Doug Loudenback
08-30-2011, 11:23 PM
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.
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.