rather than the City itself) and that state laws allow urban renewal as a reason to take land and then convey to private developers.

To clarify, what the state law says is that "blighted" properties can be handled in this way. It seems the City is confident they can address that issue at least from a legal standpoint, even if that does not align with the spirit of the law. Everyone knows that REHCO property (or most others around downtown) are not truly blighted; REHCO is planning to develop their property, after all.

Also, if this is such a brilliant strategy, why didn't we use it in the initial eminent domain action against REHCO? If it is so clearly a way around the issues with the hotel in particular, someone needs to be held accountable for spending a better part of a year and tons of money on an eminent domain process that was clearly handled incorrectly.

Pete White just going off on the Convention Center in today's City Council meeting, as they were being asked to approve the increased contract with Populous:

"The convention center committee is running the entire MAPS program. ALL our discussions and efforts are about the convention center and how we get the money for it. It's the tail wagging the dog. I just don't understand it. Nobody in my district even wants it."

"When the sidewalks went way over budget, we took money out of the general fund to be able to do a decent amount of mileage. And that was all to protect the contingency fund so the convention center could have more money."

"We are moving down a path without any concern for budget. The first site was changed by the committee. They we were going to pay $106 million for the new site; the only reason we didn't was due to issues over eminent domain. I bet we would have paid the $106 million."

I'm surprised this is being said openly. Maybe I don't need to harp on that anymore?! Lol

I thought all the discussion about needing to go back to a vote of the people for re-approval on the convention center & hotel was interesting to say the least. Wasn't the original vote simply for a sales tax that the council tied to a series of projects? Technically speaking, it's not like there was a vote for the convention center in the first place, or any of the other projects.

That is correct. The list of projects were only voted on by the City Council. All the people voted on was the sales tax.

BTW, as Pete White was going off about the convention center and it's favorable treatment, he raised the point that the popular sidewalks portion of MAPS was not allowed to dip into the overall contingency fund even after it was discovered that the $9.2 million budgeted would only yield 26 miles of walkway, as opposed to the 70 that was promised during the MAPS 3 election.

He was pointing out that that project was denied additional funds presumably to reserve as much contingency as possible for the least favored project, the convention center.

Mayor Cornett interjected that the City kicked in an additional $4 million from it's reserves (it was actually $9 million) to go over and above what MAPS 3 had promised. He was insistent on this point and used it to counteract the criticism of how the convention center continues to be handled... And he was absolutely wrong.

Initially, the plan was for 70 miles. Then it had to be cut to 26 because of poor estimates. So to save face, the City decided to kick in the $9 million extra -- not from MAPS -- which then brought the total sidewalks back to 60 miles. So even with the extra $9 million of tax payer money, we will still get less sidewalks than promised.


I point this out to illustrate that it's very difficult for the Council to keep on top of all these complex financial dealings. And also to point how dissent and questioning is usually handled by the group.

The Council is often compared to a Board of Directors. But I assure you on the boards I have been on and reported to, those members took their fiduciary responsibilities seriously and no one was penalized for asking tough questions and wanting more information. If anything, that was appreciated by the group, as their butts were all on the line for the final decisions.

But that is clearly not the tone on the City Council. Those who want to make this about Ed Shadid should watch how the group -- besides Ed -- reacted to Pete's concerns.

You could definetly see which councilors were together and which ones were getting odd looks for asking questions or trying to find out information. I'm very curious what the new ward 8 councilmen will turn out to be.

Despite uncertain site, hotel chains still want to check in to convention center | The Journal Record (http://journalrecord.com/2015/03/30/despite-uncertain-site-hotel-chains-still-want-to-check-in-to-convention-center-real-estate/)

The side walks as a policy choice of the council was given money from the general fund. Period. It was a policy choice. THey could have taken it out of maps 3 funds but they (the majority of the council ) didn't want to. It was not a "not allowed". The council is he decision maker.

The side walks as a policy choice of the council was given money from the general fund. Period. It was a policy choice. THey could have taken it out of maps 3 funds but they (the majority of the council ) didn't want to. It was not a "not allowed". The council is he decision maker.

That course of action was recommended by a MAPS 3 advisory panel.

Final approval is not the same as making policy. The large majority of the time these things are presented as fully formed ideas with sufficient votes already lobbied and banked in advance.

The votes being lobbied and decided in advance is making policy

We should remember the excuses made before on this.....

"While it wasn't actually on the ballot - it was promoted and advertised as being included".

Which, by the way, is horrible precedent for how to approach approving multiple projects rolled-into-one which is apparently illegal under state law.
Not on the ballot - but in the advertising? No, that shouldn't wash. Some member of the House at 23rd and Lincoln needs to get a bill written to change the law so that if cities are going to do these MAPS-like bundles, they have to be listed on the ballot. That's a law that is upside down and discourages transparency - which is what some cities and towns want. But, clearly the public good is for disclosure on the ballot. That seems like a no-brainer to me. I'm sure there's an argument to be made for the other viewpoint, but whatever it is I can't see it being intellectually honest - only politically inconvenient with controversial projects, etc.

I actually like the anti-log rollling law because of this very example. Of course, OKC tried to circumvent the law and now we are stuck with a convention center that we probably can't afford, with a bunch of required add-ons that we can't afford, that most people didn't even want, but had to approve to get the few items we did want.

A better method next time would be to list each project on its own and vote by project, then let the sales tax last long enough to cover that amount.

I actually like the anti-log rollling law because of this very example. Of course, OKC tried to circumvent the law and now we are stuck with a convention center that we probably can't afford, with a bunch of required add-ons that we can't afford, that most people didn't even want, but had to approve to get the few items we did want.

A better method next time would be to list each project on its own and vote by project, then let the sales tax last long enough to cover that amount.

JTF, why would you want to take us back to the 1980s?

The MAPS penny sales tax has taken Oklahoma City to another level.

Had we used that method, the Downtown Metropolitan Library would probably have been the only item approved in MAPS I; there would have been no sequel to MAPS.

We would not have:


Chesapeake Energy Arena (NBA franchise)
Bricktown Ballpark (RedHawks or Dodgers)
Bricktown Canal (nice restaurants)
Myriad Convention Center (upgrades)
Civic Center Music Hall (upgrades)
North Canadian Riverfront Development (3 dams @ Eastern, Western, May)
Boathouse district (Chesapeake, Devon, OU, OCU, UCO)
New &/or renovation of all OKC area schools
White Water River Rapids
Street Car Transit
New Convention Center (Replace the 50 year old Cox Convention Center)
Myriad Botanical Gardens (upgrades by Devon)
Project 180
Fairgrounds (Upgrades, arena, barns...

MAP I, MAPS for Hoops, MAPS for Kids, MAP III along with the possibility of Devon Energy's relocation to Houston, Sandridge & Continental Resources relocation to OKC has had an economic impact that probably exceeds at least $3 billion in private business development on OKC's economy since 1993; not including the projects themselves. The Devon skyscraper alone cost $750 million. The old Kerr McGee (Sandridge) & Mid America Plaza (Continental Resources) would have high vacancy rates.

Imagine the migration to Texas & other states where many of our talented individuals would have gone...

Maybe 40% approval could be considered 'passing'.

MAPS 'yes' vote percentages:

MAPS I ($363 million) - 54%


MAPS was funded by a temporary one-cent sales tax approved by city voters in December 1993, and later extended an additional six months. The tax expired on July 1, 1999. During the 66 months it was in effect, over $309 million was collected. In addition, the deposited tax revenue earned about $54 million in interest. That's being used for MAPS construction, too.

MAPS II for Kids ($700 million), 2001 - 60.6%


70 Oklahoma City School District received 70 percent and 30 percent to 23 Suburban School Districts.

MAPS for HOOPS ($121 million), (Big League City campaign), 2008 - 61.9%


Extended sales tax by 15 months to pay for improvements to the downtown arena & NBA practice facility.

MAPS III ($777 million): 2009 - 54.3%

Oklahoma City: MAPS timeline | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-maps-timeline/article/3910454)

We can discuss alternative MAPS voting and tax duration/appropriations in a different thread. I'll create one tonight, unless someone else beats me to it.

i actually like the anti-log rollling law because of this very example. Of course, okc tried to circumvent the law and now we are stuck with a convention center that we probably can't afford, with a bunch of required add-ons that we can't afford, that most people didn't even want, but had to approve to get the few items we did want.

A better method next time would be to list each project on its own and vote by project, then let the sales tax last long enough to cover that amount.

boo!!!!

Hotel subsidy necessary, Oklahoma City's top economic development officer acknowledges | News OK (http://newsok.com/hotel-subsidy-necessary-oklahoma-citys-top-economic-development-officer-acknowledges/article/5406276)

JTF, why would you want to take us back to the 1980s?

The MAPS penny sales tax has taken Oklahoma City to another level.

Had we used that method, the Downtown Metropolitan Library would probably have been the only item approved in MAPS I; there would have been no sequel to MAPS.

We would not have:


Chesapeake Energy Arena (NBA franchise)
Bricktown Ballpark (RedHawks or Dodgers)
Bricktown Canal (nice restaurants)
Myriad Convention Center (upgrades)
Civic Center Music Hall (upgrades)
North Canadian Riverfront Development (3 dams @ Eastern, Western, May)
Boathouse district (Chesapeake, Devon, OU, OCU, UCO)
New &/or renovation of all OKC area schools
White Water River Rapids
Street Car Transit
New Convention Center (Replace the 50 year old Cox Convention Center)
Myriad Botanical Gardens (upgrades by Devon)
Project 180
Fairgrounds (Upgrades, arena, barns...

MAP I, MAPS for Hoops, MAPS for Kids, MAP III along with the possibility of Devon Energy's relocation to Houston, Sandridge & Continental Resources relocation to OKC has had an economic impact that probably exceeds at least $3 billion in private business development on OKC's economy since 1993; not including the projects themselves. The Devon skyscraper alone cost $750 million. The old Kerr McGee (Sandridge) & Mid America Plaza (Continental Resources) would have high vacancy rates.

Imagine the migration to Texas & other states where many of our talented individuals would have gone...

The economic impact is way above $3 billion in my opinion, largely benefiting from disinvestment prior to the MAPS era. All that said, if we are around $4-5 BILLION in redevelopment at this point, we don't have a lot to show for it. We have a lot of parking garages, corporate plazas, vacant sites with rampant price speculation, and half of what has gotten built that is an active use was a huge design "compromise." By "compromise" I don't really mean compromise, but it's a little too early to conjure the right word...

The reason for my frustration usually, and most others who have an informed perspective and aren't crazy (nvm those who lack credibility in constantly obsessing over either height or urban form), is the bigger picture - are we really getting a lot out of our development boom? We were at first, but I don't think we have since Devon Tower was built. At the time we proclaimed that Devon Tower raised the bar. While it did change things forever more, rather than raising the bar, it distracted us from giving the necessary level of attention to smaller developments that have slipped under the radar and lowered the bar tremendously.

Now we are in the untenable position of somehow trying to save face with our city code, when we have lost the precedent of enforcing design standards and have lost ground not just with developer buy-in, but legal standing as well. The only way to maintain a culture of high standards is consistency in protecting investment-backed expectations in downtown property, which we don't do. I almost feel bad for the developers who were doing things the right way before this flood of sub-par development (we let Devon/Hines tear down our Historic Main Street w the rationale that otherwise their parking cost won't be the firesale rate of $15,000/space) and now a convention center that is going to wreak havoc on some unfortunate downtown neighborhood.

How can you then keep a straight face while telling the next owner of the Gold Dome that they must preserve, because there is a strong precedent and civic interest in preserving that landmark? The answer is you can't. Historic preservation regulation is precedent-based, and at this point in OKC, it is dead. It's over. We're at the mercy of developers, and now this convention center.

Hotel subsidy necessary, Oklahoma City's top economic development officer acknowledges | News OK (http://newsok.com/hotel-subsidy-necessary-oklahoma-citys-top-economic-development-officer-acknowledges/article/5406276)

Good reference Plutonic Panda,


Ward 2 Councilman Ed Shadid said proposals recently submitted by hotel developers include projections that a 600-room, $200 million hotel will require subsidies in the range of 40 to 60 percent.''

Shadid said he reviewed the proposals, finding the most favorable was from Omni Hotels & Resorts, which he said offered to put $120 million of its own into the hotel.

Omni has 'skin in the game.' IIRC Steve Lackmeyer did say that the conference hotel wouldn't be a problem. Let's begin with 600 rooms.

Oklahoma is known for its conservative and cautious approach when it comes to building; that's okay, maybe we have underestimated our potential.

All the proposals indicated that the developers would put some money in. It wouldn't be a situation where the City has to pay 100% of the costs.

However, in any of the proposals the City would have to contribute a significant amount. Likely well more than even the $50 million that has been thrown around, and on top of that land, parking and perhaps meeting space would have to paid for, and almost certainly not by the developer.

The point being that it is now established the City will pay a significant amount for this hotel and the exact number is bound to be higher -- and perhaps considerably so -- than has been previously estimated.

All the proposals indicated that the developers would put some money in. It wouldn't be a situation where the City has to pay 100% of the costs.

However, in any of the proposals the City would have to contribute a significant amount. Likely well more than even the $50 million that has been thrown around, and on top of that land, parking and perhaps meeting space would have to paid for, and almost certainly not by the developer.

The point being that it is now established the City will pay a significant amount for this hotel and the exact number is bound to be higher -- and perhaps considerably so -- than has been previously estimated.


That is correct. The list of projects were only voted on by the City Council. All the people voted on was the sales tax.

Makes it plenty easy to know where to lay the blame as this continues to spin out of control on scope and cost. (Although one could lay all of it at the feet of the voters for misplaced trust in voting for such a thing and who they elected.)

Makes it plenty easy to know where to lay the blame as this continues to spin out of control on scope and cost. (Although one could lay all of it at the feet of the voters for misplaced trust in voting for such a thing and who they elected.)

This is part of the issue. The city council has a very bad precedent of not asking questions and just taking the rest of the city staff's (and in this case the MAPS subcommittees) word for it and voting aye. About the only one who asks questions is Ed Shadid…so it was nice to see Pete White step up and ask some questions and I really really hope to see the rest of the council be more active when we're talking about issues that are dealing with tens of millions of dollars, let alone hundreds of millions.

Part of that precedent is likely rooted in the trustingness of Oklahomans. So we trust our councilors and our councilors trust their fellow staff. The problem is that sometimes staffs are incompetent or corrupt. I doubt very much about significant corruption in OKC's politics, but incompetence and covering up mistakes is a hallmark of this city's government. I don't think anybody that runs for office or that is chosen by city staff is capable of single handedly changing that culture, so you can't really fault the voters. We need a movement to develop that is going to challenge that culture and hopefully create a new culture that supports transparency so that the citizenry can make more informed decisions and be more efficacious in their public input.

Another huge issue is that we've had the same City Manager for the last 14.5 years.

Of the previous 34 people in that role, the longest tenure had been half that amount of time, and the average over the years is 2.5 years. So, 14.5 years versus 2.5.

What that means is that we have not had a new leader in a very long time; no one to come in and shake things up, bring a new approach, staff, ideas and scrutiny.

It's a very important thing that almost no one is even aware of and makes it far easier for mistakes to be perpetuated and compounded.

Of course this is about the most prosperous period in okc's history. So lots of people don't view the tenure of the manager and an "issue". And think he has done a very good job

Of course this is about the most prosperous period in okc's history. So lots of people don't view the tenure of the manager and an "issue". And think he has done a very good job

When his tenure is 6x the typical length and more than twice as long as anyone who has served before, that's something that should be discussed and evaluated.

We've had plenty of prosperity in the past and have still changed Managers on a regular basis.

Prosperity (.i.e unprecedented oil prices) lifts all ships, and it's only when it comes to an end do people realize lots of problems have been masked.

I can point to several big projects that have been completely mismanaged (Project 180 and more recently the convention center) as evidence that there is plenty of room for improvement.

Of course this is about the most prosperous period in okc's history. So lots of people don't view the tenure of the manager and an "issue". And think he has done a very good job

I'm not going to pretend to know a fraction about all that happens in this city as you do, Boulder, but that people believe Couch is doing a good job is not a valid rebuttal to the claim "We need fresh perspective". He can be doing a good job and the city still need new ideas, approaches, and most certainly a higher level of scrutiny. If he has indeed done a good job, then he deserves and ought to promote being a victim of his own success: His job should become more difficult every year and he should be needing people to call him out when he makes mistakes, and if he's a good leader, he will invite that and promote that within the city staff.

Another huge issue is that we've had the same City Manager for the last 14.5 years.

Of the previous 34 people in that role, the longest tenure had been half that amount of time, and the average over the years is 2.5 years. So, 14.5 years versus 2.5.

What that means is that we have not had a new leader in a very long time; no one to come in and shake things up, bring a new approach, staff, ideas and scrutiny.

It's a very important thing that almost no one is even aware of and makes it far easier for mistakes to be perpetuated and compounded.

Absolutely. We're at the point where some forget who is working for who. A City Manager in our form of municipal government, if they stay long enough, become very powerful, and an even intimidating force. And to the very people he truly works for only at their pleasure (the council).

I'm not going to pretend to know a fraction about all that happens in this city as you do, Boulder, but that people believe Couch is doing a good job is not a valid rebuttal to the claim "We need fresh perspective". He can be doing a good job and the city still need new ideas, approaches, and most certainly a higher level of scrutiny. If he has indeed done a good job, then he deserves and ought to promote being a victim of his own success: His job should become more difficult every year and he should be needing people to call him out when he makes mistakes, and if he's a good leader, he will invite that and promote that within the city staff.

I agree with most of this. But just because he has been here a long time doesn't mean change needs to be made.

Greg Popovich has been at San Antonio a long time. Get rid of him! :p

Good reference Plutonic Panda,



Omni has 'skin in the game.' IIRC Steve Lackmeyer did say that the conference hotel wouldn't be a problem. Let's begin with 600 rooms.

Oklahoma is known for its conservative and cautious approach when it comes to building; that's okay, maybe we have underestimated our potential.

Ya think? lol. The problem though isn't that we're limiting our upside, but rather that we are totally sabotaging our potential with atrocious execution. This isn't one or five developments anymore. Just about anything that happens we screw up lately. Never before has any city gotten so little progress out of so much revitalization.


Another huge issue is that we've had the same City Manager for the last 14.5 years.

Of the previous 34 people in that role, the longest tenure had been half that amount of time, and the average over the years is 2.5 years. So, 14.5 years versus 2.5.

What that means is that we have not had a new leader in a very long time; no one to come in and shake things up, bring a new approach, staff, ideas and scrutiny.

It's a very important thing that almost no one is even aware of and makes it far easier for mistakes to be perpetuated and compounded.

6-7 years ago it started becoming easier for mistakes to be perpetuated and compounded. Now it has become crippling.

If you want a new city manager ... get a new council. given the lackluster turnout the last go around, that's not real likely (and they all do seem to know it folks.)

Voter apathy in this city and state is horrific. The local media shares some of the blame: people are tuning out. There are good reporters doing good things, but people are not very engaged. I don't profess to have an easy solution to change things.

Voter apathy in this city and state is horrific. The local media shares some of the blame: people are tuning out. There are good reporters doing good things, but people are not very engaged. I don't profess to have an easy solution to change things.

Voter apathy as you know occurs for 2 main reason. 1 people think they can't effect change. 2. People Thibk things are going Well

I would lean toward our turnout being more about #2

Voter apathy as you know occurs for 2 main reason. 1 people think they can't effect change. 2. People Thibk things are going Well

I would lean toward our turnout being more about #2

What is going so well then?

What is going so well then?

In okc in the last 15 years. Is this really a question?

In okc in the last 15 years. Is this really a question?
Are you really surprised, considering the source of the question?

Spahgetti wharehouse

Voter apathy in this city and state is horrific. The local media shares some of the blame: people are tuning out. There are good reporters doing good things, but people are not very engaged. I don't profess to have an easy solution to change things.

I wouldn't mind seeing a whole new approach to local government that would mirror the arrondissements in France. OKC is to diverse to be effectively managed by one set of codes. Take the zoning code as an example - there are so many over-lays and exceptions - not to mention all the variances, that it becomes practically impossible to enforce them consistently.

Anyhow - what this has to do with the convention hotel I have no idea.

In okc in the last 15 years. Is this really a question?

I meant in 2015, not 2000. Gotta take down that NBA in OKC confetti at some point.

It will take time for OKC to develop into what many of you on this board envision what you would like OKC to become. Definitely, a lot better than the direction we were headed upon entering the 90s.

MAPS has paved the way. Which has stimulated private development; however, the conference hotel development will be conservative--it should provide a foundation (600 rooms) to kick start our convention industry as we enter the 2020s.

Six hundred (600) rooms should be enough to allow us to set aside blocks of 200-400 rooms for some tier 2 type gatherings. Selection of a new site will be essential for the success of the convention center.

My prediction; we'll look back and wish we had planned a 900 room conference hotel development.

My prediction; we'll look back and wish we had planned a 900 room conference hotel development.

My prediction: The hotel will continuingly under-perform and require annual operating subsidies. Second prediction: Supporters will claim the wrong location is the reason (instead of flawed projections).

Voter apathy in this city and state is horrific. The local media shares some of the blame: people are tuning out. There are good reporters doing good things, but people are not very engaged. I don't profess to have an easy solution to change things.

Move city elections to higher profile "up-ticket" election dates. IE, Presidential and Mid-term elections. That is the only way to boost turnout and reflect the intent of the greatest number of people. Regarding the media, the television coverage of elections has been deplorable. Bill Crum with the Oklahoman and Ben Felder with the Gazette have done a great job covering candidates and dates in print, online, and on Twitter. TV Stations only seem to want cover a race if their is mud slinging involved.

Back on topic, the word on the street is that talks have meaningfully resumed on the Ford Dealership site. It shure would be cool if someone could get OG+E on record for what an actual relocation cost on the substation would be for a contrasting option.

I've become convinced the convention center and hotel will end up on the original site.

There will continue to be meetings and discussions and more money will be paid to the consultants, and we'll end up right where we started.

I've become convinced the convention center and hotel will end up on the original site.

There will continue to be meetings and discussions and more money will be paid to the consultants, and we'll end up right where we started.

Double facepalm if this happens...

Back on topic, the word on the street is that talks have meaningfully resumed on the Ford Dealership site.

Do you think Couch plulled the plug just to get them back to the table? Genius.

^^that and the kind of public shaming. The rhetoric has always been they were unwilling to make a deal with the city when the city has helped them in the past.

Double facepalm if this happens...

Make it a triple :Smiley127

I've become convinced the convention center and hotel will end up on the original site.

There will continue to be meetings and discussions and more money will be paid to the consultants, and we'll end up right where we started.

That's what the committee members always wanted. It was patently obvious if you attended any of the meetings. And they don't like to hear the word "no" either. Hopefully they're not eyeing other projects' budgets.

I still want to know how they plan to bridge the gap between what is budgeted for land acquisition and what they will have to pay for that site.

I'm sure it won't be $100 million but it's not going to fit into the $13 million budget either.

No reason to bother the public or even City Council with such trivial details, though.

I still want to know how they plan to bridge the gap between what is budgeted for land acquisition and what they will have to pay for that site.

I'm sure it won't be $100 million but it's not going to fit into the $13 million budget either.

No reason to bother the public or even City Council with such trivial details, though.
This is the location that I was primarily referring to a few weeks ago when I said there were potential locations that were not even being considered in this thread at the time. Suffice to say that there are also other configuration options and financial instruments that can be brought to bear here than - again - what are currently being discussed in the thread. I'm sure all of those options are being discussed, considered and otherwise vetted by staff and consultants. Regarding Council members, it is routine for them to have individual meetings with staff to be updated on issues like these as they progress. All they have to do is ask, and you can be sure that some of them are doing so.

When everything is said and done I'm even guessing that the solution won't be nearly as painful or controversial as most here are expecting.

Regarding pulling the plug on the court case, I doubt that doing so was an overt negotiation tactic. It sounds like the court case was just becoming too acrimonious and heading in the wrong direction for everyone. I won't argue though that effectively resetting the process probably let everyone take a deep breath and re-assess their positions.

I still want to know how they plan to bridge the gap between what is budgeted for land acquisition and what they will have to pay for that site.

I'm sure it won't be $100 million but it's not going to fit into the $13 million budget either.

No reason to bother the public or even City Council with such trivial details, though.

Maybe a lease on the Convention site (not the Hotel site) I dunno?
I think the City leased to the Hall group on the Lake,
can't verify it though.

I think a silver lining here could be that it forces everyone to get more creative. Sometimes the best changes are wrought by adversity.

I still think the City will have to go back to the well. Either a MAPS 3.5 or even a IV. to finish out. The developer will just have too much risk in a 600-800 room Hotel.

I doubt that public involvement in the hotel will require significant (or possibly even any) MAPS dollars, and certainly not an additional MAPS tax.

What is wrong with this picture? The city hires consultants that say a min of 750 room CC hotel is recommended. But what we see is the applicants all have the number at 600 or there abouts. Why would the city even consider building anything less than the 750 rooms? It seems to me if anything they would want more rooms instead of less. Do they not think the city is going to grow and get better conventions?

The City's RFP for the hotel specified 500 to 750 rooms.

I'm sure they didn't want to limit the responses.

Ok,I thought 750 was the recommended number. Still,they should build to 750 IMO. But I am sure they will build a lower number and then will be wishing they had built more.

Ok,I thought 750 was the recommended number. Still,they should build to 750 IMO. But I am sure they will build a lower number and then will be wishing they had built more.

We're not exactly hurting for space in OKC. I know some want the room count higher because it will mean a taller building, but we do need to realize there's plenty of space near the CC that can build hotel stock as both infill and usefulness to the CC.

Ok,I thought 750 was the recommended number. Still,they should build to 750 IMO. But I am sure they will build a lower number and then will be wishing they had built more.

Agree!

We'll find out upon completion (one year over) as we enter 2020. IMO there will be an immediate call to build another on site hotel structure with an additional 300 or more rooms.

Have we forgotten about the Myriad Convention Center's opening in 1973. There weren't enough quality hotel rooms downtown to go after the type of conventions that would have made it successful.