If you consider over 50 as Senior, then maybe there were votes by those wanting to use those centers in a few years. However, no time frames were ever given on building them and it has always been that projects are not started until money is there to pay for it. So I doubt the true seniors were voting on it hoping to use it in the next 5 years or so.

I have to say that, as a Senior, the plans for the Senior Centers really were not a major consideration in my decision to vote for approval.

I just want to see the streetcar get built before I die and I'm in my 30s, lol

If you consider over 50 as Senior, then maybe there were votes by those wanting to use those centers in a few years. However, no time frames were ever given on building them and it has always been that projects are not started until money is there to pay for it. So I doubt the true seniors were voting on it hoping to use it in the next 5 years or so.

Agree, no time frame or specific location was given. But to your money point, if they had them shovel ready (they aren't). They have all of the money needed to build all of them now.

What is the total budget for the Sr. Centers? Have sites been chosen & land acquired? Have designs been started?

I can't remember the exact budget, but I believe each is anticipated to cost between $10 and $15 million. The city is looking for partners to help with the operation of the facilities once they're built, and that's actually one of the most important rate limiting steps. I know they've been talking to St. Anthony's and OUHSC but I'm not aware if there's been any formal partnership formed. There are no specific plans nor has land been chosen as far as I know. The city simply has collected enough money to start, but the timeline hasn't even been formally adopted so nothing will happen until then.

Perhaps someone on the committee is a member here and will enlighten us.

I have to say that, as a Senior, the plans for the Senior Centers really were not a major consideration in my decision to vote for approval.

same here. . . .

What is the total budget for the Sr. Centers? Have sites been chosen & land acquired? Have designs been started?

Betts is correct on the per center cost

This was from a pre-vote sidebar article in the Oklahoman

Health and wellness aquatic centers for senior citizens, $50 million
An undetermined number of the centers would be built across the city. City officials have not said exactly where the centers will be located.

As I said, the Senior Aquatics Centers are NOT shovel ready. They don't know what they are going to be like (what amenities). Don't know locations (other than a general statement about one being placed in each quadrant of the City). May or may not own the land already (depends on where they end up). Don't know the exact number either (during campaign, repeatedly put at 4 or 5). Just a guess but that would mean one in each quadrant (as previously mentioned) and maybe one located downtown. Am sure the number depends on the cost per center and if they stay within the overall $50MM earmarked amount.

My point was addressing your point about having the money in hand to build them. IF they were shovel ready and all of those particulars were resolved, the City has the amount needed to build all of them already. There are at least a couple of vocal Council members making sure the SACs dont get the short end of the deal. IIRC White, Kelley and maybe a couple of others have expressed strong support for them.

The City also has all of the $10MM earmarked for the Sidewalks (they don't appear to be exactly shovel ready at this point either). But I suspect they are closer to being so than the SACs

So major discussion happening right now at the City Council meeting as to whether put the $30 million substation money in the Convention Center budget, add it to the contingency fund and deal with it later, or end the Maps 3 tax early shorting the overall budget $30 mil.

Anyone know why the revenue and expenditure report wasn't presented at the last MAPS 3 committee meeting?

It's too bad they can't use it to start a maintenance fund for the park, but out of those choices I'd go with contingency fund or end the tax early.

Pat Ryan & Greenwell- Put in CC Budget or end tax early
Meg Salyer- Put the money in the Contingency Fund
Shadid- Put the money in the Contingency Fund and poll the voters and ask them what they want to do with it
Larry McAtee- Put money in CC budget
Pete White- Put money in contingency and develop an innovative idea as to how to deal with the substation aesthetic issue (Deal with how to spend it later)
Gary Marrs- Put money in the in the CC early. Don't end the tax early. Leave them "fully funded."

Discussion still going strong. This could be a very splintered vote possibly.

Version B is up for a vote- Puts the $30 million into the contingency fund with an amendment written by a Pete White instructing staff to begin discussion between staff and engineers as to design an innovative aesthetic solution to the substation.

Pat Ryan is fighting back hard.

Item fails 4 to 5

No, item passed, 5-4.

Thanks for that correction. Going back I see Shadid changed his vote and my phone rang at the same time distracting me.

While it appears to be a moot point now, ending the tax early is an interesting idea, can they even legally do that without a vote of the people? The ordinance (that required a vote of the people) that was approved clearly gives the beginning and ending dates. the length of the tax is one of the few things that is actually "set in stone". I don't recall any clause permitting it to end early as there was with the Ford Tax (if a team wasn't signed by a particular date, the tax would be shortened from 15 months to 12).

Definitely a good idea to put it into the contingency fund since we already know that:

1) there has been a 60 miles/$40 million "mistake" and the Trails Master Plan will not be completed as repeatedly promised

2) due to cost increases we aren't even going to get the 57 miles of trails that were promised (32 instead)

3) the contingency fund was severely underfunded at only 2.2% of the MAPS 3 budget, since the City readily admits that these types of long term projects average 8% and the original MAPS went at least 47.75% over what voters were told (not factoring in the $100MM mol for the Arena upgrades to actually bring it back up to NBA standards) That means the contingency fund should have been budgeted with $62 to $168 million from the beginning.

So again, good to see that they are putting it into the contingency fund and studying a cheaper alternative to solve the substation problem.

Does anyone know what time tonight they will replay this meeting?

Does anyone know what time tonight they will replay this meeting?

I don't know what time on Cox.

About mid-afternoon, it becomes available as part of the minutes posted on the City's website.

Urban: thanks, I can't always get the video to play from the City site so depend on the rebroadcast or Doug's excellent excerpts when I miss it "live". Turned it to Cox and there is some sort of satisfaction survey results presentation going on, so don't know if it is the tail end of the "live" meeting, a replay of the Council meeting or another meeting. Hit record just in case. LOL

Anyone know why the revenue and expenditure report wasn't presented at the last MAPS 3 committee meeting?

I watched the meeting and I can't remember if it was Eric Wenger or Jim Couch, but they said it is just taking longer to prepare a report because it is the end of the fiscal year.

Well, this is somewhat redeeming. Hopefully they come up with a unique concept to disguise the sub-station.

I am for the decision that was made and am glad for it. However, all the literature has said $280 million for a convention center. A certain issue that they anticipated did not come up; it does seem hard to justify taking it out rather than using it elsewhere within the cc expenses.

It would be like the streetcar subcommittee fortuitously finding out that they already had a hub ready. Hypothetically, should that $10 million be moved to a contingency fund as well?

I'm just afraid there may be more citizen backlash than we think (even with the convention center being the least popular project).

I am for the decision that was made and am glad for it. However, all the literature has said $280 million for a convention center. A certain issue that they anticipated did not come up; it does seem hard to justify taking it out rather than using it elsewhere within the cc expenses.

It would be like the streetcar subcommittee fortuitously finding out that they already had a hub ready. Hypothetically, should that $10 million be moved to a contingency fund as well?

I'm just afraid there may be more citizen backlash than we think (even with the convention center being the least popular project).

If the Streetcar group didn't do a hub study (or found one in the trunk of a junked car in rural Arkansas next to the Rose Law Firm billing documents) then Yes, the streetcar budget would be reduced by $10 million. That is a no-brainer - just like this vote was. The Mayor was correct all along, the $280 million was the budget ONLY IF the east park location was choosen. The CC sub-committee picked a different location so they don't get the money. Instead, the money will be used for its original purpose - the power substation. Since it doesn't have to be moved to make way for the CC then a less expensive alternative can be found.

mcca7596: valid points but remember that by putting it into the contingency fund it is still available for the C.C. if that need presents itself (and precluding that it hasn't been earmarked/spent already for something else). By getting the C.C. moved up towards the front of the yimeline, they have increased their odds that they will be able to still access those dollars.

UPDATE: for those interested, the replay is at 6:30 tonight(Tues) on Cox. They also replay it on Sundays noonish but not sure of the exact time

I'm just afraid there may be more citizen backlash than we think (even with the convention center being the least popular project).

This would probably be a safe bet.

I am for the decision that was made and am glad for it. However, all the literature has said $280 million for a convention center. A certain issue that they anticipated did not come up; it does seem hard to justify taking it out rather than using it elsewhere within the cc expenses.

It would be like the streetcar subcommittee fortuitously finding out that they already had a hub ready. Hypothetically, should that $10 million be moved to a contingency fund as well?

I'm just afraid there may be more citizen backlash than we think (even with the convention center being the least popular project).

this exact thing was discussed at the last street car meeting .. right now the budget is 10mil (actually 9.7 or so because of timeline deflation) marked for transit hub and connections .. there is some thought that some of this money might go toward the adventure line .. or another transit line to the airport

Personally, I think spending any money to disguise the substation is a waste of money and a waste of a block along the park. How wonderful to have some fake castle disguising the substation on one side of the park and the entrance to the loading docks for the convention center on another. That's my idea of aesthetics, for sure. Find out what the real costs for moving the substation are, find another block to trade OG&E that's owned by the city and make a deal.

This whole action is just kicking the can down the road.....let's deal with it later when we see what is most politically expedient or when people are looking the other way. Meanwhile, the council will continue to get more and more splintered IMHO.

I watched the discussion regarding what to do with the $30 million. I was suprised that no one mentioned that the proposed location for the convention center may mean that construction costs will be higher because of the need to maintain the Harvey Spine as a pedestrian path. Preserving the pedestrian pathway is IMO more important to the future park than removing or hiding the substation. I would have left the money in the cc budget.

It is in a contingency budget right? That means they can still spend it on any project they want any way they want. If the cc site costs more than the original budget, then I guess it could be used as a contingency fund to cover the difference, right? Again, this doesn't sound like any decision was made...just more waffling.

Agree Rover, that is all it is.

I got the impression that those who voted to put the money in the contingency fund saw an opportunity to use it for something other than the convention center. I don't think that they had the same uses in mind. It will be very interesting when someone tries to claim some of it. According to the proposed plans the convention center could be 100,000 square feet smaller without the $30 million than was recommended by the study that they used to justify the need for a new convention center.

It is in a contingency budget right? That means they can still spend it on any project they want any way they want. If the cc site costs more than the original budget, then I guess it could be used as a contingency fund to cover the difference, right? Again, this doesn't sound like any decision was made...just more waffling.

They could spend it on anything. Therefore, it is an important vote. The fact that it wasn't simply handed over to the establishment's beloved Convention Center means that there will probably be a bigger fight further down the road.

Who knows for sure that it is the CC to first have budgetary problems? It opens it up for a later debate with many unknowns.

They could spend it on anything.

I wonder if an extra $30 million (less cosmetic make-over of substation) could get the streetcar into more residential areas.

They just "kicked the can down the road". A much bigger fight is coming, wait and see.

After watching the cc meeting,I think this isssue has just begun to spin it's ugly head.On a side note,after hearing Ed Shadid speak He sounds like a very intelligent person and I'm glad He's on the cc.

Transit was the overwhelming majority of the votes coming in on the Maps 3 vote in 2007. If the streetcar is off to a good start, spend some of that on improving the bus system and more improvements to the transit hub. I remember seeing something UP posted a while back about Portland's system where people can see exactly when the streetcar will get to it's destination by using their smart phones. An investment in that system would be a good idea too. JMHO

On a side note,after hearing Ed Shadid speak He sounds like a very intelligent person and I'm glad He's on the cc.

Me too. He will bring a level of honest credibility that has IMHO been lacking on the CC for a while.

This would probably be a safe bet.

Actually, it's not a very safe bet. There is a lot of emotion here but, on the street, probably 90 percent of the voting public won't know about it and won't care much. I rarely even hear anyone I talk to even bring up any of the Maps projects at all, let alone have debates about it or voice concerns about how it's being handled. The posters here usually have special interests and are not a good indicator of public sentiment.

Actually, it's not a very safe bet. There is a lot of emotion here but, on the street, probably 90 percent of the voting public won't know about it and won't care much. I rarely even hear anyone I talk to even bring up any of the Maps projects at all, let alone have debates about it or voice concerns about how it's being handled. The posters here usually have special interests and are not a good indicator of public sentiment.

Yea, outside of this forum, I have not heard MAPS3 come up in conversations nearly as much as the original MAPS.

Well, this is somewhat redeeming. Hopefully they come up with a unique concept to disguise the sub-station.


Personally, I think spending any money to disguise the substation is a waste of money and a waste of a block along the park. How wonderful to have some fake castle disguising the substation on one side of the park and the entrance to the loading docks for the convention center on another. That's my idea of aesthetics, for sure. Find out what the real costs for moving the substation are, find another block to trade OG&E that's owned by the city and make a deal.

I'm not sure it has to cost a lot or be a castle. I mean, nothing short of moving it will be "ideal", but if that simply isn't an option for cost/budget reasons, there are seemingly cheap options. Below are pics of a disguised substation in downtown Toronto that I took while there in June. Not saying we have to do this exact thing, but it "works" for a big time city like Toronto...

Street Level:
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-TwalamBxqQc/Tl3iL_vESFI/AAAAAAAAODY/6yAd_lXWMzY/s640/IMG_1099.JPG

Aerial:
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-7fveOxbID20/Tl3iLvYwJBI/AAAAAAAAODc/cdCXM1-FXcE/s640/IMG_1119.JPG

Yea, outside of this forum, I have not heard MAPS3 come up in conversations nearly as much as the original MAPS.

Then, it was more about convincing people that MAPS was worth it and wouldn't be a farce; everyone was talking about it. Now, the discussion centers more about specifics; most people recognize that positive things will come from MAPS3 and probably just are not as concerned with how it will be implemented.

I'm not sure it has to cost a lot or be a castle. I mean, nothing short of moving it will be "ideal", but if that simply isn't an option for cost/budget reasons, there are seemingly cheap options. Below are pics of a disguised substation in downtown Toronto that I took while there in June. Not saying we have to do this exact thing, but it "works" for a big time city like Toronto...

Street Level:
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-TwalamBxqQc/Tl3iL_vESFI/AAAAAAAAODY/6yAd_lXWMzY/s640/IMG_1099.JPG

Aerial:
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-7fveOxbID20/Tl3iLvYwJBI/AAAAAAAAODc/cdCXM1-FXcE/s640/IMG_1119.JPG

Do you really want something like that across from your iconic downtown park? Again, not me. And, it's about loss of developable space as much as aesthetics. That's an entire block that is unuseable if the substation stays. I've always questioned the $30 million price tag though. I'd like to know what it would cost to physically move the substation, as I'm sure there's another empty city block the city owns it could be moved to that would be a preferable location.

Ipad ads would suck. But something interesting on the panels would be acceptable. Of course, I've lost faith the park will be iconic at all so what's across the street is now of less concern, to me anyway, than when the grand and awesome type pitches were made. It will probably still be a nice park, but I'll be both pleased and surprised if it turns out anything even remotely similar to the early pitches when the votes were needed to get the necessary cover for the cc project. Time will tell and hopefully I've become cynical without good cause. I just don't feel like betting against me at present.

Actually, it's not a very safe bet. There is a lot of emotion here but, on the street, probably 90 percent of the voting public won't know about it and won't care much. I rarely even hear anyone I talk to even bring up any of the Maps projects at all, let alone have debates about it or voice concerns about how it's being handled. The posters here usually have special interests and are not a good indicator of public sentiment.

At places I frequent it is not a constant topice but it gets brought up at least anytime there is a city council meeting that discusses it. OKCTalk holds no monopoly on MAPS discussions.

The people will judge the success by how things turn out vs. their expectations. The process isn't most people's concern. If the CC or any of the other projects turn out to be substandard because of budget shenanigans and power plays, the public will judge harshly. If it turns out fine, along with other projects, there will be another MAPS. I doubt the general public will scrutinize the trails or senior centers nearly as much as the visible and expensive CC and streetcar projects, and even the park.

BTW, I'm betting the money eventually gets spent on the park with a little on the sub-station. This is the way that Mick voted and his preference all along. With a divided council, he wins....divide and conquer. He can stay out of the fray and still get what he wants. Don't underestimate the mayor.

It is interesting the number of folks who have basicilly wagered their political futures on the success of the CC. If it flops or does not perform to the expectations that are being touted now I hope the political repercussions are massive and brutal.

It is interesting the number of folks who have basicilly wagered their political futures on the success of the CC. If it flops or does not perform to the expectations that are being touted now I hope the political repercussions are massive and brutal.

It can fail for many reasons. Infighting and power plays by our local politicians is one of them. I just hope the public is smart enough to make the politicians pay for the REAL reasons if it fails.

It is interesting the number of folks who have basicilly wagered their political futures on the success of the CC. If it flops or does not perform to the expectations that are being touted now I hope the political repercussions are massive and brutal.

I fear it was doomed from the start (much like the Indian Cultural Center). How you can start constructon on something when a key piece of it (the convention hotel) is totally unfunded is beyond me. Plus, they picked the absoulte most expensive piece of real-estate to build it on and then picked the most expensive contruction technique (underground).

Walk the line

MAPS 3 park subcommittee members are concerned the convention center will impede walkability.

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-12859-walk-the-line.html

They spent so much time deciding if they could use the Ford site, they never considered if they should.

I guess people could get hit by a streetcar trying to cross over into the park too.

What is the expected or desired foot traffic flow pattern and how is it expected to be impacted? Are users of the park walking from directly north of the site or from residential areas in DD and new housing from the west? If they are coming from mid-town, are they walking from mid town through the site to the park? Will the park actually gain traffic from putting a cc hotel on the site and creating visitors? If a private condo/mixed use development goes on the site does it obstruct foot traffic as much or more? If people use the new light rail to get downtown are they left off on a path to be blocked by the CC? Where is the transit hub going and do riders get blocked in their attempt to get to the park? Where do the park users likely come from anyway? If a parking garage is developed for the CC and hotel, does it actually encourage MORE people to come use the park? Will it provide parking closer to the park itself? Do the new Map3 paths lead to and from the park or through the CC site?

I think there are LOTS of yet unanswered questions that impact whether the location is good or bad.

Rover, I think the concern is having two major parks separated by an uninviting structure. Most likely, private development on the site would cater to the foot traffic, not discourage it. After all, private business is in business to make money. I could see the area with retail and sidewalk cafes on the first floor with residential/office/hotel above.

They spent so much time deciding if they could use the Ford site, they never considered if they should.

There has never been any discussion by the convention center subcommittee about the park. The most I heard was Populous discussing the need to put the CC truck loading underground so it wouldn't impact the park negatively from a visual standpoint. Of course, they also gave low marks to the substation site because the truck loading would be a block away from the park and negatively impact development east of the convention center.....without ever discussing the possibility of putting the loading docks below ground. I found that rather interesting, but it was never questioned or discussed by the subcommittee members.

There has never been any discussion by the convention center subcommittee about the park. The most I heard was Populous discussing the need to put the CC truck loading underground so it wouldn't impact the park negatively from a visual standpoint. Of course, they also gave low marks to the substation site because the truck loading would be a block away from the park and negatively impact development east of the convention center.....without ever discussing the possibility of putting the loading docks below ground. I found that rather interesting, but it was never questioned or discussed by the subcommittee members.

In the plans I saw for the east park location, the loading docks were along Shields and out of view from the park. I think they were also elevated a story above Shields (but I could be wrong on that).

In the plans I saw for the east park location, the loading docks were along Shields and out of view from the park. I think they were also elevated a story above Shields (but I could be wrong on that).

You're correct. But, Populous' argument was that having loading docks along Shields would negatively affect development to the east, and that was one of the reasons the east park site scored as low as it did.

You're correct. But, Populous' argument was that having loading docks along Shields would negatively affect development to the east, and that was one of the reasons the east park site scored as low as it did.

To the east? To the east is Shields and then a 25' high railroad viaduct.

No, item passed, 5-4.
The videos of the $30M issue are in this thread:

http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=27090

Rover, I think the concern is having two major parks separated by an uninviting structure. Most likely, private development on the site would cater to the foot traffic, not discourage it. After all, private business is in business to make money. I could see the area with retail and sidewalk cafes on the first floor with residential/office/hotel above.

If the concern is interaction between the two parks, just buy the property and make it a continuous park. Don't build anything on it. LOL. This dream that someone is coming in to build this grand mixed use project on that site is totally unsubstantiated. The idea that it is somehow going to be less of a barrier is wishful thinking. There are no plans and no vision for that at this time or on the horizon that anybody of any impact has informed anyone of. This idea that suddenly there is demand for a great shopping area and upscale condo's in the core business district is unsupported at this time. No demographics for it and no one willing to take this massive risk. The CC may well be the best use for that property at this time. THEN, realize that dream when the Cox Center is scraped and reclaimed.

I'd love to see it as one continuous park. That would be something worth seeing there, rather than a cheesy convention center.

If the concern is interaction between the two parks, just buy the property and make it a continuous park. Don't build anything on it. LOL. This dream that someone is coming in to build this grand mixed use project on that site is totally unsubstantiated. The idea that it is somehow going to be less of a barrier is wishful thinking. There are no plans and no vision for that at this time or on the horizon that anybody of any impact has informed anyone of. This idea that suddenly there is demand for a great shopping area and upscale condo's in the core business district is unsupported at this time. No demographics for it and no one willing to take this massive risk. The CC may well be the best use for that property at this time. THEN, realize that dream when the Cox Center is scraped and reclaimed.
I realize you put in there, "at this time", but that is exactly what was presented in the Core to Shore plan...new, mixed use development with a pedestrian corridor to maintain the Harvey Spine and serve as the connection between the Central & Myriad Garden parks. That was something that I never understood, why separate the parks anyway? Go ahead and make it one continuous space from the MG all the way to the River and beyond. But this mixed use development was going to be part of the grand Boulevard retail revival in those Core to Shore animations.