New Convention Center issue

[Larry OKC]

You need to factor in the $54 million in interest earned on MAPS money. Cost overrun was 17%. However, since there was not any debt at the end of construction you could argue that there was $0 cost overrun.

Kerry,

First of all, the $54M in interest is questionable. In a Journal Record article dated 2/24/99, Jim Couch, (MAPS Project Manager, now City Manager), stated it had only earned $4.7M in interest. This was after many projects were already well over what voters were told. The original MAPS tax had 9 months left, plus the additional 6 month extension. The extension was projected to bring in $30M total or $5M a month. Is it mathmatically possible for $75M to earn the remaining $49.3M? Are you saying in 15 months they earned 66% in interest? If that is possible, someone please show me the math on it.

In the article he said the $4.7M that it was due to the delays in construction of the Arena because of the shortage of funds, once those funds started coming in again, you don't even have the $75M due to the fact that money would be going out for construction and expenses involved with the Arena.

2nd, presuming the $54M in interest is correct, that number is added to the total amount collected by the tax ($309M), not subtracted by the amount spent.

There seems to be some confusion. "If Revenue - Expense is Zero, there is no cost over run." That isn't what we are talking about here. It is the amount voters were told minus the amount spent. Or $238M - $351M = (-113.7M). The negative is the amount you are in the hole, or overspent from what was originally budgeted.

[Larry OKC]

Hi betts,

I'm not really sure how to answer your question: "...why language is so important"? and your other question as to why numbers were important.

Other than to say this, and I am saying it badly....if the words and the numbers used by politicians and those conducting the campaign were wrong or as grossly inaccurate as the MAPS numbers were, and they are using much of the same words and numbers now, how much can you really trust what they are saying now is going to be true?

I am not saying that MAPS wasn't successful or that MAPS 3 can't be a success. But given that it was such a success, why resort to the same "sales job"? MAPS 3 should sell itself.

[mugofbeer]

I am not saying that MAPS wasn't successful or that MAPS 3 can't be a success. But given that it was such a success, why resort to the same "sales job"? MAPS 3 should sell itself.

In a normal economy, yes, but in the economy we have now, there will have to be a 'sales job' to overcome not onlyl those who automatically vote no for any tax revenue election - MAPS pay-as-you-go or bond issue - those who are struggling financially right now.

[Doug Loudenback]

Larry, passing any tax is always an unsure thing (and you certainly don't need me to be telling you this, right?) ... there are always going to be a significant number who vote no, just because. MAPS (1) had a huge public campaign ... remember Rick Horrow, the Florida consultant hired by the chamber to be go-to guy ... the public event in the then Myriad Convention center with cheerleaders like Barry Switzer, etc.

All I'm saying that a sales job is always a necessity for a tax, particularly one which will last 7 3/4 years.

[Kerry]

There seems to be some confusion. "If Revenue - Expense is Zero, there is no cost over run." That isn't what we are talking about here. It is the amount voters were told minus the amount spent. Or $238M - $351M = (-113.7M). The negative is the amount you are in the hole, or overspent from what was originally budgeted.

I'm not sure where you are going with this line of thinking but the $238 million was an estimate. The tax raised (both directly and indirectly) 100% of the funds necessary, thus no cost overruns.

Are you suggesting that the tax should have stopped once tax collections plus interest accumulated $238,000,000.00? Because that wasn't what was voted on and it was never presented to the voters as such. Conversley, would you think it prudent if money raised via the MAPS tax was spent on items other than what was in the proposal? If spending was capped at $238,000,000.00, what should the city have spent the extra money on?

[Larry OKC]

Maybe you said and I missed it, Larry, are you just curious or does this comparison have something to do with the current analysis of Maps 3?

Thanks Doug for the article, just didn't have the right criteria in my various Google searches, now that I have the article title, here is a link to the Oklahoman article in their regular format (selectable text, unfortunately the graphics are not included there).

NewsOK

To answer your question I wasn't quite sure myself...LOL...I had to go back and check...it started with architect5311 & metro's discussion if MAPS was underfunded or not, one thing lead to another...and here we are.

Wait, that didn't answer your question, did it? Curiosity is certainly a factor, but as with the discussion that prompted my response, am sure others will come up as well. Having an article PRE-Vote is indeed helpful (rather than one where a number was given and then trying to back-track all of the particulars). Now I just have to reconcile any discrepancies.

[Doug Loudenback]

As you said, looks like the text version didn't show the project by project itemization that the graphic version does ... at least, I couldn't see it. I didn't use Google to find it, I used the on-line Oklahoman archives which are free to use by using your metropolitan library card to enter. If you want to be able to do that (and if you didn't already know), here's how: Doug Dawgz Blog: Using The Oklahoman Archives & Jerry Lee Tyner

Oh, and by the way, did you notice who the author of the main article was? Berry Tramel, for god's sake. I won't comment further but will just leave that one laying in stunned silence.

On edit: well, since the main article did focus on the sports parts, I guess it's fair enough that he was selected to write it.

[architect5311]

:
To answer your question I wasn't quite sure myself...LOL...I had to go back and check...it started with architect5311 & metro's discussion if MAPS was underfunded or not, one thing lead to another...and here we are.

Larry OKC and Doug, good investigative stuff. I was just shooting from the hip, from what I recalled concerning those numbers. I have slept since all those MAPS 1 projects were under construction.

[architect5311]

Anyways, back to the topic..............what was it by the way?

1. Has MAPS made OKC a better place? Yes

2. Could the City have done a better job? Yes

3. Did the MAPS facilities meet expectations? Yes, if we're told we got what we paid for.

[Larry OKC]

Oh, and by the way, did you notice who the author of the main article was? Berry Tramel, for god's sake. I won't comment further but will just leave that one laying in stunned silence.

On edit: well, since the main article did focus on the sports parts, I guess it's fair enough that he was selected to write it.

LOL, yes and Mr. Trammel has come up with some "interesting" stuff. Will compare with what I have discovered previously and as long as there isn't a huge discrepancy... If you run across an article that isn't from the Sports staff please post.

Will check out your link on the archives stuff too. Thanks again!

[Larry OKC]

I'm not sure where you are going with this line of thinking but the $238 million was an estimate. The tax raised (both directly and indirectly) 100% of the funds necessary, thus no cost overruns.

Where I was going with it was in the original post so won't repeat it (am endeavoring to keep my posts shorter).

Maybe this will help...if a friend mentioned he saw an ad for a new tv at the local big box store for $238 and you said to yourself, "that sounds pretty good, that fits into my budget." Then when you get to the store, the salesperson tells you that the ad was a mistake, and that the actual price is $351 ($113 or 47.5% more). What would your reaction be? Would you say, "it isn't costing me any more because I have $363 in my account"?

Are you suggesting that the tax should have stopped once tax collections plus interest accumulated $238,000,000.00? Because that wasn't what was voted on and it was never presented to the voters as such. Conversley, would you think it prudent if money raised via the MAPS tax was spent on items other than what was in the proposal? If spending was capped at $238,000,000.00, what should the city have spent the extra money on?

If more was raised with the tax than estimated, and in excess of the projected cost and any factored in cost over runs, then yes, the money should have been returned somehow to the taxpayer. Slightly different but the principle is the same: a couple of years ago, the State had a huge budget surplus (something like a billion $$$), after the required deposit into the rainy day fund, etc, the excess income tax collected (over projections) was distributed back to the taxpayers in a rebate/refund check. One of the Tinker Bond issues a while back, they had money authorized by the bond issue to clear property but it wasn't all needed. They talked about using the money for other purposes, but ultimately decided to simply not issue the bonds (and therefore no cost to the taxpayers). Problem is, since the projects proposed in MAPS 3 are not mentioned in the ballot or the Ordinance, the City can do exactly what you described (spending the money on something other than what you thought you were voting for).

[Larry OKC]

Doug, just dawned on me what you were saying about Trammel (why is a Sports guy reporting on MAPS), but then you mentioned the focus on sports....its' all good

[HOT ROD]

Larry, I appreciate the need for accountability, but I think you might be going a bit too far to the right.

Nothing is perfect and I think OKC definitely got a huge shot in the arm due to MAPS. No person in their right mind would say that OKC is the same terrible place it was pre 1995. We all know it is because of MAPS that OKC is even a contender for events, not to mention an NBA team that we permanently have, much less the 2 year trial run with the displaced Hornets.

I think you might be arguing for argument's sake, rather than looking at the impact the projects will bring to further the momentum that was MAPS in the first place.

Should the city have more time to inform voters? I agree, but I think the city wants to keep the tax in place (a good idea) instead of letting it go in March and trying to bring it back. This and state policy necessitates the vote the way it is and only a 2 month pitch.

I think there are some savvy leadership folks running Oklahoma City and some even better people running OKC based companies. These people CARE about OKC and are certainly going to be involved with making sure this run of projects are a success.

Do you really think Larry Nichols, Clay Bennett, and Aubrey/Ward (et al) will sit and let OKC fail if the voters approve MAPS 3 but it falls short? I just dont see them sit on their ass with all of the money they've invested in (and will invest) their businesses to KEEP THEM IN OKC. Nichols stated himself that HE PERSONALLY plans to help downtown become the premier destination for business with his tower and line of credit on his own TIF, so the city can improve 89 acres of streets and sidewalks.

I think that alone is commitment from the business community in their belief in OKC. And to me, it shows that everyone is committed to improving OKC - even if Nichols himself does not agree with all of the MAPS 3 projects at this time; but you can be for sure, if the voters of OKC pass it (which they should IMO), then the whole OKC community will back it to make it a success.

Because the business companies of OKC have as much riding on this as the city leadership. In the end, we get a much better (and BIGGER) Oklahoma City complete with most of the attractions that our new peer cities (in Tier 2) have. And, since OKC's will be much newer, there should be a HUGE influx of business initially to 'try-out' the new kid on the block (think Ford Center concerts when it first opened). If OKC does well, it should result in a rotation if nothing else (think Big 12 b-ball) of conventions with OKC and a few of it's peers.

That still means more NEW money for OKC, and certainly a continuation of improved 'status' and amenities for the city (which results in a domino effect [think Bricktown - but better planning hopefully this time]).

The ONLY gripe I can think of, that has ANY credibility on this - is why the city will not increase the hotel/motel/rental car use tax. OKC is already the lowest in the region (major cities) and even if the city raised it 2 or 3%, we'd still be the lowest. ...

Why not increase it a bit (gradually) and recover the increased funds from the increased visits, to help offset fluctuations in the sales tax receipts or potential overruns (think construction cost higher than estimated). The could deliver the projects as pitched, but not have to go back to voters if things cost more than expected or the tax doesn't deliver as much money as thought.

Anyways - that is the ONLY gripe I have. Why isn't the city considering capitalizing on the expanded Hospitality base. ... Other than that, to me - this MAPS 3 is a no brainer (and wont even cost people any more, since it is an extension of what's already collected today).

Cheers

[Patrick]

I'd be more in favor of raising the hotel-motel tax again to pay for the new expo center at the state fair grounds, and diverting the left over money from MAPS towards further transit improvements.

Concerning the extra MAPS money, I'm opposed to the massive extensions of the canal previously proposed, but I'd consider some money being used for single extension of the canal to the new convention center. That would help tie the new convention center into Bricktown better.

[HOT ROD]

totally agree Patrick.

I think we need to get the fairgrounds to start reinvesting in itself.

[Doug Loudenback]

Hot Rod, you said,

Larry, I appreciate the need for accountability, but I think you might be going a bit too far to the right.

Nothing is perfect and I think OKC definitely got a huge shot in the arm due to MAPS. No person in their right mind would say that OKC is the same terrible place it was pre 1995. We all know it is because of MAPS that OKC is even a contender for events, not to mention an NBA team that we permanently have, much less the 2 year trial run with the displaced Hornets.

I think you might be arguing for argument's sake, rather than looking at the impact the projects will bring to further the momentum that was MAPS in the first place.

Should the city have more time to inform voters? I agree, but I think the city wants to keep the tax in place (a good idea) instead of letting it go in March and trying to bring it back. This and state policy necessitates the vote the way it is and only a 2 month pitch.

A few observations:

1. Not too sure what you mean by "... too far to the right," since I don't see MAPS (then or now) as a "right" or "left" type of thing, e.g., if one is gung-ho MAPS 3 right now, is that person "to the left?" I doubt that you mean that.
2. If Larry is saying that the original MAPS didn't do a lot of good for the city, I've not read him to say that, and I don't think that's what he's said or means to say.
   
3. I think that it's unfair of you to say that you think that he is arguing for the sake of argument. In the 1st place, neither you nor I can really know WHY he is looking at MAPS 3 really closely and in very particular, and very historical ways. In the 2nd, what it appears to me that he's doing is to satisfy himself, and doing so out loud, so to speak, that when he decides how he will vote that he will be making as informed a decision as he thinks that he needs to make. Nothing wrong with that. I don't think that Larry has said how he will vote ... perhaps he has and I missed it. He or you can correct me if I'm mistaken about that. But, in any event, I don't read his comments as argumentative at all. I see him as studying and thinking the matter through.
   
4. As to the amount of time to decide and whether that's enough, for what it's worth, for what it's worth original MAPS was approved by city council on October 13, 1993, to submit the matter to a vote to be held on December 14, 62 days later. In MAPS 3, council made such a decision on September 8, 2009, to submit the matter for a vote on December 8, 70 days later. Again, for what it's worth.

There are quite a number of issues involved for people to think through. Some, perhaps you, have reached their own decision fairly quickly and easily, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's your vote (well, I know that you don't live here but assuming that you did). For others, the process is not so easy. I didn't reach my own conclusion until October 4 and it wasn't made easily, either. Not that it matters in what I'm saying here, but I decided that I will vote to approve the proposal. I can easily see that some voters won't make their decision until they cast their ballots. More to the point, a personal story makes the point of what I'm trying to say.

Back in 1983 when I was trying to decide whether to remain married or not, I began seeing a counselor for the purpose aiding my reaching a decision ... I had been thinking and thinking on my own for several months before that and had made no real progress in that regard. At one point, my then-wife asked me to ask the counselor why it was taking me so long to reach a decision. I did. When I did, the counselor belly-laughed (because the answer was obvious) and said,

That's easy. Just tell her that you are a compulsive obsessive asshole who likes to filter his **** it all sorts of possible ways!

That's an exact quote. I laughed, too, because it was the obvious truth. That remains so even as we speak.

Now, to be sure, I'm not saying that Larry is also a compulsive obsessive asshole who likes ... But, it would be OK if he were. There's nothing wrong with a person thinking things through down to the nth degree, if that's what a person feels the need to do.

[andy157]

Larry, I appreciate the need for accountability, but I think you might be going a bit too far to the right.

Nothing is perfect and I think OKC definitely got a huge shot in the arm due to MAPS. No person in their right mind would say that OKC is the same terrible place it was pre 1995. We all know it is because of MAPS that OKC is even a contender for events, not to mention an NBA team that we permanently have, much less the 2 year trial run with the displaced Hornets.

I think you might be arguing for argument's sake, rather than looking at the impact the projects will bring to further the momentum that was MAPS in the first place.

Should the city have more time to inform voters? I agree, but I think the city wants to keep the tax in place (a good idea) instead of letting it go in March and trying to bring it back. This and state policy necessitates the vote the way it is and only a 2 month pitch.

I think there are some savvy leadership folks running Oklahoma City and some even better people running OKC based companies. These people CARE about OKC and are certainly going to be involved with making sure this run of projects are a success.

Do you really think Larry Nichols, Clay Bennett, and Aubrey/Ward (et al) will sit and let OKC fail if the voters approve MAPS 3 but it falls short? I just dont see them sit on their ass with all of the money they've invested in (and will invest) their businesses to KEEP THEM IN OKC. Nichols stated himself that HE PERSONALLY plans to help downtown become the premier destination for business with his tower and line of credit on his own TIF, so the city can improve 89 acres of streets and sidewalks.

I think that alone is commitment from the business community in their belief in OKC. And to me, it shows that everyone is committed to improving OKC - even if Nichols himself does not agree with all of the MAPS 3 projects at this time; but you can be for sure, if the voters of OKC pass it (which they should IMO), then the whole OKC community will back it to make it a success.

Because the business companies of OKC have as much riding on this as the city leadership. In the end, we get a much better (and BIGGER) Oklahoma City complete with most of the attractions that our new peer cities (in Tier 2) have. And, since OKC's will be much newer, there should be a HUGE influx of business initially to 'try-out' the new kid on the block (think Ford Center concerts when it first opened). If OKC does well, it should result in a rotation if nothing else (think Big 12 b-ball) of conventions with OKC and a few of it's peers.

That still means more NEW money for OKC, and certainly a continuation of improved 'status' and amenities for the city (which results in a domino effect [think Bricktown - but better planning hopefully this time]).

The ONLY gripe I can think of, that has ANY credibility on this - is why the city will not increase the hotel/motel/rental car use tax. OKC is already the lowest in the region (major cities) and even if the city raised it 2 or 3%, we'd still be the lowest. ...

Why not increase it a bit (gradually) and recover the increased funds from the increased visits, to help offset fluctuations in the sales tax receipts or potential overruns (think construction cost higher than estimated). The could deliver the projects as pitched, but not have to go back to voters if things cost more than expected or the tax doesn't deliver as much money as thought.

Anyways - that is the ONLY gripe I have. Why isn't the city considering capitalizing on the expanded Hospitality base. ... Other than that, to me - this MAPS 3 is a no brainer (and wont even cost people any more, since it is an extension of what's already collected today).

Cheers

Please don't take this as a knock against Larry Nichols, it's not. As a lifelong resident of OKC I have a great deal of respect, gratitude, and appreciation for all he's done, is currently doing, and will do in the future. Regarding his line of credit to the City. Although it was a wonderful gester on his part, lets not forget, the City is paying interest on the loan.

[andy157]

totally agree Patrick.

I think we need to get the fairgrounds to start reinvesting in itself.

Unlike Doug, I'm still undecided. On election day when I step up to the voting booth, I may be in favor of maps 3, and vote YES. But if by chance I oppose the measure, and vote NO, that decision will be based solely upon the allocation of money going to the Fairgrounds. They have a funding source, and they need to live within it's means.

[Architect2010]

So. Like said before. You're going to deny 710 million other dollars of investment to the city because of 60 million that will go to the fairgrounds? Doesn't make any sense to me actually. Even though it's not the best use of money, it's definitely not worth voting down the rest of the projects. By any means.

[metro]

Larry what's your agenda? Why are you so negative OKC on every thread?

[Kerry]

Maybe this will help...if a friend mentioned he saw an ad for a new tv at the local big box store for $238 and you said to yourself, "that sounds pretty good, that fits into my budget." Then when you get to the store, the salesperson tells you that the ad was a mistake, and that the actual price is $351 ($113 or 47.5% more). What would your reaction be? Would you say, "it isn't costing me any more because I have $363 in my account"?

Keeping with this analogy, if the ad was an estimated price I would understand that the price might be different when I got to the store (especially if I got to the store 5 years after the ad ran).

Let's say I collected aluminum cans to raise the money to pay for the TV so it didn't impact my normal budget. I determined that I would need 72 pounds of cans to raise the money necessary. However, by the time I collected the cans the price of aluminum changed so instead of raising $238 I actually earned $363. So now I go to the store and find out the TV now cost exactly what I earned because the cost of making TVs went up while I spent 5 years collecting my cans. Am I unhappy about it? No. I am glad my can collecting covered the increase in the cost due to the time it took me to collect cans.

[SouthsideSooner]

I believe that getting too caught up in the minutia of exact costs versus estimates on the MAPS projects is losing sight of the big picture.

I voted on a proposal to fund the promised projects by agreeing to pay an additional 1 cent sales tax for 5 years. Although the necessary funding fell a little short, I also agreed to extend the tax by 6 months to finish the promised projects.

Estimating the exact cost of projects that would be built over the next decade as the monies were collected was at the very least, a monumental task. I felt that the powers that be did an excellent job of delivering what was promised and have absolutely no regrets for voting for the initial measure or the subsequent extension.

I view MAPS 3 in the same way. I will support the proposal to build the proposed projects with an extension of the tax for a defined period of time. If we are able to achieve the kind of results delivered in MAPS 1, I'll consider it a huge success.

[Kerry]

I view MAPS 3 in the same way. I will support the proposal to build the proposed projects with an extension of the tax for a defined period of time. If we are able to achieve the kind of results delivered in MAPS 1, I'll consider it a huge success.

Likewise, if MAPS III turns into a boondoggle then support for MAPS IV won't materialize.

[betts]

I believe that getting too caught up in the minutia of exact costs versus estimates on the MAPS projects is losing sight of the big picture.

I voted on a proposal to fund the promised projects by agreeing to pay an additional 1 cent sales tax for 5 years. Although the necessary funding fell a little short, I also agreed to extend the tax by 6 months to finish the promised projects.

Estimating the exact cost of projects that would be built over the next decade as the monies were collected was at the very least, a monumental task. I felt that the powers that be did an excellent job of delivering what was promised and have absolutely no regrets for voting for the initial measure or the subsequent extension.

I view MAPS 3 in the same way. I will support the proposal to build the proposed projects with an extension of the tax for a defined period of time. If we are able to achieve the kind of results delivered in MAPS 1, I'll consider it a huge success.

Hear, hear!

[Midtowner]

Larry what's your agenda? Why are you so negative OKC on every thread?

Ouch. Since when does a different opinion make you 'negative' and have an agenda? It seems Larry wants what a lot of us want -- some built in accountability to ensure that if we pay for all this stuff, it actually gets built.