Convention Center

[kevinpate]

When folks in OKC held their collective noses and voted a blank check on the promise of just trust the city fathers & the movers and shakers, disappointment was always one of the potential covered dishes set out on the serving line.

Given the present status of several (most?) other M3 projects, this should not be a true surprise to anyone. A double serving of disappointment perhaps, but not a mystery meat dish.

The question stands, as it has since the day of approval ... if the trust is broken, will this become the final round of MAPs

[Rover]

This whole"MAPS is done" talk on here is way, way premature. When all is under construction, the streetcar is in, etc., and OKC is growing in size, services, and prestige, I think that MAPS will remain popular. Making that call now is like putting the book down after chapter 5 and thinking you know the whole story.

[Edgar]

classic bait and switch- Mick learned the technique in one of his marketing classes.

[Urban Pioneer]

Actually, the Mayor wanted the Convention Center where Russell Claus (former Planning Director) wanted it... on the substation site.

I think it was a total suprise to him when the Subcommittee put forth the Ford dealership site.

It's clear that the majority of the members on that committee wanted the "blight" in front of the Myriad Gardens and Devon Tower removed... Plus the additional push from Bricktown for a closer site location further enabled some limited cover to switch sites. The $35 mil was an added bonus.

[Rover]

classic bait and switch- Mick learned the technique in one of his marketing classes.

You hate Mick? Marketing? Or school? Which is it?

[kevinpate]

FWIW, had I been an okc resident at the time, I would have held my nose along with many others and voted yea on M3.
I'd also likely to be watching matters more closely than i tend to do as simply an okc visitor.

[Laramie]

This whole"MAPS is done" talk on here is way, way premature. When all is under construction, the streetcar is in, etc., and OKC is growing in size, services, and prestige, I think that MAPS will remain popular. Making that call now is like putting the book down after chapter 5 and thinking you know the whole story.

Agree this talk is premature!

This is a critical decision time for MAPS. One councilman has been outspoken; he wanted to derail the whole MAPS' agenda. MAPS is responsible for Oklahoma City renaissance.

We're on a progress train which has left the station; if we reverse now, we will lose some valuable time and momentum. Our momentum must continue; we will look back on all of this as a process in which OKC took us over an obstacle that is associated with the pains and perils of growth.

It's time for our city to move further into the Big Leagues. It is not like we didn't see this coming...

[Rover]

When the personal impact is so small (no one feels the MAPS tax), there tends to be a more forgiving sense. The public will shut it down if corruption is proven, but tend to otherwise look at the final product and make a decision as to whether they approve or not. Most do not get nearly as emotional as those on this board. Most don't follow it day to day. So, in the end, when we have a shiny new center, a big name tall hotel, a streetcar running by it, a vibrant city that is still quickly growing, I think most will say that "on balance" they are willing to go at it again. Most will consider the ups and downs as normal. And fortunately, we DO have emotional, vocal and involved citizens who will continue to work to call out those involved and generally work to keep them in line. But the general public will ask "is the city better now because of what we did?", and will conclude, "yes". They won't continuously evaluate it against what it might have been like this board does.

[soonerguru]

I've been told that the MAPS 3 collections already have a $60 million surplus, which, even in the event some of this surplus goes to the CC, there still will be additional monies to ensure other projects are built right.

[kevinpate]

Well yes and no soonerguru. Though I am not a MAPs hater (hard to be one even if ya wanted to do so when you reside elsewhere)
Collections may be above projections, but that doesn't mean they are going through with all the original mileage on the trails (or does it?)
It doesn't mean the original number of proposed senior/aquatic centers will be built.
It doesn't mean the Core to Shore park will look anything like the pre-election pitches
etc., etc.

I would love for it to mean that what they told folks they would do gets done, rather than kinda sorta get done. Time will tell.

[Rover]

Well yes and no soonerguru. Though I am not a MAPs hater (hard to be one even if ya wanted to do so when you reside elsewhere)
Collections may be above projections, but that doesn't mean they are going through with all the original mileage on the trails (or does it?)
It doesn't mean the original number of proposed senior/aquatic centers will be built.
It doesn't mean the Core to Shore park will look anything like the pre-election pitches
etc., etc.

I would love for it to mean that what they told folks they would do gets done, rather than kinda sorta get done. Time will tell.

In order to guarantee no overruns or changes several things would have to be done:

• Much shorter term MAPs periods. The longer the time to collect, the more uncertain the rate of income.
• Much smaller programs. See above
• Few projects at a time. This would mean only the most common denominator projects get done. Probably no water sports venues, probably no elder citizen projects, probably no center city projects, probably no streetcar projects, etc.
• Greatly enhance the contingency funds. This means smaller amounts to budget initially with larger contingencies.
• Run the risk of having lots of left over contingency funds to be used TOTALLY at the discretion of the city.
• Do not consider changes on projects....of any kind. Don't make them larger or smaller or different, no matter how conditions have changed.
• Pay for all designs and get bids PRIOR to the vote. These costs come from the existing city coffers.

If you did all this, then MAYBE you can deliver EXACTLY what the voters voted on.
But, given all that would have to happen to do all this, it would render it a mute point. We couldn't get a consensus for the watered down concepts anyway.

[Brownwood]

Can someone please help my understanding of the surplus. It's been posted several times the M3 collections are currently over budget. Does this mean if the trend continues there will be additional funding, in total, collected for the projects? Or was M3 capped at a certain total where over budget collections means the tax will cease earlier than expected because a target total has been reached?

[Laramie]

Recently it was reported that we have a surplus post June 2014. We have had year(s) in question which we didn't meet the target budgeted for MAPS III & city sales tax collections.

Optimism is a great feel; can someone 'in the know' tell us where we are with the sales tax collection process?

My internet research stops around fiscal period June 2014: Oklahoma City sales tax collections exceed budget target for third month in row | News OK

[TheTravellers]

FWIW, had I been an okc resident at the time, I would have held my nose along with many others and voted yea on M3.
I'd also likely to be watching matters more closely than i tend to do as simply an okc visitor.

We like the concept of MAPS, but both of us voted no on this latest round precisely because of this kind of crap that we thought might happen that *is* now happening. MAPS has worked out fairly well, but I didn't/don't trust our city leaders to fulfill the promise(s) of this latest one, and have sadly been proven right...

[Rover]

We like the concept of MAPS, but both of us voted no on this latest round precisely because of this kind of crap that we thought might happen that *is* now happening. MAPS has worked out fairly well, but I didn't/don't trust our city leaders to fulfill the promise(s) of this latest one, and have sadly been proven right...

Until the dust settles and all is done, nothing has been proven. As I analogized earlier, this is like reading the first few chapters of a book and thinking you know the whole story. Til then, we are just projecting based on what we think we know now judged by our own notions. In the end, we will see if overall we got our money's worth. Nobody with their own single agenda will think so, but fortunately the city is a big composite of lots of interests to be served. It is the entire citizenry that will make up their minds, not just activists, not just posters, not just those that favor one project or another.

[HOT ROD]

my issue is not maps and it is not Ed or the mayor or anything/body else other than the cc subcommittee and (to an extent) the chamber. I'm not drinking the Kool-Aide that Ed slings even if some of it is valid, because I know he is ultimately anti-MAPS (which to me gives me an issue about his potential bias). I'm also not drinking the Kool-Aide from people who keep saying we need big-league this and that either. OKC is developing nicely but this is not the issue here.

The issue we have with MAPS 3 and specifically the CC subcommittee et al is ETHICS!!! Why didn't they at the very beginning state the full cost of a full-blown convention center to compete in the Tier II world and that it would be located on the Ford site and underground? During the MAPS campaign I recall it being more of the Mayor's vision as the anchor of Central Park, which likely would have met the budget submitted. But it appears there has been all of the behind the scenes pushes from the CC members and they're being allowed to trump others and even the 'thought' of the CC appears to have other projects 'over-budget' suddenly with or without bid (or even hard proposal in some cases).

It is unethical for the CC folks to demand a full-blown center with all bells and whistles when
1) other projects have had to take hits for the sake of budget constraints or funding gaps
2) the cost of land is unknown and may end-up being a deal-breaker at that site
3) the true cost of the cc isn't even known or bid at this point, is it even modeled/pre-bid to get more accurate estimates based on expected size/design expectations?

It appears as if everyone else is REQUIRED to take a back seat or downsize for the sake of funding while the CC is expected to get carte blanche. To my recollection, CC was not the most popular project among the voters but it was slipped in at an apparently low-ball estimate anchoring another project (to create a master vision for C2S) when in reality it is the project that the leadership seems to have wanted all along (and thereby used the other projects to blanket submit). This is unethical.

What should have happened? The leadership should have been up-front about the need to replace the convention center. I believe, if they had been honest with their desires to become a Tier II market AND all the while stated their intention of "having a 500K sq ft modern underground center at the Ford Dealership lots to get rid of that dead space and anchor the boulevard", "along with a high-rise hotel", and had been realistic with the cost estimate, say $350m, that the OKC voters likely would have still approved MAPS 3 and we would not be in this situation. Again, to me it is about ethics, NOT if we need a new cc or even where (at this point).

Not only did they slip this gotta have overbudget cc in while everything else is getting downsized BUT they pulled the bait and switch on voters who approved the CC being the anchor of C2S. And on top of that, they allowed the CC to control other projects and allegedly manipulate MAPS itself at discretion of the CC boosters/leadership (such as phasing, implementation, budget assessment, and lest we not forget - contingency). This and only this is why MAPS 3 might 'fail' in the eye of citizens, the ethics might cause a lack of trust in future attempts. Had they been upfront all along and not done these unethical acts, I'm sure residents would have much of an issue with the new state of the art CC and likely none of the other projects would have had to move or be cut (or as much).

To me, THIS is the issue.

[Laramie]

MAPS was never intended to be a 'satisfy all' attempt as it jump started our city's growth. I don't feel we know the magnitude of a convention center; or what it will do for our economy--especially the potential out-of-state new money it will bring to our community. The longer you wait to build; it will generate more costs.

Those who are ready to 'do away' with the MAPS brand; go to the polls and vote! 2017 (MAP IV) will be the next push to maintain our city's momentum.

Discontinue MAPS, you will kill a vehicle which has enabled us to build, upgrade and maintain the health of some structures which are vital to our city's growth. You also run the risk of losing key corporations who might follow the path of Fleming & Kerr McGee.

Take a step back pre-1990s, have we forgotten so quickly the appearance of OKC?

The initial MAPS vote; we built the arena, ballpark & canal. The private sector stepped up with developments in Bricktown and an NBA franchise.

Larry Nichols, who could have moved Devon Energy to Houston led the charge because he believed in OKC. He invested with a 50-story 'state of the art' skyscraper that energized the development that you will see chart our city's future. Mr. Nichols and Mr. McClendon were key players in bringing Sandridge to fill the void for the Kerr McGee complex and Continental Resources relocation to Oklahoma City.

I understand the way some people feel about our city as we enter the 'big league' stages; that's why they left for cities like Dallas, Denver, Houston, Kansas City and Seattle because the opportunities were not here...

[soonerguru]

Can someone please help my understanding of the surplus. It's been posted several times the M3 collections are currently over budget. Does this mean if the trend continues there will be additional funding, in total, collected for the projects? Or was M3 capped at a certain total where over budget collections means the tax will cease earlier than expected because a target total has been reached?

No. MAPS revenues can only be legally spent on MAPS projects. So the surplus is real and has to be spent on MAPS projects, by law. So even if additional monies are directed toward the convention center, the other monies will have to go toward MAPS projects. That means we could see more money dedicated to the streetcar, for example.

[HOT ROD]

Laramie, it is not a scorched earth scenario where you have to drink the Kool Aide quietly in order to support MAPS. A person can be a supporter of OKC renaissance but also call out questionable and unethical practices when they happen. That has been part of OKC and many city's history, backroom deals. In OKC's case they usually end up benefiting the city and I don't object to the cc or the hotel; just how it has been handled and propped.

Now that doesn't mean Kill Maps. Instead it means, let's make sure this unethical practice is no longer tolerated. There may need to be moves made and the city could hire an ombudsman or project manager to oversee Maps more ethically going forward which could improve things. But it could also be a case where we have to accept what was done but ensure it doesn't happen again on the final projects and future maps.

We can have constructive government where mistakes and ills are reviewed and best practice is implemented. Rather than push this under the rug I personally would like to see OKC improve its leadership from this experience because transparency will ONLY make the city leadership team even more special than it already is. And THAT will positively impact MAPS, regardless of shortfalls since the people could trust that one project wasn't propped up at the expense of others.

[Laramie]

Laramie, it is not a scorched earth scenario where you have to drink the Kool Aide quietly in order to support MAPS.

I understand this 'scorched earth policy' as well as 'selling wolf tickets' oh so well. Former NBA Commissioner David Stern used this term repeatedly throughout the Supersonics' relocation debacle. As far as the Kool Aide? Wow! You sip on that more often than you realize.

Voters need to arm themselves with information. Many of the sundry decisions you make in life will have an upside or a downside.

Hot Rod, don't get me wrong or 'read' anything into what's on the line in OKC; your genuine love for Oklahoma City is appreciated.

If there are questions or concerns about the way 'city hall' or the 'chamber' are selling things; direct it to those institutions--especially to those responsible for setting up the 'kool aide' stand.

We elect officials to make decisions which are in our best interests. Sometimes they get information they pass on that is misleading; regardless of the intent. Voters go to the polls; if they 'smell' a rat, they are easily spooked to vote something down in the name of caution than to support it.

We like the concept of MAPS, but both of us voted no on this latest round precisely because of this kind of crap that we thought might happen that *is* now happening. MAPS has worked out fairly well, but I didn't/don't trust our city leaders to fulfill the promise(s) of this latest one, and have sadly been proven right...

Good response by Rover:

When the personal impact is so small (no one feels the MAPS tax), there tends to be a more forgiving sense. The public will shut it down if corruption is proven, but tend to otherwise look at the final product and make a decision as to whether they approve or not. Most do not get nearly as emotional as those on this board. Most don't follow it day to day. So, in the end, when we have a shiny new center, a big name tall hotel, a streetcar running by it, a vibrant city that is still quickly growing, I think most will say that "on balance" they are willing to go at it again. Most will consider the ups and downs as normal. And fortunately, we DO have emotional, vocal and involved citizens who will continue to work to call out those involved and generally work to keep them in line. But the general public will ask "is the city better now because of what we did?", and will conclude, "yes". They won't continuously evaluate it against what it might have been like this board does.

Opponents of any issue will always spread their venom, just like proponents will tell you what you want to hear. There are always two sides to this coin.

An example of a 'convention center' model IMO is Dallas. Dallas officials value the attraction of 'out-of-state new money' to grow their local economy. Our city is in the process to build new facilities as they now recognize that you have to get ahead of the game, to be in-the-game.

Our current convention center must be replaced if we want to attract conventions that will grow our economy. Oklahoma City has the genuine hospitality to really serge ahead in this area; let's get it right with officials who are in charge.

There are so many 'intangibles' that result from conventions which often lead corporations to consider a new expansion or relocation market like Oklahoma City.

[Pete]

I wanted to correct a couple of things I posted earlier.

First of all, the original budget for the convention center was $280. Early on, Mayor Cornett stated that he had an agreement with the City Council to set aside $30 million of that amount to relocate the OG&E substation south of Chesapeake Arena. However, there was never any formal vote, most the council denied they had agreed to this -- in fact, there was nothing in the public records to indicate it had happened.

When that particular site was not chosen, the $30 million was placed into the contingency fund; although the exact amount is unclear. The convention center is now shown at $252 million and the overall contingency is now $47 million.

Also, even with the $47 million for contingency that only represents 6% of the total budget; a number I pointed out as being very low. Typically contingency is budgeted anywhere from 10% to 20% on large projects and even then it almost always exceeded.

What I failed to point out is that each project also has a contingency amount. There is an addition $11.6 million in contingency just for the convention center, which represents about 4.6% of the $252 million total budget.


I'm in the process of going back through all the meeting minutes and extracting the original budgets, then comparing to the new budgets. Very time consuming because there are a dozen subcommittees each with dozens of meetings.

However, it's necessary because of what I feel is an unacceptable practice on the part of the City: They merely change the budgets as they go along and never report back against what was originally budgeted.

For example, there are four phases to the MAPS 3 River Improvements project, with a total budget of just over $57 million. But when there was a huge discrepancy in the bids received for the whitewater facility versus what had been budgeted, the decision was made to take from the other phases (WW is Phase 3) and change the budgets accordingly. So, whereas the original budget for the Phase 1 (lighting and windscreen) was about $8.5 million, it's now been changed to just over $5 million. And of course, with that change it means there is no money in the budget to build the windscreens (about $.5 million has already been spent on A&E).

Two other things not tracked: Scope (work promised) and schedule. In the beginning, a specific scope was defined for each project but in addition to budget changes, they have also cut way back on basically every project that has reached the construction point. And they also never report against when the various stages of these projects -- and the overall completion -- stack up against what was planned.


Therefore, it makes it very difficult for anyone to really understand where we stand with any one of the projects or the MAPS 3 program overall. This is particularly troubling when asking the Council (and through them, the citizens) to support increasing the budget for the convention center.

That issue ($35 million extra for expanding the underground main hall) is going before the Council on Nov. 4th and we don't even know how far over we'll go on the land acquisition and site prep. Right now, there is only $17 million budgeted for that and the actual number is almost certain to be considerably higher, given the recent sales comparables, issues with underground construction, etc.


My hope is to have a complete summary of each project (expense vs. budget, change in scope and perhaps look at the schedules as well) before the Council votes next week.

[dankrutka]

Great work, Pete. Your work is so valuable for ensuring accountability with the projects. MMy question, once you have these numbers what can you and others do with them? Could someone present them at a city council meeting?

[Pete]

Great work, Pete. Your work is so valuable for ensuring accountability with the projects. MMy question, once you have these numbers what can you and others do with them? Could someone present them at a city council meeting?

I'm going to first summarize everything in a way that makes sense, then I plan to propose a new reporting format for all City projects; including Project 180, TIF districts, etc.

I've already talked to one City Council member and may speak to more before the meeting next week.

I also plan to write an article about this and not only highlight the proposal but also demonstrate how these budgets and scope and schedules keep shifting.

The purpose is not to place blame but to 1) understand exactly where we are at any point in time so proper priorities and decisions can be made; and 2) to have a historical record so there can be adjustments and improvement.

For example, on every MAPS 3 project thus far, the preliminary construction estimates have been WAY far off; in the case of sidewalks, they only budgeted half of what was needed for the scope promised. Similar huge variances for the fairgrounds, trails, senior centers -- basically everything that has been bid to date. So, it would be interesting to see those numbers and ask questions, specifically around how we can make changes in our process. (BTW, we've been off by similar amounts on most the other MAPS projects and Project 180 and it doesn't seem we've learned anything).

Similar issues and possible solutions can be raised for scheduling, etc.


What happens now is they just change things as they go along and then basically report "we're on budget/schedule".

Anyway, much more to come. I've got a lot to do in order to get this ready before next week.

[Laramie]

Thanks for the update, Pete.

I recall the original argument about the convention center with the substation issue. When the bids go out, let's hope someone gives us a deal like they did with the downtown arena--something under what we budgeted; that mistake probably won't be repeated. It seems as though all the bids (on MAPS 3) are going over what was budgeted; hence the city has to trim down.

Question: Is it true that once your bid is selected; you're allowed to go 10% over?

The MAPS 3 Citizens Advisory Board recommended the city council approve the conceptual design for a 550,000-square-foot complex of underground exhibit space, ground-level meeting rooms and an upstairs ballroom.

The Citizens Advisory Board recommendations may now have some teeth.

Reference: OKC's MAPS 3 board favors plans for larger convention center | News OK

[HOT ROD]

What happens now is they just change things as they go along and then basically report "we're on budget/schedule".

Sounds like a certain city manager's typical answer when questioned about budget of items the good ole boys want. ....

This is a monumental task in that if successful we'd finally get to see the transparency that Ed and others have been asking for. I suspect that most on here are not against MAPS nor any of the projects, but I suspect we all could agree with Ed that things have been run behind closed doors and the leadership has not been forthcoming nor transparent on spending/budgeting. Its almost like this scenari:

-------------------------
Jim: All is well with project X and under budget, timing is fine.
City Council: Great Jim, you do such a wonderful job. City staff should be commended.
Ed: wait a minute, where are the figures to back up your claim Jim.
Jim: Oh, well, we didn't get that published yet. But I've seen the dollars and we're meeting milestones according to 'now speaking where nobody can understand'. So given this, I'd predict we'll be under budget and on target. hehe
Chamber Rep: Mayor, I have something to say here. This city needs blah blah in order to compete with cities in our tier.
Mayor: Don't disagree.
Chamber Rep: We met with city staff on the figures and all is well. With this, we'll be able to have a big league city and blah blah.
Mayor: True that. Any other comments, questions before we wrap this up.
Ed: Well, none of that answered my question and I can't believe this council is sweeping things under the table (again). But -

[now rant] why can't we spend this money on the bus system? (Ed, this is MAPS not the COTPA Operations). I have citizens who can't get to work and our bus system is a mess. We need 'dollars' to fix it (no, not necessarily. We really need to fix the schedules, instead of having every route into downtown, we should implement hub and spoke system). [rant over]

I'm not going to comment any more until I see more transparency here. The voters deserve our trust and they deserve to see how the dollars are being spent.
Mayor: O.K. if nothing else, cast your votes. Passes unanimous.

then, two weeks later

Jim: City Manager report illustrates that Project X is $$ over budget. Due to move Y and Z (that nobody knows who did what or what that means) we now need to revise the budget for Project X. The good news is tax collections have been higher that projected and we have contingencies to tap. So, with that being said. Since project X is over budget, I recommend we stall the other projects until this is resolved. Or, we could proceed but cut so that Project X makes its projection.
Ed: See, I told everyone here that we needed to see the numbers. But nobody listened.
Jim: I told you before that we were ok, but that assumed (something that shouldn't have been assumed).
Ed: But you didn't provide any documentation, nothing written as to what was budgeted, or what was even done with the dollars spent.
Jim: City staff has been working diligently on that, and will have something shortly.
Ed: Uggh
Mayor: Well, it will be nice to see that documentation, as I myself am a bit confused with the message being delivered here. You see kids, the citizens of this city voted for Maps III and we owe it to them to deliver the projects any way possible. Project X and the streetcar alone will catapult OKC's status as a big league city. I know, I was at People magazine and they told me. We want a city where young professionals will call home. So let's all keep working at it, and applaud the subcommittees for all their hard work.

Clap Clap Clap

Mayor: Any other issues, comments before we vote?
Ed: I wholeheartedly support the improvement of OKC and the voters have spoken, but I think we owe them better transparency of the dollars.
[now rant again] See, if we had this dollars spent on the bus system. We'd immediately be able to show the voters where their dollars are spent. The bus system is the most important thing in city government (because it is the only thing tangible I know what to talk about). We should have a robust bus system before a tourist streetcar that nobody is going to use. Furthermore, that convention center is a mess and is going to steal everybody else's budget just to complete. [rant over]
We haven't even got accurate figures on the CC land acquisition yet we're already voting to increase it's budget? I don't see it.
Ward 7: I can agree with what Ed is saying, we have these projections but dealing with people is the best way to get things done. [mini-rant] look at what we've done on the East side. We got leaders together and pulled ideas then got a business willing to invest. Im proud of our efforts and look forward to the future of a United Oklahoma City. [end mini-rant]
Council member (pro Project X): I think the city will move forward. Whatever it takes, we need project X completion. We have the support of the voters and the business community. I think we owe it to them to ensure this happens. We can go back and fix the shortfalls, but let's hit a home-run here with project X. It will seal our fate as a big league city.
Council member 2 (also pro project X): I second that
Mayor: it has been moved and second'd. All in favor cast your votes.
Mayor: measure passes 8-1.

Clap Clap Clap

Ed walks out of the chambers.

Mayor: Thank you to all of the citizens in the audience (none of whom are still there) who attended council session today. I think we've witnessed what makes OKC great, despite our differences (or knowledge of the dollars) we can agree to move forward together. That is what makes a big league city and that is why OKC is the city on the rise.

Now if you'll excuse me, I gotta make that non-stop flight to Newark to meet with Ellen for the show tomorrow.
-------------------------------

haha, this was a bit of humor (but also some truths). I hope you all enjoyed it and do look forward to Pete's analysis. I think our council does a great job but we do need to uphold transparency (particularly with MAPS).