Possible lawsuit against city regarding alleged open meetings violations

[Pete]

Click here to view or download the file directly.

[Rover]

Good. So we will see where this leads.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Long needed. The word "corruption" is a rough word, but when it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Let's just say it is fishy at the least.

[CloudDeckMedia]

Shadid claims that this has been happening for seven years, but only now raises an objection?

[BoulderSooner]

Interesting?

[Rover]

Shadid claims that this has been happening for seven years, but only now raises an objection?

I think he must be a reader here. Or, Pete wrote the claim for the law firm.

[catch22]

Interesting that this is on city of OKC letterhead. If Shadid is filing this in a personal capacity shouldn’t it not come from his city office?

[HOT ROD]

the city letterhead is not the lawsuit, it is communication coming from city councilman Ed Shadid's office - which is appropriate use of letterhead.

that said, I am elated Shadid is taking this to litigation. Again, Im not against development but I am against these backroom, good-ole-boy deals Couch and Oconner keep running this city. The people need to know and have time to discuss development and particularly those involving city assets and/or funds. It is ludacrice to think a major city in this country could rush through a development request released to the public the friday before a council vote just 3-days (1-business day) later. ..

Oh, and this isn't the first time Shadid has spoken up against this process but apparently this one broke the camel's back and must have a bit of corruption involved for him to not otherwise ignore it "in the best interest for OKC's development/renaissance" as he's done in the past. ...

Cheers!

[catch22]

Will he name himself in this lawsuit? I am sure over 7 years he has attended at least one private meeting.

This is so confusing why he would pick this time to do it. Frankly outside of a few people on this board, no one really cares about this parking garage, and since the agreement protects the rail right of way, even fewer have a beef.

I think it’s good that Pete is bringing this topic to light, but this seems a strange time to go to war with the city. I’m sure there’s a different topic which the public actually cares about. It helps having the public on your side.

[mugofbeer]

Maybe this can somehow include the State Fair Board?

[Rover]

I noticed Channel 4 covered it tonight. I believe they said that the private owners would only allow their employees to park there. I thought it was still going to be used for Skirvin and for events, etc. Did I mishear or Is 4 reporting it right?

[MagzOK]

Exactly my thought. He's been fine with it going on until it may be something he personally objects. Makes ya wonder. . .

But I don't like how boards do this. Most state agency boards do this as well hours before their public meetings are held.

[BoulderSooner]

I noticed Channel 4 covered it tonight. I believe they said that the private owners would only allow their employees to park there. I thought it was still going to be used for Skirvin and for events, etc. Did I mishear or Is 4 reporting it right?

Channel 4 is not reporting it correctly

[BoulderSooner]

the city letterhead is not the lawsuit, it is communication coming from city councilman Ed Shadid's office - which is appropriate use of letterhead.

that said, I am elated Shadid is taking this to litigation. Again, Im not against development but I am against these backroom, good-ole-boy deals Couch and Oconner keep running this city. The people need to know and have time to discuss development and particularly those involving city assets and/or funds. It is ludacrice to think a major city in this country could rush through a development request released to the public the friday before a council vote just 3-days (1-business day) later. ..

Oh, and this isn't the first time Shadid has spoken up against this process but apparently this one broke the camel's back and must have a bit of corruption involved for him to not otherwise ignore it "in the best interest for OKC's development/renaissance" as he's done in the past. ...

Cheers!

We will see if he actually files suit. I doubt he does. This is a losing case

[Pete]

Exactly my thought. He's been fine with it going on until it may be something he personally objects. Makes ya wonder. . .

He's objected many, many times in city council meetings and to Jim Couch and the Municipal Counselor and has been considering this action for a long time.

I'm sure the timing has more to do with him just deciding not to run for re-election next April.

This really has little to do with the garage, it was just the most recent incident.

[Midtowner]

I'm glad someone is challenging the propriety of the Alliance OKC organization. It is a non-profit created for the sole purpose of packaging deals using taxpayer funds in a manner which gets around open meetings/open records requirements. If the legislature had intended cities to be able to form friendly alliances using not-for-profit corps to work with the Chamber of Commerce to package deals for corporations, they would have crafted that exception. This whole business with the Santa Fe Garage just seems to be 'ol Harold Hamm throwing around his weight just because he can.

When it cost us $29K per space to build the arts district garage, how do we justify selling this structure at $15K per space? Especially when we could just as easily enter into a contract for parking and reallocate these spaces the way these companies want?

[jerrywall]

Is the Alliance OKC a non-profit or a not-for-profit? From my understanding, a formal non-profit still has requirements to log minutes of meetings, and they have to be read into record and approved at the following meeting. Not-for-profits don't.

[gopokes88]

Will he name himself in this lawsuit? I am sure over 7 years he has attended at least one private meeting.

This is so confusing why he would pick this time to do it. Frankly outside of a few people on this board, no one really cares about this parking garage, and since the agreement protects the rail right of way, even fewer have a beef.

I think it’s good that Pete is bringing this topic to light, but this seems a strange time to go to war with the city. I’m sure there’s a different topic which the public actually cares about. It helps having the public on your side.

The timing is likely because his term is up soon and he’ll be done as city councilor. This is kind of a, you come at the king you better not miss type situation. He does this from the start and fails, his political capital is spent and a lot of money aligns against him.

[gopokes88]

I'm glad someone is challenging the propriety of the Alliance OKC organization. It is a non-profit created for the sole purpose of packaging deals using taxpayer funds in a manner which gets around open meetings/open records requirements. If the legislature had intended cities to be able to form friendly alliances using not-for-profit corps to work with the Chamber of Commerce to package deals for corporations, they would have crafted that exception. This whole business with the Santa Fe Garage just seems to be 'ol Harold Hamm throwing around his weight just because he can.

When it cost us $29K per space to build the arts district garage, how do we justify selling this structure at $15K per space? Especially when we could just as easily enter into a contract for parking and reallocate these spaces the way these companies want?

The accounting term would be depreciation and amortization.
The market would tell you used things aren’t as valuable as new things.

[Urbanized]

I'm glad someone is challenging the propriety of the Alliance OKC organization. It is a non-profit created for the sole purpose of packaging deals using taxpayer funds in a manner which gets around open meetings/open records requirements. If the legislature had intended cities to be able to form friendly alliances using not-for-profit corps to work with the Chamber of Commerce to package deals for corporations, they would have crafted that exception. This whole business with the Santa Fe Garage just seems to be 'ol Harold Hamm throwing around his weight just because he can...

I’m also glad these things are being challenged, but not for the same reasons as you are. If the City prevails in a challenge (which I believe would be the case) it would bring much-needed clarity to this issue and hopefully enlighten many as to the reasons for and benefit of the City’s actions and approach in such matters. Hopefully it would also put an end to the baseless intimations and outright allegations of wrongdoing, which is incredibly damaging. And let’s not beat around the bush here and say “nobody is alleging corruption,” because Shadid’s attorney clearly suggested in last night’s KFOR piece that it was a possibility.

Again, that’s reckless and potentially harmful speech with no evidence of this cited whatsoever. If you have evidence of wrongdoing, it should be turned over to law enforcement, otherwise you become an accessory. If not, those words should never even cross your lips. In a debate over PROCEDURE, no less.

Regarding the need for and purpose of the structure of The Alliance, I discussed this in the Cox Center thread.

...When it cost us $29K per space to build the arts district garage, how do we justify selling this structure at $15K per space? Especially when we could just as easily enter into a contract for parking and reallocate these spaces the way these companies want?

I addressed the reasons why it makes sense in the Santa Fe Garage thread and separately in the Cox Center thread:

...Regarding COTPA, which as I pointed out is a public trust with OKC as its beneficiary municipality and NOT the same thing as the City of Oklahoma City (read a description of the purpose of municipal public trust here), there have been a number of transactions in recent years. Keep in mind that the responsibilities of a public trust are to work to the benefit of its associated municipality, NOT necessarily to get the most money out of a property. For instance, in the case of the Santa Fe garage... ...this means for instance not putting a property on the market to the highest bidder but instead looking at the most benefit for the City and its taxpayers.

If you do the former, you could end up with a single-focus, bottom-line-only parking operator who price gouges, drives up the parking rates in the immediate area, runs off corporate users - like Continental or BancFirst, for instance - and makes redevelopment of contiguous space such as Cotter Ranch Tower tricky or even impossible. Can you think of ANY scenarios whereby a highest bidder might not be the best deal for OKC? Can you think of any downtown property owners who you might not want to own it, simply by nature of writing the largest check?

Instead, the deal currently being considered does the following:

• Provides Continental a long-term parking solution and solidifies their ability to remain in downtown OKC
• Enables BancFirst to confidently purchase and redevelop Cotter Ranch Tower with contiguous parking
• Guarantees the existing parking arrangement with the Skirvin
• Requires after-hours event parking availablity to remain in place
• Frees up Cox Center underground parking from Contintental requirements so that it can be redeveloped at some point
• Frees up bonding capacity for COTPA to build and participate in other needed structured parking deals

...

I’d expect the City/Alliance to prevail if a lawsuit were filed. If so, it will be in our best interests as citizens and taxpayers, as it preserves the City’s ability to be quick, responsive and competitive, and to not have all of its cards laid on the table in negotiations.

It will also have the added benefit of clarifying discussion on this board. Which, of course, would happen no matter who prevails.

[Urbanized]

By the way, as I’ve pointed out before here, for those who feel like the procedure being used is wrong, their time and money would be better served in working to get the state of Oklahoma’s Open Meetings law amended. The City is almost certainly complying with the current law in every way.

[catch22]

The timing is likely because his term is up soon and he’ll be done as city councilor. This is kind of a, you come at the king you better not miss type situation. He does this from the start and fails, his political capital is spent and a lot of money aligns against him.

True. But the garage is a terrible “shot”. No one cares enough about this issue.

[Midtowner]

Is the Alliance OKC a non-profit or a not-for-profit? From my understanding, a formal non-profit still has requirements to log minutes of meetings, and they have to be read into record and approved at the following meeting. Not-for-profits don't.

That doesn't mean the minutes are available to the public.

[Jersey Boss]

True. But the garage is a terrible “shot”. No one cares enough about this issue.

The garage is a "vehicle" and a secondary issue. The primary issue is circumventing the open meetings act.

[Midtowner]

The accounting term would be depreciation and amortization.
The market would tell you used things aren’t as valuable as new things.

I'm sure you're aware then that fair market value is often vastly different from what a structure is worth after it is applied to the depreciation tables. Typically, once built, real estate increases in value, it doesn't decrease. That's at least true for most commercial and residential structures. Do parking garages depreciate to 1/2 the value of a new garage? Isn't the utility of a parking space in a garage built new for $29K per space vs. a space in a garage sold for $15K per space exactly the same, i.e., you can park a car in that space? Isn't the Santa Fe Garage more crucially positioned with regard to these properties than the arts district garage is positioned with regard to any properties it serves?