I know the mayor said he wants the Central Park to be opened by the time the boulevard opens in 2014. I wonder if the streetcar would be first so it would line up with the Devon 180 project. That way, when the streets are ripped up, the rail lines could go down and they streets could be redone around that. If this tax is supposed to bring in $100 million a year, both of these could be funded in less than three years. Thoughts?

Who knows? Wouldn't it have been nice to actually have a plan before you voted for it? Sorry, bitter goon syndrome.

If I were to wager, it'd probably be in this order.

1: Park
2: Beginning of the rails/sidewalks
3: Trails/sidewalks
4: Fairgrounds
5: Convention Center
6: White Water Facility
7: Aquatic center

I predict the first two for the same reason you do. After that it's the relatively cheap but still visible trail system. I think sidewalks will just go in as they go along with other improvements. The Fairgrounds and convention center will take longer, but those are big money makers for the city and they'd come next, followed by the white water facility and the aquatic centers at last (probably as the last thing funded in case it falls short).

The first thing might be a legal challenge. I just saw on Channel 9's newscast that the police union chief said he would be talking to lawyers and seeing if a legal challenge could be made on the wording of the ballot. I hope he's just upset he lost, and will reconsider. I wouldn't want this to get delayed by a legal challenge; there's virtually no chance of it getting stuck down at least.

If they challenge it, I hope the city brings down the thunder on their contract negotiations from now on. Scorched earth.

The first thing might be a legal challenge. I just saw on Channel 9's newscast that the police union chief said he would be talking to lawyers and seeing if a legal challenge could be made on the wording of the ballot. I hope he's just upset he lost, and will reconsider. I wouldn't want this to get delayed by a legal challenge; there's virtually no chance of it getting stuck down at least.I saw that, as well.
It will only serve to add more egg to the face of union bosses.

I think it would go like this:

1. lay the rails and build stops in the core, so it coincides with the 180 streetscape transformation
2. sidewalk rebuilds, again - so it coincides with the 180 transformation
3. Central Park, so it coinsides with the I-40 completion
1a. building of the transit hub and commuter rail link
4. Convention Center
1b. purchase streetcars (mostly modern, but hopefully a few 'heritage trolleys' as well).
5. Fairgrounds
6. White Water Facility
7. Aquatic centers
1c. if any money left over, streetcar extensions to capitol campus, OCU/Asia District, and hopefully Capital Hill

notice, in my plan - all of the downtown work is first and builds on synergy of other projects including the devon tower, the 180 streetscape, I-40 relocation, the Ford Center expansion, OCU Law, potential highrise residential, and other already announced/planned private investment. I think this should be done to be as frugal as possible - so we can build as large as possible convention center and rail network.

In fact, I hope the city has quietly already planned the initial alignment of the streetcar rail alignment, so bids can go out the same time as the 180 bids do.

Talk about a double whammy stimulous, yet using taxpayer money frugally. :D

I have a feeling there will be a lot of stuff going on that won't be sexy such as buying land and rights of way, relocation of utilities and tearing down dilapidated structures and cleaning up junk yards.

I-40 construction will undoubtedly factor into park construction and Oklahoma River project timing, I would imagine.

Since Oklahoma City is an Olympic training site, we really need the river venues first. Then the street car, which can be planned as the river is developed.

The first thing might be a legal challenge. I just saw on Channel 9's newscast that the police union chief said he would be talking to lawyers and seeing if a legal challenge could be made on the wording of the ballot. I hope he's just upset he lost, and will reconsider. I wouldn't want this to get delayed by a legal challenge; there's virtually no chance of it getting stuck down at least.

Anyone remember Moshe Tal? If they try to file a lawsuit, the police union can forever kiss their reputation bye bye in this city, and can forever forget about us ever voting for them anything again. The public has spoken....period. This is a democracy. Majority rules. I couldn't see any judge overturning the will of the people....it could happen, but that judge wouldn't be in office much longer as he/she would become very unpopular.

All I can say in response to the police union chief is.....SORE LOSER!

I hope the police and fire union leaders aren't so stupid as to try something like that. If they think they will EVER be supported anywhere in this city, that would be a major mistake.

I'm hoping, now that we've got all sorts of new things to work on, that the mayor's focus on the boulevard lessens. Maybe we need to push for a boulevard with a smaller number of lanes.

Anyone remember Moshe Tal? If they try to file a lawsuit, the police union can forever kiss their reputation bye bye in this city, and can forever forget about us ever voting for them anything again. The public has spoken....period. This is a democracy. Majority rules. I couldn't see any judge overturning the will of the people....it could happen, but that judge wouldn't be in office much longer as he/she would become very unpopular.

All I can say in response to the police union chief is.....SORE LOSER!

They've already shown that they're completely tone deaf when it comes to their public perception. Idiotic and self-defeating, also. I wouldn't hold my breath hoping for them to get a burst of conscience after the scorched-earth tactics they've already deployed.

don't discount the possibility of loans going out to the city at small % rates to build some of these things now .. the river stuff first and fore most ..

Realistically, the rails are going to have to go in first. Once rails are in place private sector development will take off and you want to get the private sector involved as soon as possible. No one is going to build a 600 room hotel until they know where the tracks are. They simply won't risk that kind of money and then find out they are 3 blocks from the nearest station.

People might buy land on speculation about where the rails will go but no one is going to sink money into construction until there are parallel veins of iron running down the street. You only need to look at downtown Memphis to see what kind of private development will take place along tracks in downtown OKC. The sooner that development can start the better.

Anyone remember Moshe Tal? If they try to file a lawsuit, the police union can forever kiss their reputation bye bye in this city, and can forever forget about us ever voting for them anything again.

Wow, I hope not. I think there are legitimate constitutional questions here which need to be answered. While I'm a huge supporter of MAPS, I'm an even bigger fan of the Oklahoma Constitution. And if Article 10, section 19 means what it says, i.e., these sorts of ballot measures should distinctly specify what's being voted on, then the city made a calculated risk that didn't pay off and will have to go back to the drawing board to do things right.

Now, the unions' approach might not be my approach and their reasons for filing the suit may not be pure as the driven snow, but if a lawsuit is filed and these projects are tossed out as unconstitutional, then that's what should happen.

don't discount the possibility of loans going out to the city at small % rates to build some of these things now .. the river stuff first and fore most ..

I'm not certain the city can authorize bonds without another vote.

If it can, this might be a worthy loophole in ANY constitutional issue. In one of the Fent cases where some projects were cancelled because of logrolling concerns, one project was actually greenlit because bonds had already been issued.

I guess the moral of the story is that if you plan to violate the Constitution, do it with gusto and you might get away with it...

How about let's closet the torches for a few days and try to celebrate please? If they contest this the public will crucify them.

...
1b. purchase streetcars (mostly modern, but hopefully a few 'heritage trolleys' as well).
....

Hotrod,
if you're talking about those damnable red trolleys we have now, I hope we dont.
They're the most uncomfortable things then a hot rock in the desert.
Service headaches, heating and air conditioning issues..Yes I know they are going to be new,(but I somehow know they're the product of a kickback to someone..) I dislike them with a passion, let the "tourists" get them..egads!

To begin...

Streetcars (needs to coincide with Project 180 anyway)
Park
Sidewalks

Surely we can sell those trolleys to some unsuspecting city and keep one for rentals. I know two people who used them to deliver the bridal party to a wedding, and they were pretty charming in that role.

Give them to Guthrie.

I'm not certain the city can authorize bonds without another vote.

If it can, this might be a worthy loophole in ANY constitutional issue. In one of the Fent cases where some projects were cancelled because of logrolling concerns, one project was actually greenlit because bonds had already been issued.

I guess the moral of the story is that if you plan to violate the Constitution, do it with gusto and you might get away with it...

Why would we do this and just end up raising the cost of everything? Patience is a virtue.....

....Patience is a virtue.....

America is a fast society..
We go into debt to fight not only unnecessary but poorly planned occupational ones.
We go in debt personally for bright and shiney things.

we have fast food..

fast weight loss..ie liposuction
We just want it NOW

see how i worked those together?:tiphat:

But Oklahoma's slooooooooooow and pays with cash.......

When we talk about 'what happens first,' let's not forget some of these things can happen simultaneously.

Personally, I think the park and the convention center will be the first two things, and those projects, if revenue allows, could happen at the same time.

Then the fairgrounds and the streetcars.

The sidewalks, trails and aquatic centers are the lowest priority. I would not be surprised if they didn't happen at all.

It just wouldn't make sense to to start the downtown streetscape (starts in May)only to tear it out to lay tracks.

It just wouldn't make sense to to start the downtown streetscape (starts in May)only to tear it out to lay tracks.



Classen between 23rd up to 30th, seems to have followed the reverse of logic.

When we talk about 'what happens first,' let's not forget some of these things can happen simultaneously.

Personally, I think the park and the convention center will be the first two things, and those projects, if revenue allows, could happen at the same time.

Then the fairgrounds and the streetcars.

The sidewalks, trails and aquatic centers are the lowest priority. I would not be surprised if they didn't happen at all.

I agree. That blighted part of the city has plenty of properties that have to be acquired to then be flattened. We got an idea of what the park is suppose to look like but do they truly have the final master plan ready for it? Not to mention the convention center, as its designs have only briefly been hinted at by the public (private designs I know nothing of). These two plans for these projects can be finished while acquisition of all properties is going on.

Since we don't even (I hope) know precisely where the convention center will be located, they can't really even acquire property for it yet. But, the park location is well outlined. It would be nice if they would start demolishing buildings like the post office, as clearing of the land would be nice to watch. I wonder if we'll get adjacent development before the park is completed. Land values in that area probably skyrocketed last night.

It'll be awhile before we have the cash to do much of anything.

Patience. 10 years (or more) is going to be a long time.

It'll be awhile before we have the cash to do much of anything.

Patience. 10 years (or more) is going to be a long time.

Exactly. And regarding the convention center, it has been said many times that it wont be built for another 10 years.

We got an idea of what the park is suppose to look like but do they truly have the final master plan ready for it? Not to mention the convention center, as its designs have only briefly been hinted at by the public (private designs I know nothing of). These two plans for these projects can be finished while acquisition of all properties is going on.

The park plans are preliminary. The CC doesn't have any plans yet. The renderings were just an idea of what could be.

Hopefully, they start on the transit as soon as possible. That way they can get the first phase done and get on with expanding it.

I think there is no doubt they will at least lay tracks in conjunction with Project 180.

I think there is no doubt they will at least lay tracks in conjunction with Project 180.

If you're around Urban, I'm curious about how a route for the streetcar will be determined. Are there route designers? Because Project 180 seemed to be something the city wants to complete fairly quickly. Will we know the streetcar route soon enough for them to be able to lay tracks at the same time?

I live on the SE side and would like it to extend to where I could park somewhere in MWC and ride it into downtown. I know this is far in the future, but the sooner they get started....
I've visited relatives in Portland and enjoyed riding theirs in from the suburbs and hanging out in town all day. That's what I'd like to see here.

That's a good point, betts.

Wambo, ours is the exact kind of streetcar that Portland has, so that should please you. Also, I believe Midwest City and OKC are moving pretty quickly on a Tinker to Downtown commuter line.

I live on the SE side and would like it to extend to where I could park somewhere in MWC and ride it into downtown. I know this is far in the future, but the sooner they get started....
I've visited relatives in Portland and enjoyed riding theirs in from the suburbs and hanging out in town all day. That's what I'd like to see here.

I don't know how convenient it would be for you, but it seems as if the first commuter rail we might see will run from Tinker to downtown. This article in the Gazette was linked elsewhere, but I'll put it here again. It's pretty interesting.

Proposed passenger rail line between Midwest City, Bricktown gains steam | OKG Scene.com (http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/4056/Default.aspx)

I noticed that MWC had the only rep from surrounding cities at the meeting that I know about. I thought that was a good sign.

And it would be directly connected to the streetcar via the new transit hub.

While I don't know how much I would use the initial system, because it would entail my driving downtown to use it, I think linking to the outlying areas would greatly increase the foot traffic in bricktown and the surrounding areas downtown. I know it would mine.

I'm not certain the city can authorize bonds without another vote.

If it can, this might be a worthy loophole in ANY constitutional issue. In one of the Fent cases where some projects were cancelled because of logrolling concerns, one project was actually greenlit because bonds had already been issued.

I guess the moral of the story is that if you plan to violate the Constitution, do it with gusto and you might get away with it...

No vote needed, it is already authorized. Similar language was in the Ford and most likely in MAPS & MAPS for Kids, but from the MAPS 3 ordinance:


§ 52-23.4. (d) (7) If deemed necessary or appropriate by the City Council for cash-flow purposes, for the payment of principal and interest on and the costs of issuance of bonds, notes, lines-of-credit, or other evidences of indebtedness issued by a public trust with the City as its beneficiary for the purpose of providing a City capital improvement.

As we have learned, cash flow purposes can apply to severe cost over-runs (bond issues were going to happen with MAPS according to an article posted by Doug and a Journal Record one about the same time).


EPA challenge gets OKC council eye Journal Record (9/9/1997)

...That, however, won’t cover the already known $7.4 million shortfall in the budget for the Civic Center Music Hall and $10 million in costs for the Library/Learning Center now to be paid for with bond money instead of MAPS sales taxes, saddling the city with about $1 million in annual debt service for 20 years, according to the city’s finance director.

It'll be awhile before we have the cash to do much of anything.

Patience. 10 years (or more) is going to be a long time.

Going along with the previous post about the bonds...as with the Ford, the City got a line of credit to start renovation work months before a single penny in tax had been collected. Those articles are long archived so I can't tell precisely which ones, but remember it being in the millions of $$$ (all money that has to be paid back, probably with interest).

Going along with the previous post about the bonds...as with the Ford, the City got a line of credit to start renovation work months before a single penny in tax had been collected. Those articles are long archived so I can't tell precisely which ones, but remember it being in the millions of $$$ (all money that has to be paid back, probably with interest).Larry, it's early so I may not be comprehending what you/this says, so please correct me if I'm totally confused. Hypotheticly speaking, and I'll use the convention center a big ticket project which would take 2+ years to collect the cost to complete. Are you saying that the City could go Monday morning and sell bonds equal to the cost to complete the C.C. and start construction with bond money in hand? If so they can do that on their own without a vote?

Larry, it's early so I may not be comprehending what you/this says, so please correct me if I'm totally confused. Hypotheticly speaking, and I'll use the convention center a big ticket project which would take 2+ years to collect the cost to complete. Are you saying that the City could go Monday morning and sell bonds equal to the cost to complete the C.C. and start construction with bond money in hand? If so they can do that on their own without a vote?

In theory I suppose they could, but I don't think that would happen. Why? The more money they have to borrow, the less truthful the claim is that MAPS projects are built "pay as you go" or "debt free". The correct way to say it is to add "mostly" in front of those phrases. A point that got missed in another thread on the topic was that every MAPS has been authorized to use some form of debt (if all forms were utilized, especially long term bond debt, is uncertain, but as seen in the MAPS bond quote, it was a distinct possibility). Have to remember that depending on the interest rate and length of the bond, the original borrowed amount can easily end up costing double ($10M, costs $20M+) and really should be avoided if at all possible.

The second part is the Ordinance is silent on the amount of debt that is authorized. Presume that there is some state law that regulates that sort of thing. Belief I have read somewhere that state law prohibits more than a certain debt ratio (ratio to what I don't know). Would think that the bond amount wouldn't be allowed to come anywhere close to the projected revenue ($777M) and since bond debt ends up costing at least double, am thinking that half of that number would be the max.

Throw into the mix that other City bond debt (like the 2007 General Obligation bond) might be a factor. But then G.O. bond debt may be kept separate from specific bond debt.

And yes, they can sell bonds for MAPS 3 projects (with all of the above limitations, if any) without another vote. Bonds were part of the Ordinance (what we were actually voting on Tuesday).

I am sure there will be some use of lines of credit to get the ball rolling on each project as plans need to be drawn up as soon as possible so they know what things will cost, but actual construction will probably be 'pay as you go'.

The only think that I think might justify a line of credit this early would be the streetcar line, if we've got a route, in order to take advantage of streets torn up for Project 180.

Keep in mind also that there are costs associated with bond issues. Yes, there could be some constructions savings if bonds were issued today to finance construction costs and then paid off as revenues were collected. However, when bonds are issued, there is an underwriting and distribution cost. There is also the fact that you must pay interest on bonds. You must also issue bonds that buyers wish to buy.

Traditionally, muni bonds were thought of as a safe, grandma and grandpa type of investment. You relied on the rating agencies and the insurance companies. The recession has changed the playing field significantly. The rating agencies did not do their work properly so there were dozens of AAA rated issues that have been having problems. Furthermore, the bond insurers have dropped in their own financial ratings so that insured bonds can no longer be automatically rated AAA. This has raised the cost, overall, of issuing bonds - rish = reward and there is more perceived risk now.

Finally, the overall concensus is that municipalities have not seen the bottom of the recession. There was an article out a day or 2 ago that it may be another year before this happens. Nationwide, there are many municipalities that have been having severe economic problems. OKC, so far, has only seen modest problems that they seem to be able to work through with the budget cuts already implemented. However, bond underwriters and institutional buyers will look at national conditions and not just at the local situation.

Overall, its not a good time to issue bonds unless its truly necessary. This may be why some of the 2007 bond projects are being slowed. Since we have a pay-as-you-go MAPS, its probably best to leave it that way.

I know somewhere on this site I have seen promo videos for the Maps3 and realted projects. If I'm not mistaken it was done by and acrh. or design team and showed the river, the parks etc. I was planning on sending it to some friends and family abroad to show them how much progress okc has accomplished and what we are about to. I'm so proud of OKC. Any Maps 3 videos, sites or anything related to the "new Downtown " (including skydance bridge) information would be appreciated. Sorry I don't have the stamina to sit at the pc very long otherwise I could probably find them myself.....maybe Doug has a page. Thanks. WSS

Keep in mind also that there are costs associated with bond issues. Yes, there could be some constructions savings if bonds were issued today to finance construction costs and then paid off as revenues were collected. However, when bonds are issued, there is an underwriting and distribution cost. There is also the fact that you must pay interest on bonds. You must also issue bonds that buyers wish to buy.

Traditionally, muni bonds were thought of as a safe, grandma and grandpa type of investment. You relied on the rating agencies and the insurance companies. The recession has changed the playing field significantly. The rating agencies did not do their work properly so there were dozens of AAA rated issues that have been having problems. Furthermore, the bond insurers have dropped in their own financial ratings so that insured bonds can no longer be automatically rated AAA. This has raised the cost, overall, of issuing bonds - rish = reward and there is more perceived risk now.

Finally, the overall concensus is that municipalities have not seen the bottom of the recession. There was an article out a day or 2 ago that it may be another year before this happens. Nationwide, there are many municipalities that have been having severe economic problems. OKC, so far, has only seen modest problems that they seem to be able to work through with the budget cuts already implemented. However, bond underwriters and institutional buyers will look at national conditions and not just at the local situation.

Overall, its not a good time to issue bonds unless its truly necessary. This may be why some of the 2007 bond projects are being slowed. Since we have a pay-as-you-go MAPS, its probably best to leave it that way.

I'll be the first to admit that I know very little about how those bond thingamajigs work. However, I trust that you do, so I'll take your word for it. You have given us your reasons and/or theory regarding the 2007 bond projects and why their start-up may have been slowed. What would your thoughts be regarding the slow start-up and completion of the 2000 bond projects? This has been the issue of my concern regarding the way this City handles business for quite sometime now.

I'll be the first to admit that I know very little about how those bond thingamajigs work. However, I trust that you do, so I'll take your word for it. You have given us your reasons and/or theory regarding the 2007 bond projects and why their start-up may have been slowed. What would your thoughts be regarding the slow start-up and completion of the 2000 bond projects? This has been the issue of my concern regarding the way this City handles business for quite sometime now.

I think you'd need to pull up the City audit from 2004/2005 that showed that Public Works wasn't pumping any energy into completing the projects. Since then, they hired more people and tried to pump out more projects at a faster pace. Unfortunately, it put many things behind. I've never actually seen the audit, but I'd love to read it.

Also, the Bond Advisory Committee is a City committee that meets monthly in Council Chambers. They are open, public meetings, but I doubt the public ever goes... They actually oversee the spending and approve, or disapprove, of bond fund changes or the use of the unlisted bond funds.

I think you'd need to pull up the City audit from 2004/2005 that showed that Public Works wasn't pumping any energy into completing the projects. Since then, they hired more people and tried to pump out more projects at a faster pace. Unfortunately, it put many things behind. I've never actually seen the audit, but I'd love to read it.

Also, the Bond Advisory Committee is a City committee that meets monthly in Council Chambers. They are open, public meetings, but I doubt the public ever goes... They actually oversee the spending and approve, or disapprove, of bond fund changes or the use of the unlisted bond funds.I've glanced through it, but only briefly and that was years ago. If I remember correctly the audit was fairly critical of Public Works. Why do you think Public Works was not being pro-active in their efforts to see the projects completed in a more timely manor?

I'll be the first to admit that I know very little about how those bond thingamajigs work. However, I trust that you do, so I'll take your word for it. You have given us your reasons and/or theory regarding the 2007 bond projects and why their start-up may have been slowed. What would your thoughts be regarding the slow start-up and completion of the 2000 bond projects? This has been the issue of my concern regarding the way this City handles business for quite sometime now.

This may be what cafeboeuf was talking about, there was a City audit a few years back that showed projects going back 3 bond issues (18 years) had gone undone. The Oklahoman article didn't give any details really (which projects/$$$ amount) but never saw a follow-up article. I wrote the City Manager/Councilman/Mayor and the only response I got back was from the City Manager. He said the City had "other priorities".

This may be what cafeboeuf was talking about, there was a City audit a few years back that showed projects going back 3 bond issues (18 years) had gone undone. The Oklahoman article didn't give any details really (which projects/$$$ amount) but never saw a follow-up article. I wrote the City Manager/Councilman/Mayor and the only response I got back was from the City Manager. He said the City had "other priorities".Did that response strike you as a bit odd? It would me. I'm still trying to figure out how the City is going to come up with the extra 1.6 million (give or take a $100,000.) to build the BT Fire station. If the same situation occures with the station called for in far N.E. OKC now we're talking 3.2 Million. Where will it come from?

Anyone remember Moshe Tal? If they try to file a lawsuit, the police union can forever kiss their reputation bye bye in this city, and can forever forget about us ever voting for them anything again. The public has spoken....period. This is a democracy. Majority rules. I couldn't see any judge overturning the will of the people....it could happen, but that judge wouldn't be in office much longer as he/she would become very unpopular.

All I can say in response to the police union chief is.....SORE LOSER!

Here is the story about how Moshe Tal got severely hosed by Oklahoma City and the good old boy system. Even Toby Keith's restaurant is a part of the story:

The Oklahoma Constitution (http://www.oklahomaconstitution.com/ns.php?nid=135&pastissue=1)

Maps III use tax, perhaps?

False alarm tax.

Maps III use tax, perhaps?

Or unencumbered funds from the Ford Center use tax perhaps. Wasn't that a beef of the two unions, that there are unencumbered funds ina ccounts that the city was not applying to needs?