View Full Version : Shadid's Upcoming Resolution For Hearing on May 31



Pages : [1] 2

Doug Loudenback
05-29-2011, 08:39 AM
See http://edshadid.org/upcoming-city-council-resolution-aims-to-increase-deliberation-and-transparency/ ... part of which reads:


Procedural modifications are required to increase the amount of time that both the Council and the public are given to review and fully vet lengthy contracts with broad-ranged and long-standing implications for the city. Recent examples include the 36 page contract with the non-profit Alliance for Economic Development and the 42 page contract which outlines a 25 year lease of the renovated Myriad Gardens with the non-profit Myriad Gardens Foundation.

In these cases, as well as many others, lengthy contracts are posted online and delivered to councilpersons on Friday evening. In almost all cases, this will be the first time that councilpersons and the public have seen the wording of the contract and yet, the vote is expected to occur some three days later with only the Monday before the Tuesday council meeting available as a workday.

I have introduced a resolution which will be heard on Tuesday May 31, 2011 that mandates three public hearings before any such contract can be voted on by the council. I believe that allowing the public and council to digest and discuss the specific wording and implications of the contract is required prior to any vote. An outline of municipal counselor Kenneth Jordan’s summary of the issues as well as how the three public hearing process would work is as follows:

THE CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY
OFFICE OF
THE MUNICIPAL COUNSELOR
Council Agenda
Item No. X.B.
5/31/2011

TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Kenneth Jordan, Municipal Counselor

Joint Resolution with the Oklahoma City Municipal Facilities Authority and the Oklahoma City Public Property Authority establishing a three-public-hearings procedure for certain defined contracts and/or resolutions presented to the Council Members and/or Trustees; providing for waiver of the procedure by majority vote; directing the City Clerk to provide certain language on the City Council, Oklahoma City Municipal Facilities Authority, and Oklahoma City Public Property Authority agendas; and directing the City Manager/General Manager to provide certain advance notice to Council Members and/or Trustees before certain contracts or resolutions are presented to Council Members or Trustees for action.

Councilmen Shadid and White

Background:

Councilman Ed Shadid, Ward 2, requested that the Municipal Counselor’s Office draft a resolution establishing a procedure to provide City Council members with additional time to review certain proposed contracts and resolutions that are presented to Council. He also requested that the procedure provide for “advance notice” that City staff is working on such items. Since such contracts or resolutions can also be done by the Oklahoma City Municipal Facilities Authority (OCMFA) or the Oklahoma City Public Property Authority (OCPPA), and sometimes have been in the past, the policy, if adopted, should likely also include contracts and resolutions presented to the Council members in their roles as Trustees of the OCMFA and the OCPPA. The result of Councilman Shadid’s request is the attached Joint Resolution that would provide for a “three-public-hearings procedure” for such contracts and resolutions. This Joint Resolution is being listed on the agendas of the City, the OCMFA, and the OCPPA as being requested by both Councilmen/Trustees Shadid and White.

The following proposed contracts or resolutions are encompassed by the current language in the proposed Joint Resolution:

Spartan
05-29-2011, 08:52 AM
Awesome.

USG'60
05-29-2011, 09:10 AM
Is he trying to inject reason into politics? Both weird and wonderful.

Doug Loudenback
05-29-2011, 09:13 AM
I've gone to the City's website, city council agenda, and have copied from the PDF file containing this resolution the text as plain text. Here is the complete text of the resolution (not including any bold or underlining that is in the original):



JOINT RESOLUTION
JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY AND THE TRUSTEES OF THE OCMFA AND THE OCPPA ESTABLISHING A THREE-PUBLIC-HEARINGS PROCEDURE FOR CERTAIN DEFINED CONTRACTS AND/OR RESOLUTIONS PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND/OR TO THE TRUSTEES; PROVIDING FOR WAIVER OF THE PROCEDURE BY MAJORITY VOTE; DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PROVIDE CERTAIN LANGUAGE ON THE CITY, OCMFA, AND OCPPA AGENDAS; AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER/GENERAL MANAGER TO PROVIDE CERTAIN ADVANCE NOTICE TO COUNCIL MEMBERS AND/OR TRUSTEES BEFORE CERTAIN CONTRACTS OR RESOLUTIONS ARE PRESENTED TO COUNCIL MEMBERS OR TRUSTEES FOR ACTION.

WHEREAS, the City Council of The City of Oklahoma City is the duly elected governing body of The City of Oklahoma City; and

WHEREAS, by virtue of their status as duly elected Council members, the members of the City Council of The City of Oklahoma City also serve as the boards of trustees for the Oklahoma City Municipal Facilities Authority (OCMFA) and the Oklahoma City Public Property Authority (OCPPA); and

WHEREAS, as the representatives of the interests of the people of The City of Oklahoma City, the City Council of The City of Oklahoma City and the Trustees of the OCMFA and OCPPA have a solemn duty to make reasoned and informed decisions on contracts and resolutions presented to them; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of The City of Oklahoma City and the Trustees of the OCMFA and the OCPPA, in diligently performing their duties regarding certain proposed
Page 2 of 9
contracts or resolutions may, from-time-to-time, need additional time to adequately study the terms of such proposed contracts or resolutions before acting thereon; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of The City of Oklahoma City and the Trustees of the OCMFA and the OCPPA may also need additional time to receive input from the citizens of Oklahoma City and other informed parties regarding such contracts or resolutions prior to voting thereon; and

WHEREAS, thorough public discussions regarding certain proposed contracts or resolutions, prior to approval or disapproval thereof by the duly elected or appointed public officers of The City of Oklahoma City and the OCMFA and OCPPA, are necessary for the knowledgeable and responsible operation of City government; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of The City of Oklahoma City and the Trustees of the OCMFA and the OCPPA desire to establish a procedure for holding not less than three public hearings on certain proposed contracts and/or resolutions presented to them;

and WHEREAS, the proposed contracts and resolutions to which the three-public-hearings procedure established by this Resolution shall apply are the following:

Category #1: Proposed contracts or resolutions to be voted on by the City Council and/or the Trustees of the OCMFA or the OCPPA for the lease, management, or redevelopment by a public or private entity of any real property owned in fee simple by the City or by any City beneficiary public trust or of any City public park property, but only if such real property or public park property is located in or near downtown Oklahoma City or in an existing or proposed Oklahoma City Tax Increment Financing District; for the purposes of this subsection, the phrase “in or near downtown Oklahoma City” shall mean the area bounded by NE and NW 10th Street
Page 3 of 9
on the north, Lincoln Boulevard on the east, the Oklahoma River on the south, and Western Avenue on the west; and

Category #2: Proposed contracts or resolutions involving both a private entity and the City or the OCMFA or OCPPA that are similar to the April 26, 2011, Agreement among The City of Oklahoma City, the Oklahoma City Economic Development Trust (EDT), and The Alliance for Economic Development of Oklahoma City, Inc., which contract delegated certain of the City’s administrative economic-development-related functions to a private entity; and

Category #3: Proposed contracts or resolutions that involve policy decisions by the City Council in relation to the implementation of the MAPS 3 projects. This Category #3 shall not include public construction contracts as defined by the Oklahoma Public Competitive Bidding Act, 61 O.S. § 101, et seq.; and

Category #4: Proposed contracts or resolutions that involve policy decisions by the City Council in relation to the implementation of the Core To Shore Master Plan. This Category shall not include public construction contracts as defined by the Oklahoma Public Competitive Bidding Act, 61 O.S. § 101, et seq.; and

Category #5: Any other contract or resolution that a majority of City Council members and/or Trustees decide by majority vote, at the first public meeting such contract or resolution is presented to them, should be subjected to the three-public-hearings procedure set forth in this Resolution; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of The City of Oklahoma City and the Trustees of the OCMFA and the OCPPA further desire to declare that, in regard to contracts or resolutions falling within Category #1, Category #2, Category #3, or Category #4 as described above, the three-public-hearings procedure provided for by this resolution may, as with any other policy
Page 4 of 9
established by resolution, be waived by a majority vote of the Council members and/or Trustees at any time and a final vote may be taken on the contract or resolution immediately upon such waiver or at any other time as determined by a majority vote of Council members and/or Trustees; and

WHEREAS, for the purpose of providing for motions by Council members or Trustees regarding contracts or resolutions encompassed by Category #5 listed above, the City Council of The City of Oklahoma City and the Trustees of the OCMFA and the OCPPA further desire to direct the City Clerk to provide a new item category on the Formal Agendas of the City Council, the OCMFA, and the OCPPA that reads as follows: “Request(s) to Invoke the Three-Public- Hearings Procedure for Contract(s) and/or Resolution(s),” which new category shall be placed on the said agendas at appropriate locations as determined by the City Clerk; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of The City of Oklahoma City and the Trustees of the OCMFA and the OCPPA further desire to direct the City Manager of the City and the General Manager of the OCMFA and the OCPPA to provide [?? fill in the blank ??] days’ advance notice to Council members and Trustees before any contract or resolution encompassed by Category #1, Category #2, Category #3, or Category #4 is presented to the City Council members or the Trustees for action by City administrative staff or by The Alliance for Economic Development of Oklahoma City, Inc. (“The Alliance”); provided, The Alliance will not be required to disclose any information that would not be a public record under the April 26, 2011, Agreement among The Alliance, the City, and the Oklahoma City Economic Development Trust.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of The City of Oklahoma City and the Trustees of the OCMFA and the OCPPA that they hereby establish a three-public-hearings procedure for the following contracts and/or resolutions:
Page 5 of 9

Category #1: Proposed contracts or resolutions to be voted on by the City Council and/or the Trustees of the OCMFA or the OCPPA for the lease, management, or redevelopment by a public or private entity of any real property owned in fee simple by the City or by any City beneficiary public trust or of any City public park property, but only if such real property or public park property is located in or near downtown Oklahoma City or in an existing or proposed Oklahoma City Tax Increment Financing District; for the purposes of this subsection, the phrase “in or near downtown Oklahoma City” shall mean the area bounded by NE and NW 10th Street on the north, Lincoln Boulevard on the east, the Oklahoma River on the south, and Western Avenue on the west.

Category #2: Proposed contracts or resolutions involving both a private entity and the City or the OCMFA or OCPPA that are similar to the April 26, 2011, Agreement among The City of Oklahoma City, the Oklahoma City Economic Development Trust (EDT), and The Alliance for Economic Development of Oklahoma City, Inc., which contract delegated certain of the City’s administrative economic-development-related functions to a private entity.

Category #3: Proposed contracts or resolutions that involve policy decisions by the City Council in relation to the implementation of the MAPS 3 projects. This Category #3 shall not include public construction contracts as defined by the Oklahoma Public Competitive Bidding Act, 61 O.S. § 101, et seq.

Category #4: Proposed contracts or resolutions that involve policy decisions by the City Council in relation to the implementation of the Core To Shore Master Plan. This Category shall not include public construction contracts as defined by the Oklahoma Public Competitive Bidding Act, 61 O.S. § 101, et seq.
Page 6 of 9

Category #5: Any other contract or resolution that a majority of City Council members and/or Trustees decide by majority vote, at the first public meeting such contract or resolution is presented to them, should be subjected to the three-public-hearings procedure set forth in this Resolution.

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any contracts or resolutions to which the three-public-hearings procedure is applied shall be heard, considered, and voted on in accordance with the following three-public-hearings procedure:

• First Public Hearing. The contract or resolution will be read and staff will make a presentation advising the Council and/or the Trustees of the substance of the contract or resolution. Council members, Trustees, and/or members of the public can ask questions and make comments. Whenever the contract or resolution falls within Category #5, as described above, the first appearance of such contract or resolution on the agenda shall be considered to be the first public hearing thereon. No action shall be taken regarding approval or denial of the item.

• Second Public Hearing. Citizens will be allowed to address the Council and/or the Trustees to express comments or concerns regarding the proposed contract or resolution. Council and/or the Trustees can discuss the proposed contract or resolution and ask questions. No action shall be taken regarding approval or denial of the item.

• Final Hearing. Council and/or the Trustees may debate the proposed contract or resolution and take such action on said contract or resolution that a majority of the Council members and/or the Trustees deems appropriate. Members of the public may be allowed to ask questions or make comments. Council members and/or Trustees may make a final decision on the item.
Page 7 of 9
• Continuances. The public hearings on proposed contracts or resolution may be continued at any time at the discretion of a majority of the Council members and/or Trustees.

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of The City of Oklahoma City and the Trustees of the OCMFA and the OCPPA that, in regard to contracts or resolutions falling within Categories #1,Category #2, Category #3, or Category #4 as described above, the three-public-hearings procedure provided for by this resolution may, as with any other policy established by resolution, be waived by a majority vote of the Council members and/or Trustees at any time and a final vote may be taken on the contract or resolution immediately upon such waiver or at any other time as determined by a majority vote of Council members and/or Trustees.

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, for the purpose of providing for motions by Council members or Trustees regarding contracts or resolutions encompassed by Category #5 listed above, the City Council and the Trustees of the OCMFA and the OCPPA do hereby direct the City Clerk to provide a new category on the Formal Agendas of the City Council, the OCMFA, and the OCPPA that reads as follows: “Request(s) to Invoke the Three-Public- Hearing Procedure for Contract(s) and/or Resolution(s),” which new category shall be placed on the said agendas at appropriate locations as determined by the City Clerk.

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of The City of Oklahoma City and the Trustees of the OCMFA and the OCPPA hereby direct the City Manager of the City and the General Manager of the OCMFA and the OCPPA to provide [?? fill in the blank ??] days’ advance notice to the Council members and the Trustees before any contract or resolution encompassed by Category #1, Category #2, Category #3, or Category #4 is presented to the City Council members or the Trustees for action by City administrative staff or by The Alliance for
Page 8 of 9
Economic Development of Oklahoma City, Inc. (“The Alliance”); provided, The Alliance will not be required to disclose any information that would not be a public record under the April 26, 2011, Agreement among The Alliance, the City, and the Oklahoma City Economic Development Trust.

ADOPTED by the City Council and SIGNED by the Mayor of The City of Oklahoma City this ____________ day of __________________________, 2011.

[DL Note: I have omitted the various signature lines located in the original document in this version]

Doug Loudenback
05-29-2011, 09:15 AM
What are the odds that a council member will ask that this matter be continued? ha ha ...

USG'60
05-29-2011, 09:55 AM
What are the odds that a council member will ask that this matter be continued? ha ha ...

Hmmm, somehow I'm missing the thrust of this comment, Doug. Please eloborate for the clueless among us. :^)

Doug Loudenback
05-29-2011, 10:08 AM
Heck, probably just a bad joke ... but wouldn't it be ironic if a resolution which basically requested a good bit of advance consideration to a lot of stuff was continued so that IT (THE RESOLUTION) could receive more advance consideration and public input, etc. ... that is all. By the way, I informed my wife about the juniper bushes and your identification of same! I am now content.

USG'60
05-29-2011, 10:10 AM
With your response, I, too, am content, Doug. Thanks.

OkieDave
05-29-2011, 10:52 AM
Hard to disagree with the intent. This type of resolution is exactly the reason Ed Shadid is a very different kind of elected official. Thanks for posting Doug.

Spartan
05-29-2011, 11:02 AM
What are the odds that a council member will ask that this matter be continued? ha ha ...

Haha, that would be great. Maybe we should have 3 hearings on this though, and I think that those hearings should be used just as general information sessions. There is a lot of stuff going on in the city right now, no doubt.

What would be the quorum for these sessions, by the way? If it's similar to a meeting quorum then technically there are issues with the Open Meetings Act unless some councilors step down and join the audience.

kevinpate
05-29-2011, 11:06 AM
I thought it was funny (the continuing bit, not the resolution itself. That makes more than a bit of sense.)

Larry OKC
05-29-2011, 11:25 PM
Excellent idea! Have really been impressed with my Council person thus far. And I voted for him in both rounds. But won't this put a significant snag in the whole "we have to expedite matters" process (i.e. the Alliance)? Not saying it is a bad thing, just saying....

betts
05-30-2011, 01:15 AM
Personally, I think the three public hearings may be cumbersome. And if you vote to have them part of the process, it's going to be a bit awkward if the Council then votes to waive them. People always have the right to attend Council and speak, and perhaps if you had one public hearing it would be adequate. I understand Council members wanting to have time to digest contracts and resolutions, but scheduling one public hearing would give them plenty of time to do so. We've elected them to be our representatives and they should feel they have the authority to represent their constituency. Most of the public meetings I've attended have had a small number of people present, who tend to represent the extreme pro and anti sides of the issue, and we elect Councilors to represent the majority, so I have trouble seeing that public hearings will be helpful.

I know people in city government in Nichols Hills, and they've had some great projects completely stonewalled by a few vociferous objectors.

Snowman
05-30-2011, 01:53 AM
While I agree in principle to large items that span many years, I have some concerns this seems a broader scope than what he was originally talking about (may be on account of just reading and not having further time to review).

Any chance we can get the council to find some synonyms for WHEREAS, it seems like a drinking game whenever they read their documents out loud

Spartan
05-30-2011, 05:16 AM
Personally, I think the three public hearings may be cumbersome. And if you vote to have them part of the process, it's going to be a bit awkward if the Council then votes to waive them. People always have the right to attend Council and speak, and perhaps if you had one public hearing it would be adequate. I understand Council members wanting to have time to digest contracts and resolutions, but scheduling one public hearing would give them plenty of time to do so. We've elected them to be our representatives and they should feel they have the authority to represent their constituency. Most of the public meetings I've attended have had a small number of people present, who tend to represent the extreme pro and anti sides of the issue, and we elect Councilors to represent the majority, so I have trouble seeing that public hearings will be helpful.

I know people in city government in Nichols Hills, and they've had some great projects completely stonewalled by a few vociferous objectors.

I think it depends on how something is defined as major, and even then, maybe an amendment to the resolution suggesting one or two public hearings would be an improvement. I think two public hearings is a good number, and perhaps three is too much. But I do disagree with the idea that people can always come to council meetings. Those occur very regularly at the exact same time and many people can't make it during the morning week day. I also disagree with the idea that they have to wait till the end of the list (for 2-3 hours) to speak about anything to them. That's what I do, and it's not that fun, honestly. I can see where it definitely discourages people from being engaged.

Doug Loudenback
05-30-2011, 06:41 AM
Personally, I think the three public hearings may be cumbersome. And if you vote to have them part of the process, it's going to be a bit awkward if the Council then votes to waive them. People always have the right to attend Council and speak, and perhaps if you had one public hearing it would be adequate. I understand Council members wanting to have time to digest contracts and resolutions, but scheduling one public hearing would give them plenty of time to do so. We've elected them to be our representatives and they should feel they have the authority to represent their constituency. Most of the public meetings I've attended have had a small number of people present, who tend to represent the extreme pro and anti sides of the issue, and we elect Councilors to represent the majority, so I have trouble seeing that public hearings will be helpful.

I know people in city government in Nichols Hills, and they've had some great projects completely stonewalled by a few vociferous objectors.
I beg to disagree with you, my dear sister (not sarcastic ... for those who don't know, I count Betts/Jill as being a good friend of mine). Here's my rationale.

The Alliance proposal was sprung on the public (and the council) just a few days before its intended vote, and it was on the consent (zip me right-on-through) docket, for gawd's sake. Who knew? The Alliance proposal is the perfect example of what this resolution seeks to avoid in the future.


Regarding city council awkwardness should it decide to waive the proposed procedure, well, you do have a point, because causing the council to feel awkward is certainly the last thing I, for one, and you, for another, want city council members to experience and that sensation should be avoided at all costs. Those poor babies deserve better than that. <read as sarcasm>


Just one public hearing? Do you mean like the 1st hearing which was scheduled on the Alliance proposal just a few days after it was placed on the initial agenda, or the hearing which actually occurred? At least, because Shadid asked for and received a continuance, the Alliance proposal effectively received 2 hearings, although that was not required even if it occurred. After the continuance having been granted, it developed that Catherine O'Connor and Jim Couch gratuitously laid out the then-existing proposal and a good bit of council discussion ensued. Effectively, as it turned out, this hearing was like that contemplated in hearing #1 under the pending resolution.


Effectively, then, there were two hearings on the Alliance proposal, rather like hearings #1 and #3 under the proposed resolution. The resolution would institutionalize hearings #1 (as it actually occurred) and #3 as a matter of course. I'll assume that you would agree that the changes made to the Alliance proposal between the pair of hearings were good. In any event, as Meat Loaf wisely said, "I want you, I need you, but there ain't no way I'm ever gonna love you -- but don't be sad, cause 2 out of 3 ain't bad," institutionalizing what actually happened with the Alliance proposal would be good, even though 3 out of 3, under the Shadid's resolution, would be better, since it simply adds a hearing #2, a public discussion not involving any vote, sandwiched between #1 and #3.


Concerning your representative democracy point, sure, council members are our elected representatives. But local, municipal, government is said to be that governmental element which is closest to true democracy and which can most directly and genuinely involve the people. There is nothing wrong, and arguably there is much right, with essentially requiring our elected representatives to listen to their constituents and providing for an institutionalized time and means for them to do so. In the proposal, that would be the function of hearing #2, below.


On the effectiveness of public input at council meetings, you said, "Most of the public meetings I've attended have had a small number of people present, who tend to represent the extreme pro and anti sides of the issue, and we elect Councilors to represent the majority, so I have trouble seeing that public hearings will be helpful." Is this how you would characterize your own excellent comments, and those of Jeff Bezdek, made in January 2011 before the city council? But, your point is well taken. Public input at formal council meetings, as presently constituted, is probably pretty much meaningless, particularly given the "5 minute" rule that any public citizen is granted an opportunity to speak, and given that a council vote will ordinarily occur immediately thereafter. Hearing #2 under the proposed resolution, though, might change that since it appears to be specifically designed to provide a time for meaningful discourse involving citizens and council members. No vote. Just discussion and listening. Are you suggesting that such a hearing would be an impediment to the city in any way, my friend?


About Public Input. Public input and scrutiny isn't limited to what goes on in the city council chambers, though. It can occur in places like this forum or places like my and other peoples' blogs. It can occur on one-on-one communication with council members, and it can occur in neighborhood/community meetings and lots of other ways. A good example of that is the public input given during the several sessions on the downtown streetcar which occurred several months ago of which both you and I were a small part. But as to the resolution at hand, that type of discussion is chilled if only one hearing (that which would occur at the 1st time that a proposal is on the city council's agenda) is the institutional norm.


Nichols Hills? Well, what Nichols Hills does is its business. Nichols Hills is a cloistered little island in the metro which has nothing at all to do with Oklahoma City, aside from the fact that some wealthy people live there who might like to influence what Oklahoma City does and who broadly claim that they are Oklahoma Citians, which they are not. What Oklahoma City does and how its government functions is mine and yours to decide (now that you don't live there but live next to downtown Oklahoma City). Your implication that, by this resolution, Oklahoma City would become like Nichols Hills is not well taken.


In the first place, the resolution limits the 3-hearing rule to these limited categories:

Proposed contracts or resolutions which deal with "downtown" (as defined in the resolution) and, even then, those dealing with property that the city owns and which relate to lease, management, or redevelopment by a public or private entity of such properties.
Proposed contracts or resolutions involving both a private entity and the City, such as the Alliance proposal.
Proposed contracts or resolutions that involve policy decisions by the City Council in relation to the implementation of the MAPS 3 projects.
Proposed contracts or resolutions that involve policy decisions by the City Council in relation to the implementation of the Core To Shore Master Plan.
Any other contract or resolution that a majority of City Council members and/or Trustees decide by majority vote, at the first public meeting such contract or resolution is presented to them, should be subjected to the three-public-hearings procedure set forth in this Resolution. In other words, unless an item is included in categories 1-4, the special procedure would not apply, unless a council majority decided that it should.


In the second place, as to the above categories, the resolutions define the 3 public hearings:

First Hearing: "The contract or resolution will be read and staff will make a presentation advising the Council and/or the Trustees of the substance of the contract or resolution. Council members, Trustees, and/or members of the public can ask questions and make comments." In other words, the 1st meeting on the Alliance proposal as to what in fact occurred would have qualified for hearing #1.
Second Hearing: "Citizens will be allowed to address the Council and/or the Trustees to express comments or concerns regarding the proposed contract or resolution. Council and/or the Trustees can discuss the proposed contract or resolution and ask questions. No action shall be taken regarding approval or denial of the item." In other words, the 2nd hearing institutionalizes a public forum ... no vote, just discussion. This is the only element lacking in what transpired with regard to what actually occurred with the Alliance proposal.
Third Hearing: "Council and/or the Trustees may debate the proposed contract or resolution and take such action on said contract or resolution that a majority of the Council members and/or the Trustees deems appropriate. Members of the public may be allowed to ask questions or make comments. Council members and/or Trustees may make a final decision on the item." In other words, this is like the 2nd council meeting on the Alliance proposal.

The only thing different than that which happened with what actually occurred with the Alliance proposal is hearing #2 which did not occur. And, Betts, my sister, are you saying that you think that having a hearing like #2 would be a bad thing, would make Oklahoma City like Nichols Hills, and would wreak havoc on Oklahoma City government?
Summarizing, if this resolution is adopted, what would it change? If the Alliance experience is the model, it would add only one additional hearing, one week's time (depending on city council agenda scheduling availability). If the Alliance experience is not the model (i.e., had not O'Connor and Couch made their pitch followed by council member comments), it would add two weeks. What's the problem with that, my good friend?

kevinpate
05-30-2011, 07:16 AM
FWIW, I think various OKC city council folk ought to invite Doug by for coffee/brainpicking on a very regular basis.

Spartan
05-30-2011, 07:19 AM
No kidding. ^

bornhere
05-30-2011, 12:31 PM
Seeing some of the stuff that has occurred at Lake Hefner, I would like to see this ordinance expanded to include the whole city, not just the downtown area, and to include OCWUT.

bornhere
05-30-2011, 12:36 PM
In fact, it should include every city trust, just so we don't have COTPA building the convention center to get around having hearings.

Spartan
05-30-2011, 05:04 PM
In fact, it should include every city trust, just so we don't have COTPA building the convention center to get around having hearings.

Well hopefully they would go with the Golf Commission before they go with COTPA Lol!

Larry OKC
06-01-2011, 01:11 AM
+1000 (esp starting with #16)

Larry OKC
06-01-2011, 04:59 AM
What are the odds that a council member will ask that this matter be continued? ha ha ...

pretty good...Doug called it...

An ordinance introduced Tuesday by new Ward 2 Councilman Ed Shadid that attempts to require more public notice before votes are scheduled on major contracts will itself be delayed for a few weeks.

Read more: http://newsok.com/okc-ordinance-requiring-more-notice-on-contract-votes-faces-uncertain-future/article/3573010#ixzz1O13yKKpi

BoulderSooner
06-03-2011, 08:19 AM
this IMHO is DOA it would not have passed this week and i doubt it will in 5 weeks when it is heard again .... as council woman Salyer and Marrs said if a council person has questions then they can ask for a deferal.

Snowman
06-03-2011, 05:38 PM
Seeing some of the stuff that has occurred at Lake Hefner, I would like to see this ordinance expanded to include the whole city, not just the downtown area, and to include OCWUT.

No one on the council was for the geographic restrictions, not sure if any of it would apply to any of the individual items happening at Lake Hefner though their is only so much they can bog down smaller items. It seems to be more about the trusts and major funding projects.

Larry OKC
06-04-2011, 12:18 AM
But they shouldn't have to ask for a deferral. The commitment and spending of multi-millions or long-term contracts need to be done with the upmost deliberation and scrutiny by the Council. All to often we get the, "this is an emergency, it has to be passed right now...trust us, it is the best deal we could get". When that may or may not be the case. Hard to tell when the opportunity to examine it isn't there to begin with. I have to wonder how many contracts Mr. Marrs signs without ever bothering to read them. Seems he is of the "we have to pass it to know what is in it" mentality. Then it is "Ooops, I didn't know that was in there". Granted, folks that don't bother to read what they are approving aren't going to start if they have 3 days or 3 months to look at it. It won't change those people at all.

The lack of planning on our part doesn't constitute an emergency on my part.

MikeOKC
06-04-2011, 12:58 AM
Good stuff, Doug!

Quick derail.....Has Shadid said publicly why he supported "Oklahoma City Boulevard?"

Doug Loudenback
06-08-2011, 01:41 AM
Here is the video excerpt for discussion on this item:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhYRR38ZjSI&feature=player_profilepage

I've commented on this and other May 31 council meeting matters at http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2011/06/day-in-life-okc-city-council-may-31.html

The next hearing on this proposal will be on July 19 and I expect that the proposal will be significantly modified by that time.

Larry OKC
06-08-2011, 02:45 AM
As always, great stuff Doug.

The Convention Center viability concerns raised aren't anything terribly new however. There was mention of the conflicting view in some of the pre-vote reporting. Will try to track it down.

Doug Loudenback
06-08-2011, 05:27 AM
I understand that, Larry. I really didn't intend to develop that in the blog post. As said at the top of the post, it was basically intended to be "a day in the life of city council," sort of a City Council 101. The comments he made at the end of yesterday's council meeting, not reported on yet I don't think, on the deed-in-lieu procedure property across the street from the Myriad Gardens were much more striking. I've not recorded his remarks yet but you can go to the video on yesterday's meeting (if the video is posted yet) and skip to the end where council members make their unscheduled comments. He even mentioned the possibility of third-party fraud (not by the city) which, frankly, I thought was somewhat ill-advised ... not a good idea to say such kinds of things even as a possibility until one is rather certain about the facts, etc., and, as he said, he is still investigating the matter.

Doug Loudenback
06-08-2011, 02:51 PM
Here is a video clip of the June 7 council meeting showing Ed Shadid's remarks at the end of that session. For those who don't already know, at the end of each council meeting council members are given an opportunity to make remarks of any type, whether they relate to a matter on that day's docket or not, and these are Ed Shadid's remarks in that context.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PX26aHZXVk&feature=player_profilepage

His comments began with a critique of the Vitograph property dealt with in the May 31 council meeting (he being the only council member to vote no on approving of that contract which involved the Myriad Gardens). In that regard, part of his comments relate to whether the transaction was an "arms length transaction" and he also queried whether the series of transactions may involve improprieties, whether intended or not, and that the series of transactions could involve issues with the Internal Revenue Service "that potentially could rise to the level of tax fraud." He said that he has even hired his own accountant to look at the transactions, and he elaborated further in that regard.

He then got to what was apparently his main point and gave the Vitograph property transaction as an example of the need for council members to have substantially more prior notice of proposed contracts before being expected to vote upon them. These parts of his remarks largely relate to his 3-hearing proposal that he made at the May 31 hearing and the need for greater time for council members and citizens to digest what is being proposed well before they are called upon to be voted upon by city council.

This part of his remarks clearly related to his 3-hearing proposal. He said, "I need time, and the people need time, to go over these contracts, and it got hijacked a little bit with the 3 public hearings — and I agree with Meg [Salyer] that it shouldn't be restricted to a certain ward. I need to review these contracts and what would be wrong with throwing it out there and letting the people look at it as well, and say, "Hey, did you notice this on page 29?"




So all I'm asking for, without it getting so convoluted like we turned it into this thing is, instead of, "We finished the 42-page contract on Tuesday and we take it to Jim Couch to be put on the con [ed note: consent docket] ... on Wednesday, I need time, and the people need time, to look at these contracts.

We need a month. I'm three weeks into it and I'm just now getting the appraisals and all the documents today after three weeks after working fairly diligently on this. And there's just not enough time. That's all I'm asking for. It shouldn't have been restricted to a ward. It's just ... these contracts that are negotiated by the Municipal Counselor's office. I want them, as soon as they are completed. I want them to go over and I think that I should have a month. And we could just leave it that and make it very simple. I don't think there's any way that the people wouldn't support that, and I'm not sure why we couldn't.

If the other council members haven't yet figured it out, Shadid has quickly demonstrated that he is not one who is prone to flow into established molds of what city council members should and should not do or say. While I would see it as a good thing if Ed Shadid would smile every now and then, so far he has been as serious as pins and needles, and some council members may well be uncomfortable with that type of an approach. Personally, I think it would be better if Shadid would at least show a smile from time to time. Collegiality on city council is an important thing, and I mean that very seriously. But, collegiality was not a part of Shadid's campaign.

But it's not too late to learn. A toothy grin by Ed now and then could do no harm. It might show Marrs, Ryan, Salyer, and any others, that they are not the object of his attention but that good government procedures is really what he is all about. They might be better listeners, and potential allies, were they not having the sense of being personally challenged/threatened.

Larry OKC
06-09-2011, 01:33 AM
Doug, all valid points.

Of course one has to remember that Shadid's resolution flies directly in the direction the Council moves collectively. Things are treated as emergencies, and they have to be dealt with immediately! They can't wait until the next Council meeting. Can't wait for due diligence. Can't wait for everyone to actually to have time to read what they are approving. Those that wrote the contracts have gone over it with a fine tooth comb and every word has been scrutinized (we have heard that from Kelley before when it was suggested otherwise). At least that is what we are told and lead to believe. I mean, isn't that part of the whole purpose behind the Alliance? A way to streamline functions and get them rammed through even sooner than they are now? Have to pass it to find out what is in it type of thing? How many times (on the State level) has the author of a bill stated that he didn't know a certain provision was in it until after it had been voted on and signed into law? Has happened in every session in recent memory.

I am all for the slowing down of Council dealings. All too often things are rushed through. By doing so, it leads to the perception that Mr. Marrs says this resolution suggests.

On a lighter note, neither Shadid or kelley would be good contestants on any kind of game show where there was a clock ticking. Can you imagine either of them on the Price is Right and the Clock (higher/lower) game? Or Pyramid? LOL

OkieDave
06-10-2011, 09:01 AM
The Vitagraph property that Shadid is talking about, quadrupled in price, 2+ million as a charitable donation the seller will use as a tax write off supposedly. In 10 years it tripled in price. The foundation borrowed money from the Development Trust for 8 or so months, got the rent for it and now wants to just not pay back the loan and of the trust will own in. I mean come on, surely something a bit strange seems to be going on. The foundation never was going to pay for or buy it. How many city council people knew this contract meant eating the 4+ million for a piece of property? Looks like Shadid didn't until he started digging into the numbers NOT on the contract and not provided. Maybe this is the way it works, just seem a bit deceptive to outsiders. Where are the comps and appraisals? Loan us 4+ million, 8 months later, we are not paying you back, we get to use it and you now own it thanks.

urbanity
06-15-2011, 10:34 AM
Myriad questions

Foundation officials insist OKC got a good deal on a multimillion-dollar property, but one City Council member is scrutinizing the details.

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-12010-myriad-questions.html

Midtowner
06-15-2011, 02:56 PM
This looks like fertile ground for a qui tam action.

soonerguru
06-15-2011, 08:34 PM
I don't know federal law, but for the barristers here, is that a violation of RICO statutes? Surely there's something in it for the FBI to examine.

It's too bad Ed Shadid's cousin works for the New York Times and not a local paper. We could really use some quality investigative journalism in this city. But you can guarantee the Oklahoman will never go after a friend of the Gaylords.

OkieDave
06-18-2011, 09:12 AM
Ed just posted his research and thoughts on this at his blog http://edshadid.org/sale-of-vitagraph-property-raises-a-myriad-of-questions-for-the-okc-taxpayer/

Doug Loudenback
08-02-2011, 10:06 AM
Ed Shadid & Pete Whites' deferral resolution, vastly minimized from its May 31 version and trimmed down to just a 1-week deferral went down in flames at this morning's city council meeting. The vote on the resolution was 4-5, those favoring the motion being Shadid, White, Kelly & Greenwell, and those opposing being Cornett, Salyer, Marrs, Ryan & McAtee. See http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2011/08/okc-city-council-civility-yes-it-is.html for more detail.

Larry OKC
08-02-2011, 01:20 PM
Greenwell has been somewhat of a surprise with some of his votes on things, given that he owes his seat largely to the Momentum folks.

Doug Loudenback
08-02-2011, 01:33 PM
Greenwell has been somewhat of a surprise with some of his votes on things, given that he owes his seat largely to the Momentum folks.
To the best of my knowledge, this was Greenwell's 1st vote against the tide. His remarks were somewhat timid, but, still, given that he did not vote to defer when Shadid could not attend the 7/5 meeting, he is due credit for his actions today. Good to see, hope there is more.

Larry OKC
08-02-2011, 08:25 PM
Doug, didn't Greenwell vote against the Convention Center site and/or against the revised timeline that moved up the C.C.? Also thought he voted for the deferral when Shadid was gone?

i agree with what you said about his coming across as being timid...the times I have seen him, reminded me of Charlie Brown.

Spartan
08-02-2011, 09:09 PM
i agree with what you said about his coming across as being timid...

This is definitely a man who looks timid, to put it mildly.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/city%20council/greenwell_may_31_2011vs.jpg

soonerguru
08-02-2011, 09:21 PM
So let me get this straight. Shadid reduced his proposal to a one-week deferral and the mayor voted against it? What's wrong with Cornett? He used to seem like a fairly reasonable, "good government" guy. And Meg Salyer is a colossal disappointment, to say the least. Yuck.

Doug Loudenback
08-03-2011, 12:46 AM
Doug, didn't Greenwell vote against the Convention Center site and/or against the revised timeline that moved up the C.C.? Also thought he voted for the deferral when Shadid was gone?

i agree with what you said about his coming across as being timid...the times I have seen him, reminded me of Charlie Brown.
He voted against continuing the July 5 hearings on both the project order and convention center location but he did express a preference for option 2 of the project orders and voted against option 1.

Spartan
08-03-2011, 01:53 AM
So let me get this straight. Shadid reduced his proposal to a one-week deferral and the mayor voted against it? What's wrong with Cornett? He used to seem like a fairly reasonable, "good government" guy. And Meg Salyer is a colossal disappointment, to say the least. Yuck.

Well I think Shadid won in terms of making a statement about how city business is done. "No time to read the fine print for you! Not even 1 week!" doesn't sound very good. Kind of like how being accused (muckrakingly) of "anti-convention center" doesn't sound all that bad, actually. I don't think these bigwigs realize that Shadid is trouncing people in the court of public opinion even if he's only as good as 1 vote on the horse shoe.

Doug Loudenback
08-03-2011, 04:28 AM
Well I think Shadid won in terms of making a statement about how city business is done. "No time to read the fine print for you! Not even 1 week!" doesn't sound very good. Kind of like how being accused (muckrakingly) of "anti-convention center" doesn't sound all that bad, actually. I don't think these bigwigs realize that Shadid is trouncing people in the court of public opinion even if he's only as good as 1 vote on the horse shoe.
Whether that is so, Nick ("trouncing people in the court of public opinion"), depends upon two things:

(1) Is anybody listening; and (2) if they are, which side do they tend to align with ... (a) city council should continue on as is and let the powers that be make city council decisions without regard for civility amongst council members and perhaps some other matters, or (b) let's have more civility and transparency and take a reasonable amount of time to decide matters before city council, even if it's only one week.

While I would like to think that public opinion would and does prefer the latter (b), I have no basis in fact to say that that is so. In fact, it may well be that the majority favors just letting sleeping dogs lie. That's always the easiest way to go.

Doug Loudenback
08-03-2011, 05:04 AM
Here is the video crop of the discussion and vote on August 2 on the Shadid/White proposal that a continuance be granted for one week if requested on the day that a matter was on the council's agenda:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaBtTc1Bv3g&feature=player_profilepage

Ordinarily, the proponents of a measure have had the 1st say when discussing a matter on the agenda, but, in this instance, Pat Ryan, with the mayor's permission, was granted the 1st opportunity to speak.

Listeners will need to decide, if they want, on the manner in which this matter was decided, as well as its substance.

Listeners will also need to decide who showed class.

Snowman
08-03-2011, 08:57 PM
Listeners will need to decide, if they want, on the manner in which this matter was decided, as well as its substance.

Listeners will also need to decide who showed class.

While some of Shadid's points I agree with, from what I have seen in council meetings he would be a horrible person to work with.

soonerguru
08-04-2011, 12:24 AM
The "bigwigs" Spartan refers to are clueless as to public opinion. The mere thought that people might disagree with them is so patently ridiculous on its face that they pay no mind to dissenting opinions. Things have been done a certain way for so long that it is completely ingrained into people's psyches that "this is just how it's done." Perhaps Snowman's comment above is indicative of this point of view.

I think Spartan's case is solid: politically, it's much harder coming down on the side of the toxically unpopular convention center than it is Ed Shadid these days. The bigwigs may not realize this, thinking petty editorials in the Oklahoman are going to provide the smackdown they need.

Ed Shadid better keep his nose clean, however, because the Oklahoman is going to be going after him as much (or even more) than they did Randy Terrill, David Walters, and everyone else who has gotten in their crosshairs. He certainly will not be able to count on "fair" coverage. And the pettiness and dishonesty of the Oklahoman's recent editorial was the signal flare issuing the warning that any journalistic standards will not stand in the way of the Oklahoman's campaign.

Of course, in my view this will only strengthen Shadid's position with voters in his ward.

rcjunkie
08-04-2011, 04:13 AM
The "bigwigs" Spartan refers to are clueless as to public opinion. The mere thought that people might disagree with them is so patently ridiculous on its face that they pay no mind to dissenting opinions. Things have been done a certain way for so long that it is completely ingrained into people's psyches that "this is just how it's done." Perhaps Snowman's comment above is indicative of this point of view.

I think Spartan's case is solid: politically, it's much harder coming down on the side of the toxically unpopular convention center than it is Ed Shadid these days. The bigwigs may not realize this, thinking petty editorials in the Oklahoman are going to provide the smackdown they need.

Ed Shadid better keep his nose clean, however, because the Oklahoman is going to be going after him as much (or even more) than they did Randy Terrill, David Walters, and everyone else who has gotten in their crosshairs. He certainly will not be able to count on "fair" coverage. And the pettiness and dishonesty of the Oklahoman's recent editorial was the signal flare issuing the warning that any journalistic standards will not stand in the way of the Oklahoman's campaign.

Of course, in my view this will only strengthen Shadid's position with voters in his ward.

So, are you saying they should ignore illegal activity ?

Spartan
08-04-2011, 02:24 PM
Whether that is so, Nick ("trouncing people in the court of public opinion"), depends upon two things:

(1) Is anybody listening; and (2) if they are, which side do they tend to align with ... (a) city council should continue on as is and let the powers that be make city council decisions without regard for civility amongst council members and perhaps some other matters, or (b) let's have more civility and transparency and take a reasonable amount of time to decide matters before city council, even if it's only one week.

While I would like to think that public opinion would and does prefer the latter (b), I have no basis in fact to say that that is so. In fact, it may well be that the majority favors just letting sleeping dogs lie. That's always the easiest way to go.

Doug, I'm sure you're aware of these neighborhood meetings that Shadid is regularly having, he has great turn out at these. Also if you read the comments behind an article, such as the recent editorial, it is impressive to see 30-40+ comments all backing Shadid up and trashing the writer of that editorial, whereas newspaper website comments are normally the most worthless thing ever. And then I did a poll on my blog, which I admit is obviously a very narrow type of audience, and within a three days 50 people (80%) voted "very positive" on their opinion of Shadid. I think your blog has more readers including myself, and it would be very interesting if you did a poll as well. I think Steve should do a poll also, and obviously his poll would be a bit closer to reality. These are barometrics that I think support the general sense that I get that for the most part, Shadid is pleasing more people than he is ticking off.

But I certainly resonate your feeling that I don't want to get my hopes up. I think it's worth noting that you and I agree on most or all issues (I'm sure there is something we could find to disagree on though, lol), and I understand your point to be whether this is real that others will support him, not whether or not he can be supported.


The "bigwigs" Spartan refers to are clueless as to public opinion. The mere thought that people might disagree with them is so patently ridiculous on its face that they pay no mind to dissenting opinions. Things have been done a certain way for so long that it is completely ingrained into people's psyches that "this is just how it's done." Perhaps Snowman's comment above is indicative of this point of view.

I think Spartan's case is solid: politically, it's much harder coming down on the side of the toxically unpopular convention center than it is Ed Shadid these days. The bigwigs may not realize this, thinking petty editorials in the Oklahoman are going to provide the smackdown they need.

Ed Shadid better keep his nose clean, however, because the Oklahoman is going to be going after him as much (or even more) than they did Randy Terrill, David Walters, and everyone else who has gotten in their crosshairs. He certainly will not be able to count on "fair" coverage. And the pettiness and dishonesty of the Oklahoman's recent editorial was the signal flare issuing the warning that any journalistic standards will not stand in the way of the Oklahoman's campaign.

Of course, in my view this will only strengthen Shadid's position with voters in his ward.

Very true. It's also very relevant that Shadid represents a ward that does happen to care more about sustainability and livability, where many citizens are pretty knowledgeable about good government and well-read, educated, and so on. I don't know if Ward 5 would support Shadid, and while it's very possible it also would, I think it goes without saying that he would enjoy the widest support in Ward 2 out of all the words. I agree that he's gotta watch out also, because that is the ONLY thing that those guys have. Skip Kelly was getting vocal for a bit and then he had his DUI and the media just made a hey day out of that, I think in the past I've even written some pretty disparaging stuff about that little personal matter of Skip's, unfortunately. But convention center or no convention center, it's a fact that not only do OKCers not like THIS convention center and would not have passed it if they had the choice (as long as they could have still gotten trails and trams), but American people do not like convention centers, in general.

A politician who opposes a convention center is actually representing an overwhelmingly populist point of view. A politician who wants a convention center come hell or high water is taking up a fairly elitist point of view.

Larry OKC
08-04-2011, 03:51 PM
So, are you saying they should ignore illegal activity ?
No, not at all. But I think that there can be no denying that they have put certain individuals on the s*** list. And rightly so, based on various alleged illegal activities.

Are you saying that Shadid has done anything illegal to justify their wrath?

soonerguru
08-04-2011, 09:24 PM
so, are you saying they should ignore illegal activity ?

wtf? Your comments are often truly bizarre. What on earth are you talking about?

rcjunkie
08-04-2011, 10:20 PM
wtf? Your comments are often truly bizarre. What on earth are you talking about?

if you can't read and understand for yourself, maybe you shouldn't ask such questions.

Larry OKC
08-13-2011, 03:03 AM
Ed Shadid & Pete Whites' deferral resolution, vastly minimized from its May 31 version and trimmed down to just a 1-week deferral went down in flames at this morning's city council meeting. The vote on the resolution was 4-5, those favoring the motion being Shadid, White, Kelly & Greenwell, and those opposing being Cornett, Salyer, Marrs, Ryan & McAtee. See http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2011/08/okc-city-council-civility-yes-it-is.html for more detail.
Just finished watching this portion of the Council meeting where this was "defeated" Indeed the Mayor did announce that it was defeated by the margin Doug mentioned (the vote board was shown). Then i noticed something odd, I backed up the recording a couple of times and sure enough I didn't imagine it. Right after the Mayor gave the 4 to 5 tally, Councilman Marr's vote changed from "red" to "green" and Councilman Ryan's vote went from "red" to non-voting. Doesn't that mean the vote was actually 5 to 3 (and the Shadid/White resolution passed)???

Doug Loudenback
08-13-2011, 07:55 AM
I've also noticed that lights sometimes change in the last seconds. The way to know for sure is to read the meeting minutes. If there is a mistake, a council member will make the correction when they come up for approval. Probably, the light-flickering at the end has to do with undisciplined fingers.

Larry OKC
08-13-2011, 10:37 AM
Doug: Guess this is a procedural question, but what if no one noticed it (as some of their backs are to the Tally Board and/or may be looking elsewhere when the results are shown) and they may be relying on the announcement. If it isn't brought to someone's attention, after the previous minutes are approved, is it too late to make the correction (if one needs to be made)?

Doug Loudenback
08-14-2011, 04:22 AM
I don't know, Larry.

urbanity
08-17-2011, 12:57 PM
Changing hands

A city board accepted ownership of downtown property in exchange for loan forgiveness.

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-12726-changing-hands.html

Larry OKC
08-17-2011, 09:00 PM
From the Gazette article:

Three years ago, in the beginning stages of the Myriad Botanical Gardens renovation planning, it became apparent that a new facility would be needed for office spaces and for maintenance equipment said Jim Tolbert (pictured), Myriad Gardens Foundation chair emeritus.
...
However, at the time the management deal was proposed, there were concerns about accrued interest on the loan because the foundation’s ability to pay on the loan was tied to the actual cash flow from the property, which was insufficient, Tolbert said.
...
“Nonetheless, we agreed that this needed to be dealt with,” Tolbert said. “So we are here today to deed the building to the trust and enter into a promissory note to repay the existing balance of the interest, which is about $180,000, out of the future cash flow of the property.”
...
Tolbert said if there are future improvements or potential developments of the property, it would be the city that reaps the benefits, rather than the foundation.
I am missing something here, they plan on paying the the rest of the money owed out of the future cash flow of foundation offices and maintenance equipment??? What revenue is produced??? Of course the "actual cash flow from the property" was "insufficient". There is none????