Now that MAPS has passed, what comes first?

[Larry OKC]

You could just call the City Manager's office or Public Works Department too...

City Manager
200 N Walker, 3rd Floor
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
405 297-2345
citymanager@okc.gov

Public Works Department
420 W. Main, 7th Floor
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
405 297-2581

Make government responsive, don't wait for government (or other people) to report for you.

<sigh>Wish it were that easy. I have written about the above and got a wonderful spin filled answer from Mr. Couch. When I asked for a further response...silence.

[andy157]

Larry, you are correct, but those against MAPS3 won't let facts get in the way of arguing a non-issue.

Really.

[rcjunkie]

Really.

Yes, Really, it's been proven on thread after thread, post after post.

[metro]

<sigh>Wish it were that easy. I have written about the above and got a wonderful spin filled answer from Mr. Couch. When I asked for a further response...silence.

I don't doubt you as this is often Mr. Couch's style, but would you be able to scan in and post his response for us? I think it's important to see our City leaders official responses to items. In the future, I'll do the same.

[Larry OKC]

I don't doubt you as this is often Mr. Couch's style, but would you be able to scan in and post his response for us? I think it's important to see our City leaders official responses to items. In the future, I'll do the same.

If I can locate it will see what I can do...this was a couple of years ago. I remember him saying that they basically had the money but didn't have the supervisors to oversee the projects and the City had higher priorities. Hmmm, higher priorities than following through on the what voters approved and paid for? By higher priorities, I took it to mean there were higher profile projects (like maybe the Arena rather than a neighborhood park or something along those lines). Conjecture of course, since the article and City Manager didn't do into any sort of detail as to which projects were undone (much less identifying them).

[LakeEffect]

If I can locate it will see what I can do...this was a couple of years ago. I remember him saying that they basically had the money but didn't have the supervisors to oversee the projects and the City had higher priorities. Hmmm, higher priorities than following through on the what voters approved and paid for? By higher priorities, I took it to mean there were higher profile projects (like maybe the Arena rather than a neighborhood park or something along those lines). Conjecture of course, since the article and City Manager didn't do into any sort of detail as to which projects were undone (much less identifying them).

If it was a couple years ago, that might have been before the audit and the new GO Bond Program. I really suggest asking again...

[andy157]

Yes, Really, it's been proven on thread after thread, post after post.

Ok I'll ask it another way. Who is arguing a non-issue? And, which non-issue is being argued?

[andy157]

1989, 1995, and almost every part of the 2000 are now done. City Manager had a report to City Council a few months ago I think. I'll have to check on that.

I had lunch with a member of the Bond Advisory Committee a couple of weeks ago, I could have sworn he said there was still some 1989 bond money that has yet to be spent. I may have misunderstood what he said, or I may have been hearing things that were not said, I'll double check on that tomorrow.

[Larry OKC]

If it was a couple years ago, that might have been before the audit and the new GO Bond Program. I really suggest asking again...

It was after the audit and right before the 2007 GO bond vote (the two things that prompted my letter). I had a couple of questions:

1) why did we even need another bond issue when the audit had shown that projects going back 3 bond issues had gone undone? in other words take care of old, unfinished business first before embarking on any new stuff.

2) What projects had gone undone? This question was never addressed. maybe they were relatively minor things that didn't matter to much. Bu then again, they were important enough to be included in the 1st place and important enough that the City needed to take on long-term debt to get them accomplished.

3) Previous reports had put the proposed bond issue at $100M less than what was presented to voters. What was included for the $100M? Again, IIRC, that also went unanswered.