Following several council meetings that were marked by elements of negativity in one way or another, the August 30 council meeting offered a respite, at the least, as to a functioning city council without any sign of rancor. I'm singling out two items here.

First, the discussion about the convention center budget ... $280M, $250M, what? In that discussion every council member contributed his/her viewpoint supported by rational thoughts, and, in the end, the vote was close ... 5-4, in favor of Plan B, as amended by Pete White. The nutshell of the 3 plans before council was stated in city manager Couch's memo to the council:



TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: James D. Couch, City Manager
1. Resolution approving the MAPS 3 Implementation Plan Version A.
OR
2. Resolution approving the MAPS 3 Implementation Plan Version B.
OR
3. Resolution approving the MAPS 3 Implementation Plan Version C.
Background To establish conceptual scopes of work, budgets and a timeline for the
MAPS 3 Program, the City engaged Architectural Design Group (ADG)
to develop the MAPS 3 Implementation Plan. Numerous meetings were
held with the MAPS 3 Citizens Advisory Board and the subcommittees to
present the information and incorporate comments and recommendations.
On July 28, 2011, the MAPS 3 Citizens Advisory Board recommended
the City Council adopt a plan that has been titled Version A. This version
includes a $282 million budget for the Convention Center. Version B was
the original plan provided by ADG and is included for City Council
consideration. Version B includes a $252 million Convention Center
budget and a $30 million infrastructure budget. A third version was
developed in response to additional comments and questions regarding
the individual project budgets and is included for City Council
consideration. Version C includes a $267 million Convention Center
budget and a $147 million Downtown Public Park budget.

I was pleased with this discussion because it showed no signs of rancor and was altogether rationally based. One does not have to agree with the result to agree that good substantial discussion was had with several viewpoints being expressed and discussed. The mayor is the only member who did not chime in with whatever his thoughts might be ... everyone else was quite expressive.

Pete White's amendment, handed out during the meeting, favoring version B as amended, would place the $30M which had presumptively been allocated to the relocation of the OGE substation south of the Chesapeake Arena, more or less into a contingency fund ... recalling the MAPS 3 already contains a $17M contingency fund (as I recall). One effect of that amendment was to cap the convention center budget at around $250M or $252M, depending, of course, on unforeseen contingencies. I'm downloading the video as this message is written, and it may be that my above impressions will need to be amended once I listen more closely.

The 2nd item I'll mention wasn't anything other than a report card based upon a professionally conducted survey as to how Oklahoma Citians viewed their city government, and, in the main, the city came out quite nicely when compared with other cities. Again, once the council session download is complete, I'll be able to be more specific about that. The report wasn't all lovey-dovey (e.g., maintenance of main city streets scored low, but, generally, the city government got good grades compared to similar grades in other cities. I'll have more detail once the council meeting video is downloaded and processed.

I give good marks to the city council for today's meeting, for the 1st time in several meetings. Hopefully, it will start a trend. I'll post the videos shortly.

I've broken this discussion into two video clips ...

Preliminary Discussion & Presentation, 27+ minutes

This 27 minute clip shows the remarks by City Manager Jim Couch and the presentation by Mike Mize of ADG, the Maps Program Consultant, these remarks preceding the discussion shown in the next video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDtZs9hb4kw&feature=player_profilepage

Discussion & Debate & Council Decision

Here is the 44 minute city council, per se, discussion & debate about what to do with the $30M. Council member Pete white took the initiative and moved that Plan B be adopted as modified by an amendment that he had handed out during the council meeting. The amendment is not yet in the city's website but the gist, I think, was (1) to set the convention center budget at $250M and (2) to use the $30M by marking it for infrastructure with staff to develop a plan to minimize the impact of the OGE substation (presumably by masking) on the central park and, once developed and adopted by council, to use that part of the $30M necessary to implement that plan ... including the main OGE transmission lines running N/S mainly east of Robinson and E/W along South 4th Street. This motion was adopted by a 5-4 vote: Cornett, Shadid, White, Salyer and Kelly voting to approve, and Marrs, McAtee, Ryan and Greenwell voting no.


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

Just for the fun of the discussion, what if the plan that gets recommended by staff is the city really needs to move the substation because there is no reasonably inexpensive way to minimize the overhead wiring running to/from it?

Yeah, for all the words used, it really was this simple:
motion to punt. second. motion passed.

In that case Kevin it would make the substation a defacto MAPS III project. In reality, it was always a MAPS III project, it was just embedded within the Convention Center and covered up by the local media and power establishment. I just hope there are not any more unknown MAPS III projects out there. It would have been helpful if everyone would have been honest from day one.

Oh! what a tangled web we weave. When first we practise to deceive! - Walter Scott

I've decided that to include the Public Opinion Survey presented at the council meeting in this thread would blur discussion of the $30M issue, so I'm starting another thread for the survey. A moderator may want to rename this thread to focus on the $30M issue (please).

Doug: did you happen to notice Shadid was caught on camera (however briefly) actually smiling? There is hope!

Yes, Larry, however briefly. But it's not the 1st time. We need to take that man out for a drink or to a titty bar, for his own sake (as well as yours and mine).

Doug - Good information well presented. Thank you.

We need to take that man out for a drink or to a titty bar, for his own sake (as well as yours and mine).

I would pay to see this. Seriously, if you can line up Ed for a night on the town, I'll buy drinks.

;-)

"What's Up, Doc?", as Bugs Bunny used to say.

While looking over tomorrow's city council meeting agenda to see what might be interesting to follow at tomorrow's council meeting (which will be posted in a new thread which I'll start when I'm done with this post), I happened upon the following confusing array of documents.

The background is that, on August 30, what to do about the MAPS 3 convention center budget ($280M, $250M, whatever), 3 potential plans were before the city council to resolve the matter. Plan A would have set the convention center allocation of MAPS 3 funding at $280M; Plan B would set convention center allocation at $250M or so with $30M going into a contingency fund; Plan C would have split the $30M between the convention center and the park.

However, at the meeting, Pete White submitted an amendment to Plan B and he moved its adoption, as amended. Plan B, as amended, was adopted by a 5-4 vote. But, the literal text of that amendment does not appear to have been published at the city's website.

Today, I downloaded the supporting documents associated with each of the three plans, A, B & C, as to what to do with the $30M.

What confuses me is that the PDF file that I downloaded today as to Plan B from the August 30 council meeting agenda documentation, which I had assumed would be documentation PRIOR TO the council meeting, appears to me to be identical with the draft minutes of the 8/30 meeting which will be submitted at tomorrow's 9/13 council meeting.

Compare the documents for yourselves, with the following introduction/explanation:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/city%20council/30M_versionB_resolution_minutes_comparison_8_30_20 11.jpg

One of three things is correct: (1) The 8/30 meeting supporting documents have been revised at the city's website post-8/30 to be different than were initially posted there to reflect the Plan B which was ACTUALLY adopted (per Pete White's amendment); (2) the draft minutes do not accurately reflect the changes made by Pete White's motion which amended Plan B and was adopted by council; or (3) I'm just too damn dumb to see the differences.

For further information, Plans A & C, downloaded today from the city's website, are shown below.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/city%20council/30M_versionA_8_30_2011.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/city%20council/30M_versionC_8_30_2011.jpg

The diagonal lines across versions A & C are presumably intended to represent strike-throughs indicating that those versions were not adopted, which they were not.

My sole point here is that the city's website should, in my opinion, be historically accurate as to what was presented to a council meeting, as well as to present what actually did occur.

It is NOT OK to revise documents, after the fact, as to transform what DID happen to what was proposed, if that's what happened. At least, that's my opinion.

This morning, I've e-mailed Pete White, Ed Shadid, and Frances Kersey as to this matter, and, as this post is written, I've received a reply from Frances Kersey, City Clerk, as follows:



Doug,
Attached is the amended, adopted version. Thanks!

The attachment which Frances forwarded is the following:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/city%20council/30M_franceskersey_9_12_2011.jpg

I've not compared the "Whereas" clauses with earlier versions (since they don't really matter -- only the "Be it enacted/resolved" parts do) but the "Be it resolved" parts appear to be the same with the graphic that I presented above.

So, in effect, unless I've missed something, there is nothing substantially new from Frances' kindly prompt reply. Anyway, thanks to a very fine public servant, Frances Kersey, City Clerk, for giving a very prompt reply which she didn't have to do.

In a subsequent e-mail from Frances Kersey, City Clerk, she adds:



The agenda wording does not change when the item is amended. The action is listed under the agenda item which reflects the amendment. See excerpt from the minutes below:

VIII. L. 1. Resolution approving the MAPS 3 Implementation Plan Version A.
OR
2. Resolution approving the MAPS 3 Implementation Plan Version B.
OR
3. Resolution approving the MAPS 3 Implementation Plan Version C.

ADOPTED AS AMENDED: L. 2. (AMENDMENT: THE MAPS 3 CITIZENS ADVISORY BOARD AND THE MAPS 3 PARK SUBCOMMITTEE ARE HEREBY REQUESTED TO DEVELOP AN INNOVATIVE PLAN TO MINIMIZE THE ADVERSE IMPACT OF THE OG&E SUBSTATION AND THE OVERHEAD POWER LINES ON THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF THE MAPS 3 DOWNTOWN PUBLIC PARK SUCH PLAN TO BE IMPLEMENTED FROM THE $30 MILLION INFRASTRUCTURE BUDGET.) MOVED BY WHITE, SECONDED BY SALYER. AYES: MAYOR CORNETT, SHADID, WHITE, SALYER, KELLY. NO: MARRS, MCATEE, GREENWELL, RYAN. MAPS 3 OFFICE.

I hope this clears up the question!