Convention Center

[Pete]

I'm made this point several times and will do again:

The City never reports against original timelines, budgets and scope. They merely keep changing the reports to show the latest projections, which are continually shifting. For example, the river projects are now labeled as complete but nowhere on current reports does it show there were to be a whole list of things -- like a grandstand and windscreen -- that just got cut. That is also not reflected in the budget.

I've never seen this done in business before. Imagine being a project manager and reporting monthly to your boss and never addressing the original promises made when the project was approved.

The only way to figure this out is to keep the original documents then do your own comparison and the contrast is startling. And as near as I can determine, this happens on all large City projects, not just MAPS 3.

The net effect is that everything always seems to be on schedule and on budget because they merely change the numbers and dates and the amount of work being done to match what actually is happening, rather than reporting against what was originally promised. Not only is it a terrible business practice, it also means there is no way to recognize and correct chronic problems like consistently under budgeting and being hugely unrealistic on timing. Not coincidentally, almost every major City project is way over budget (we just cut way back on the amount of work to be delivered) and time. Then for each subsequent project, we make the same mistakes over and over and find something new to blame like utilities or weather or things we should be able to figure out and make contingencies for in advance.

This goes largely unnoticed because it's very easy to get changes approved by just cutting items and revising timelines. The City Manager writes up a memo, City Council approves (without the benefit of seeing what was originally agreed to in the first place, often years if not decades prior). And the local media just publish what the City tells them without verifying or asking educated questions.


I'll pull together an update based on original promises and you'll see what I mean.

[Pete]

Here is the MAPS 3 Timeline that was published and shared with the public in March 2011; this had already been revised multiple times.

You can see the only two projects even close to schedule are the convention center and whitewater facility.

The others they missed by a country mile, even after drastically reducing the scope of promised work for the river, sidewalks and scale backs of the fairgrounds facility.

And these huge misses are on our FOURTH MAPS initiative. Clearly, we are not learning as we go.

[Rover]

Just like we go to other cities and assume they are acting so fast when in fact they don't usually move faster than here. Realistically, city evolution is a long, drawn out process occurring over decades. In our microwave society we want things done immediately and often don't understand all that has to happen to make change occur. Amazing things have been happening in OKC, but not overnight.

[OKC_on_mines]

.....sigh....

[OKC_on_mines]

Just like we go to other cities and assume they are acting so fast when in fact they don't usually move faster than here. Realistically, city evolution is a long, drawn out process occurring over decades. In our microwave society we want things done immediately and often don't understand all that has to happen to make change occur. Amazing things have been happening in OKC, but not overnight.

I so agree with you sir.....but what Pete just highlighted above is a bit concerning at the least.

When I used to keep up with the Maps 3 subcommittees it seemed they only met once a month. Or maybe it was city council hearing the remarks from the subcommittees. But it made me wonder, why once a month? Then again if it isn't a full time city official job then who am I to suggest they come in on their free time to do MORE work even FASTER. Ill be glad when they finish the park and streetcar though.

[Rover]

Look, I'm definitely not saying all couldn't be better. But after decades in the construction industry I can tell you it isn't like being in a laboratory where you can hold all variables constant. Economies change, politics change, land values and availability change, as-built drawing and plans turn out to be wrong, contractors fail, bids don't come in as projected (for many reasons), law suits happen from well intentioned as well as obstructionists, egos get in the way,, people screw up, etc., etc., etc. Happens in private and public projects. And, the longer the time frames, the more opportunity for issues to arise there are.
I think if you got down in the weeds with most voters and described all the things that MIGHT go wrong (many of which WILL go wrong) then we might not get anything passed. Where would OKC be without the MAPs projects? Let's face it, OKC has been a poor town with lagging revenue for a very long time. We have a culture of extreme conservatism that doesn't promote change easily. And yet, we are pulling ourselves out of the muck and mire to make a pretty good city to live in. It isn't yet where it needs to be but it is much, much better. I think if you could describe and show pictures of today's OKC and what it will be in 5 years to the first MAPS voters they would be pretty satisfied that they have been good investments...screw-ups and all.

[BoulderSooner]

Here is the MAPS 3 Timeline that was published and shared with the public in March 2011; this had already been revised multiple times.

You can see the only two projects even close to schedule are the convention center and whitewater facility.

The others they missed by a country mile, even after drastically reducing the scope of promised work for the river, sidewalks and scale backs of the fairgrounds facility.

And these huge misses are on our FOURTH MAPS initiative. Clearly, we are not learning as we go.

Of course this has been revised you posted a conceptual schedule. At least post the original adopted final schedule as a point of original reference

The transit project for example added and investigation and standards phase to the beginning of its schedule. Also at a later point the 2 phases where combined into a single phase and Even against the schedule you posted the project will be completed maybe 3 month behind schedule. Not close to the “at least a year”

[Pete]

^

All the schedules say "conceptual schedule".

Even more recent ones. And there were several before the one I shared.

That is the point. They never set a schedule or scope and report against it. It's all conceptual until it's finished and they just keep revising it until everything is complete.

[TheTravellers]

Look, I'm definitely not saying all couldn't be better. But after decades in the construction industry I can tell you it isn't like being in a laboratory where you can hold all variables constant. Economies change, politics change, land values and availability change, as-built drawing and plans turn out to be wrong, contractors fail, bids don't come in as projected (for many reasons), law suits happen from well intentioned as well as obstructionists, egos get in the way,, people screw up, etc., etc., etc. Happens in private and public projects. And, the longer the time frames, the more opportunity for issues to arise there are.
...

But constantly years off (or the scope being reduced because they couldn't figure out a proper budget) for a huge amount (maybe a majority, I don't know for sure) of projects over the past umpteen years (don't know how many years it's been going on, only moved back in 2009) should not ever, ever, ever be acceptable. If your construction company blew deadlines by as much as OKC does and for as many months/years as they do, would they still be in business?

[Bellaboo]

All said and done, late, timely, over or under budget if the MAPS program was non-existent, we'd really suck.

I remember the '70's and 80's.

[Rover]

But constantly years off (or the scope being reduced because they couldn't figure out a proper budget) for a huge amount (maybe a majority, I don't know for sure) of projects over the past umpteen years (don't know how many years it's been going on, only moved back in 2009) should not ever, ever, ever be acceptable. If your construction company blew deadlines by as much as OKC does and for as many months/years as they do, would they still be in business?

So, your opinion is Maps has been a colossal failure? Corruption or just Okie ineptness?

[TheTravellers]

So, your opinion is Maps has been a colossal failure? Corruption or just Okie ineptness?

Wow, misinterpretations of what I actually typed abound all over tonight. Blowing deadlines by months or years, and all the other info that Pete posted are actual facts, not opinions. Can you answer the question I posed - If your construction company did the same thing, how long would they be in business?

[gopokes88]

So basically just government, late and overbudget is SOP

[Rover]

Wow, misinterpretations of what I actually typed abound all over tonight. Blowing deadlines by months or years, and all the other info that Pete posted are actual facts, not opinions. Can you answer the question I posed - If your construction company did the same thing, how long would they be in business?

We aren’t talking about simple construction project failure. We are talking development of lots of projects with lots of moving parts. Oversimplification Leads to many wrong assumptions and judgements.

[pw405]

^

All the schedules say "conceptual schedule".

Even more recent ones. And there were several before the one I shared.

That is the point. They never set a schedule or scope and report against it. It's all conceptual until it's finished and they just keep revising it until everything is complete.

Pete thank you for bringing this to light. Without this type of information, we can never get better as a city. If the city doesn't nail the MAPS projects, I fear we will never have more. That said... who do we contact about this? Council? Mayor?

[Paseofreak]

We aren’t talking about simple construction project failure. We are talking development of lots of projects with lots of moving parts. Oversimplification Leads to many wrong assumptions and judgements.

Yes, these are complex projects. But there is no reason that there can't be revisions to a plan, schedule, budget, and scope, and a clear accounting of why each revision occurred and what scope items had to be deleted to accommodate the unanticipated costs. It happens daily on hundreds and hundreds of projects of equal or greater complexity across the nation every day. Project owners typically expect and understand hiccups, but demand a current and accurate explanation and support for the changes. However, as Pete aptly points out, for OKC projects, none of this happening in a public forum, and as (taxpayers) project owners we should absolutely demand the same level of detail and accounting.

It's pretty simple. Contractor Acme encountered 200 linear feet of unanticipated 8" water supply pipe conflicting with the proposed sanitary sewer. Costs to resolve the conflict are: $10K engineering costs, $80K construction costs, and delayed the delivery of contracts X, Y and Z by 60 days. This also caused the start of Phase D of the work to slip 60 days. Instead, Public Works and other involved departments and entities give us a rosy picture with absolutely no accountability and essentially say just trust us, and by the way, we will not be held accountable for not meeting scope, schedule or budget regardless, because we're not gonna tell you. This entirely avoids the timely raising of red flags for poor execution and squashes the burden of accountability from the get go.

I'm not saying for one minute that the collective entities that have conceived and achieved all the progress we've seen since the earliest days of MAPS haven't delivered amazing stuff, but the manner in which it has been executed does not engender much confidence that everything is above board. The message I get is "Don't ask questions. Trust us. We're much smarter than you". And even more critical, we, the (taxpayer) project owners (cast our votes) decide on a path forward with discrete quantities (I.e., 95 miles of sidewalk) and once the plan is approved, it is immediately a soft, negotiable objective in the eyes of the (City) project manager because, of course they won't provide data that can hold them to account.

Combine this with the nebulous way that these projects are conceived and promoted, the behind the scenes unaudited, but paid role that Alliance plays, the influence of the Chamber and folks like Mr. Nichols (decider for the failed fine dining restaurant at the Gardens, against the advice of restaurant experts at the expense of a planned everyman's food venue that would have served far more of the (taxpayers) project owners), along with the egregious overreach of the various appointed planning and design review commissions, it appears the whole show is run by elitists that can't be troubled to explain and account for themselves. This has been working out for them for quite some time, but inquiring minds want to know. Most of all, what has been swept under the rug, and what has been promoted to the benefit of a select few,at the expense of the (taxpayer) project owners.

[Rover]

Don’t we have several members of various Maps committees who contribute here on this site? Let’s ask them why they have been sweeping things under the rug and why the process is apparently so corrupt? Why they as elitists are refusing to be transparent with us citizens.

[Paseofreak]

I'd be thrilled to hear it. Especially from the Sidewalks Committee, the Senior Health and Wellness Committee, the Riversports Rapids Committee, the Convention Center Committee and the Sidewalks Committee, however, you boil it down to groups of people selected at the midpoint of the process charged with playing the hand they were dealt. A great deal of my issues are with the way the prior set of deciders handled their work. As for the committees, they made no promises and probably had no hand in the scope or budget presented for the vote to proceed. Also, I'd like to take this opportunity to vigorously tip my hat to the Streetcar committee for being extraordinarily informative about their process (largely on this site, but not entirely at all).

[Paseofreak]

I'd be thrilled to hear it. Especially from the Sidewalks Committee, the Senior Health and Wellness Committee, the Riversports Rapids Committee, the Convention Center Committee and the Sidewalks Committee. They are all likely to have enlightening insight on how things went down. However, you boil it down to groups of people selected at the midpoint of the process charged with playing the hand they were dealt. A great deal of my issues are with the way the prior set of deciders handled their work. As for the committees, they made no promises and probably had no hand in the scope or budget presented for the vote to proceed. Also, I'd like to take this opportunity to vigorously tip my hat to the Streetcar committee for being extraordinarily informative about their process (largely on this site, but not entirely at all).

[bombermwc]

But constantly years off (or the scope being reduced because they couldn't figure out a proper budget) for a huge amount (maybe a majority, I don't know for sure) of projects over the past umpteen years (don't know how many years it's been going on, only moved back in 2009) should not ever, ever, ever be acceptable. If your construction company blew deadlines by as much as OKC does and for as many months/years as they do, would they still be in business?

One of the difficulties in MAPs projects is that its a sales tax driven revenue system. So the projects are planned for X number of dollars, and the term of the tax is ESTIMATED to be X number of years to collect enough to meet that demand. What we've seen in several instances, is that sales taxes did not collect enough in the allotted time to meet the budget requirements. And some projects ended up costing more, which happens in construction. Have you ever seen anyone build a home off the very first cost estimate? These are projects that take years to complete so the economy can fluctuate up and down, and so can prices.

There is an oversight board to counter the very problems that you describe, and i think you would find that the overwhelming majority of the city's population feel like they have done a good job. And that they have done a good job at explaining what happened if they have asked for an extension. In at least one case, the extension was to add a NEW project (The Ford Center expansion post Thunder).

Project 180 isn't maps, but is also reliant on income from the TIF district. As the rate of collections change, so does the ability of the city to fund the projects being worked on...thus extending out the timelines. Are we all tired of downtown constantly being under construction? Sure the hell are. But i'm also glad to not see a pile of debt with interest to pay.

[Urban Pioneer]

Also, I'd like to take this opportunity to vigorously tip my hat to the Streetcar committee for being extraordinarily informative about their process (largely on this site, but not entirely at all).

From the four or five of us that are active on the site, thanks. Our committee has been meeting nearly every month since 2010. The campaign actually began in late 2008. I'd say all of us are excited to see the project coming into actual fruition. It is heartening to see so many people at work constructing it. While many of us wanted it to happen sooner, OKC's streetcar may well benefit from it taking so long to plan and build. It has really given us a chance to design and build a resilient system hopefully avoid a great many of the issues that other cities have faced.

One general observation that hasn't been highlighted in the dialogue is that we are using actual cash instead of loans and bonds. I think that this may also have an influence on accountability. The City Manager isn't held to any 3rd party accountability and I think that makes a difference in the leadership's willingness to simply revise plans and schedules to meet very generalized goals. I am not defending it, but simply highlighting that this is a major difference that probably contributes to fluidity in the programs. There is a general willingness by the City Council to simply scale back ambitions to be fiduciarily responsible to the overall monies budgeted and collected.

Where politics will come to the forefront in the coming year is how unused contingency funds and surpluses are used. Perhaps some of the scalebacks will be corrected. Ironically, I think a case could be made on many projects that the delays have actually benefited the overall city and that these projects are being more thoughtfully designed and built because of it.

[Urban Pioneer]

Sorry for the echo of sentiments Bomber. I guess we were typing at the same time. lol Highlighting the cash element is a major one.

[Pete]

But even in the case of the people here that have been actively involved in the streetcar committee, do any of you have the slightest clue about the schedule for finishing Santa Fe Station?

I did an article about a month ago and asked at that time, and absolutely no one could give me an answer. Just vague references to the tunnel to Bricktown being delayed due to the railroad.

This is exactly the type of thing that bothers me. Even the citizen committee doesn't know and when the City is asked directly, you can't even get a direct answer. So, they have now missed the timeline and there doesn't seem to be any commitment to a new time goal.

I've managed big construction projects and understand their complex nature, but it's this complete lack of accountability that is so maddening.


The bottom line is this: In specific projects that can be separated out and tracked (MAPS, Project 180, the City's piece of the OKC Boulevard) they are consistently way, way past the time estimates they provide, constantly miss budgets and cause lots of reduction in scope accordingly, and are pretty vague about even providing updates.

[Urban Pioneer]

But even in the case of the people here that have been actively involved in the streetcar committee, do any of you have the slightest clue about the schedule for finishing Santa Fe Station?

Yes we do.

I did an article about a month ago and asked at that time, and absolutely no one could give me an answer. Just vague references to the tunnel to Bricktown being delayed due to the railroad.

I missed your question about this as I do not visit the site every day. BNSF has held up the project. We are completely at their mercy. Even the Federal Government who has $14 million invested has to wait on BNSF. The street and plaza around the building was delayed by a major buried pipeline that had to be excavated 20' below the surface of the street and modified.

This is exactly the type of thing that bothers me. Even the citizen committee doesn't know. So, they have now missed the timeline and there doesn't seem to be any commitment to a new time goal.

We do know.

-it's this complete lack of accountability that is so maddening.

The streetcar, Santa Fe Station, and related oversight has been completely accountable to our committee.


The bottom line is this: In specific projects that can be separated out and tracked (MAPS, Project 180, the City's piece of the OKC Boulevard) they are consistently way, way past the time estimates they provide, constantly miss budgets and cause lots of reduction in scope accordingly, and are pretty vague about even providing updates.

Feel free to apply those sentiments anywhere but towards our project. I can't speak for those. Your sentiments are not unfounded and without merit.

[Pete]

^

So what is the timeline now?



Honestly, regardless of project, there always seems to be something like this either not contemplated or severely under-estimated.

I'm not picking on the committee here because they rely on the City to come up with basic information and to take care of many of these things.

The OKC Boulevard Uhaul work-around in Bricktown is a classic example. Why on earth are they just now pursuing eminent domain when this project was planned for a decade? Why is Project 180 taking double the estimated time frame to do about half the work promised?

Seems to be very much a recurring theme. Yes, there are difficulties but 1) be realistic when making promises about timelines and budgets and 2) get way out in front of them as early as possible.

Again, I understand the complexities but this happens over and over again on a wide variety of projects and there doesn't seem to be any changes ever made, and thus we keep running into the same problems.

In what other job could you miss deadlines by years and go way over budget and just have those in charge say, "Well, what are you going to do? On to the next one."