Hope this helps...

All of the previous MAPS projects were built (but not necessarily as promised, most not on time and definitely not on budget). All of the previous MAPS projects were listed on the Ballot. None of the "proposed" MAPS 3 projects are mentioned (and they could have been).

Addressing the budget question, overall MAPS projects went 47.75% OVER what voters were told shortly before the election.

The 1st number under each project/date opened is the amount voters were told just prior to the election, except as noted, come from an Oklahoman article, Major-league status sought voters to decide on $237.6 million plan (11/14/93). The 2nd amount is the Final Cost from the City’s Website. Amounts in red are the $$$ amount it went over.

DISCLAIMER: If any of the calculations are in error, please advise.

The Ballpark (1998)
$21.8M
$34M
---------
$12.2M

The Canal (1999/2003-2004)
$9M
$23M
---------
$14M

Civic Center (2001)
$27M
$53M
---------
$26M

Cox Convention Improvements (2000)
$24.9M
$60M
---------
$35.1M

Fairgrounds Improvements (1997/1998)
Was to include a “...world class auction center to increase Oklahoma’ City’s ability to attract horse industry events. Other tax money would fund improvements to existing facilities.” Don't know if we got that or not.
$11.5M
$14M
---------
$2.5M

Ford Center (2002)
The Ford gets rather convoluted with the numbers. There were the Voters Told ($78.9), Budgeted amounts (after the vote, $74.8), bid amounts that went even lower ($64.8M), then estimates that were as high as $93M at one point). Didn't try to exaggerate and use the lowest number/highest numbers found, stuck with the voters told and the "final" numbers (does NOT include the recent $120M Ford improvements).
$78.9M
$87.7M
---------
$8.8M

Library (2004)
$15.9M
$21.5M
---------
$5.6M

Okla River (1999 - 2004)
$28.1M (This amount is the balance after the $9M for the canal is removed, in this article the Canal & River were lumped together for a total cost of $37.1M)
$53.5M (City's site still has this as an estimated amount)
---------
$25.4M

Trolleys (1999)
Originally pitched as a light rail system costing taxpayers a net $3M ($16M total cost with $13M to be in Federal funding) also, it was to be “a rail transport system, connecting west Oklahoma City [Meridian hotel cooridor] with downtown” (not just downtown area as in MAPS 3)
$3M
$5M
---------
$2M

Misc:
$17.5M (about the same amount as in MAPS 3, yet MAPS 3 is 3.25 times the amount of MAPS)

TOTAL
$237.6M
$351.7M
---------
$114.1M

Here is what voters are being told the MAPS 3 projects are going to cost (looking at the above, will be interesting to do the comparison of completed costs 10 years or so from now). Of course NONE of it is mentioned in the Ballot/Ordinance.

TOTAL $777 million

How did the City come up with the 114.1 million? Where did it come from? Thats a lot of money.

That is a good question, I don't think they underestimated what revenue would be raised by the tax, so the answer lies elsewhere. There were several additional projects that were planned, once the 9 were completed (presuming they had money left). From the 1993 Ballot:
These all got cut as far as I can tell. Then there was the 6 month tax "extension" that brought in $30M or so. The City's site states:

This interest amount is questionable because, then MAPS project manager, Jim Couch put the amount of interest earned (due to cost over-runs and the resulting construction delays on the Arena) something like 1/10th of that amount (nearly halfway through the 6 month "extension")

Seems highly unlikely considering all of the other over-runs that almost led to them canceling the Arena completely (which resulted in the 6 month "extension"). Notice the dates between Mr. Couches $4.7M figure and the end date of the tax. Just 3 months. How could the 6 month "extension" which was projected to bring in $30M ($15M by the date of his statement) lead to an additional $49M in interest? Understand that just because the tax ended that construction and spending was still ongoing, but PLEASE, someone help me with the math on that one!

If the interest amount is correct the City would be better served by delaying everything as long as possible, let all of that interest accumulate then build everything with the interest (leave the principle alone) and there would never be a need for any future MAPS sales taxes!

Yeah, sorry for the confusion. I meant to say the State Fairground Improvements or Exhibition Hall. One of my co-workers goes to the racetrack a lot (because her son races) and she was worried that it would be torn down. I figured there wouldn't be a better group of people to ask than here.

Thanks so much Larry. Now, I have one more question. Did they go over budget because costs went up for labor and construction or was it that they made changes to the original plans or both?

FYI - saw a blurb in another DOK article that mentioned the City of Nashville, a direct competitor to OKC and a city of relatively the same population, is voting in the next few weeks on a $585 million dollar convention center.

Here's an 11/15/1998 article which discussed the topic: http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49...1998_11_15.jpg ... I'd stick it here but it is much too large a file.

__________________
Doug
http://www.dougloudenback.com/downtownOKC.htm
http://www.dougloudenback.com/oklahomacity.htm
http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/

Thanks Doug for an excellent article, haven't had the time to read it all yet but certainly a sense of deja vu all over again ... haven't we heard very similar statements (that you posted elsewhere) from the City saying these are all just estimates, that the costs aren't going to be known until sometime after the vote (probably in the same time frame as in the article). The only difference I am seeing so far is the City relied on outside people to provide the estimates (are they doing the same thing this time around)? Please correct me if I am misreading anything or misrepresenting what you have said.

Thanks again!

The info may be in Doug's article but it was a combination of things. Labor/construction cost more for sure, but things were left out (like engineering studies, landscaping, etc) according to a Journal Record article at the time. As things progressed, wish list items for the projects kept getting added in then when costs exceeded estimates, wish list items were cut to try to bring things down again. So yes and no, things could have been much worse if they hadn't cut some of those wish list items, as it was they still came in at 47.75% over what voters were told.

Crystal ball gazing is always a hazardous thing, at best. The Oklahoman article I linked to above illustrated that estimates given the city were (a) stale at the time of the MAPS vote and (b) incomplete as to all cost items which should have been included in the estimates but weren't. On top of that, add changes in labor and material/construction costs ... it ain't easy being green.

This go around, no pretense has been made that cost statements are anything other than estimates, and $17M has been thrown in for "contingencies" which I suppose includes elbow room to deal with things like original MAPS didn't plan for. The approach taken in MAPS 3 might not give voters as much apparent feel-good security in relying on cost numbers but it may well be more realistic.

__________________
Doug
http://www.dougloudenback.com/downtownOKC.htm
http://www.dougloudenback.com/oklahomacity.htm
http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/