View Full Version : Full list of proposed MAPS 4 projects



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Pete
08-24-2019, 05:19 AM
As per a resolution included in the agenda packet for a meeting to be held on August 24th, city council will vote to approve the following slate of projects for MAPS 4, which is likely to appear on a public ballot for a December 10th, 2019 election.

The additional $.01 sales tax is proposed to commence April 1, 2020, run for 8 years and is anticipated to collect $978 million.

******************

Subject to available revenues, the Council’s administrative intent is for MAPS 4 to include the following capital projects and operating funds, supported by allocations of estimated revenues as listed:

PARKS: $140M
For the purpose of transforming our parks across the city, it is the intent of the Council to allocate $63 million to upgrade every municipal neighborhood and community park outside of the central business district. Such improvements shall be based on need and neighborhood feedback that comes from neighborhood meetings. Such improvements could include but are not necessarily limited to bathrooms, playground equipment, shade structures, splashpads, furnishings, trees, paths, activity facilities, and signage that could include but is not limited to signage that provides information on the historical significance of the park’s name.

It is the intent of Council to further allocate $16.5 million to an operating fund to provide for the operations and maintenance of the park improvements described above.

For the purpose of further transforming the public spaces of our city, it is the intent of Council to further allocate $60.5 million for the following specific parks-related projects:

Youth and adult soccer and park facilities at C.B. Cameron Park near Lake Hefner and soccer facilities at Southlakes Park in south Oklahoma City ($29 million)
Oklahoma River enhancements ($11.5 million)
- Pedestrian bridge connection and boat landing at American Indian Cultural Center
- Low water dam to retain water east of Eastern Avenue
- Community stage near American Indian Cultural Center
- Improvements to River bank and River-adjacent public land Community gardens ($500,000)
Outdoor basketball and pickleball courts ($500,000)
Placemaking at Lake Stanley Draper in southeast Oklahoma City ($2.5 million)
Renovation of Booker T. Washington Park in northeast Oklahoma City ($5
million)
Pavilion and other improvements at Minnis Lakeview Park ($500,000)
Enhancements to Northeast Community Center ($2 million)
One new park in Canadian County portion of Oklahoma City ($2.25 million)
One new park in Cleveland County portion of Oklahoma City ($2.25 million)
One new park in southeast Oklahoma City ($2.25 million)
One new park in far northeast Oklahoma City ($2.25 million)


YOUTH CENTERS $110M
For the purpose of transforming the lives of our young people, it is the intent of the Council to allocate $70 million to the construction of at least four new state-of-the-art youth centers to provide afterschool and summer programming. It is the intent of the Council that these new youth centers will offer programming that includes but is not necessarily limited to athletics, arts, family, health and educational resources.

If funds allow, more than four new centers can be constructed and/or refurbishments of existing buildings could be pursued. In addition, it is the intent of Council that prioritization be given to ensuring that the youth facilities at the previously-funded new Douglass Recreation Center are equitable to facilities found at the new youth centers. It is the intent of the Council that the operational policies of these new youth centers will facilitate partnerships with existing community groups who serve young people. It is the intent of the Council that capital and operational partnerships with community organizations could be considered in the implementation of these youth centers.

It is the intent of the Council to further allocate $30 million to an operating fund to provide for the operations of the MAPS 4 youth centers.

It is the intent of Council to further allocate $10 million to an operating fund to provide for ongoing capital improvements to the MAPS 4 youth centers.


SENIOR WELLNESS CENTERS $30M
For the purpose of continuing the transformational effect that senior wellness centers have had in the lives of our city’s seniors, it is the intent of the Council to allocate $15 million to the construction of a fifth senior wellness center similar to the MAPS 3 senior wellness centers. Placement shall be based on geographic need after evaluation of placement of the MAPS 3 senior wellness centers. Commencement of construction will be conditional on the identification of an operator before December 31, 2026 who can offer a self-sustaining operational model similar to the MAPS 3 senior wellness centers.

It is the intent of the Council to further allocate $15 million to an operating fund to provide financial assistance for low-income seniors to utilize the MAPS 3 and MAPS 4 senior wellness centers, with guidelines to be created that prioritize the sustainment of MAPS 3 and MAPS 4 senior wellness centers located in geographic areas with predominantly lower-income populations.


MENTAL HEALTH & ADDICTION $40M
For the purpose of transforming the mental health system of Oklahoma City, to diminish pressures on the county jail, and to protect and serve our residents, it is the intent of the Council to provide for a comprehensive upgrade to mental health facilities and services in our city.

It is the intent of the Council to allocate $11 million to the construction of two new mental health crisis centers. Commencement of construction will be conditional on the identification of operational funding from a non-municipal source as well as operating agreements that include measurable benchmarks, all prior to December 31, 2026. It is the intent of the Council that operating agreements provide prioritization where possible for the use of the crisis centers by Oklahoma City residents.

It is the intent of the Council to further allocate $22 million for a “restoration center” to include a crisis center, methamphetamine detox, substance abuse, and other comprehensive services. Commencement of construction will be conditional on the identification of operational funding from a non-municipal source as well as operating agreements that include measurable benchmarks, all prior to December 31, 2026. It is the intent of the Council that operating agreements provide prioritization where possible for the use of the “restoration center” by Oklahoma City residents.

It is the intent of Council to further allocate $7 million for housing for residents experiencing mental illness and homelessness and transitioning out of a crisis center. Commencement of construction will be conditional on the identification of operatingfunding from a non-municipal source as well as operating agreements with a government agency that includes measurable benchmarks, all prior to December 31, 2026. It is the intent of the Council that operating agreements provide prioritization where possible for the use of the housing by Oklahoma City residents.


FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER OPERATED BY PALOMAR $38M
For the purpose of sustaining the transformational services that were established when the Oklahoma City Police Department created the family justice center known as Palomar to offer services to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, and human trafficking, and to support children exposed to trauma, it is the intent of the Council to allocate $38 million to the construction of a new, permanent family justice center. Commencement of construction will be conditional on the approval of an operating agreement that includes measurable benchmarks with Palomar prior to December 31, 2026.


TRANSIT $87M
For the purpose of continuing the transformation of our city’s public transit system, it is the intent of the Council to pursue numerous dramatic improvements to the public transit services provided to our residents.

It is the intent of the Council to allocate $10 million for upgrades to existing bus stops, including lighting for all stops and approximately 500 new ADA-accessible shelters.

It is the intent of the Council to further allocate $60 million to advanced transit options to include one or more of the following options:

Bus rapid transit lines from downtown to south Oklahoma City, prioritizing connectivity with Capitol Hill and/or other points to the south; and to northeast Oklahoma City, prioritizing connectivity with locations such as the
Health Sciences Center, Northeast 23rd Street, the Adventure District, and other points to the northeast. Commencement of construction will be conditional on the identification of operational funding.
Park and ride facilities, to facilitate commuting by transit.
Micro transit and/or other transit innovations.

It is the intent of the Council to further allocate $12 million for additional buses and traffic signal prioritization to increase frequency and reliability of service.

It is the intent of the Council to further allocate $5 million for future planning and land acquisition needs.


SIDEWALKS, BIKE LANES, TRAILS, AND STREETLIGHTS $87M
For the purpose of continuing to transform the infrastructure for pedestrians and bicycle riders in our city, it is the intent of the Council to pursue numerous investments in our built environment.

It is the intent of the Council to allocate $55 million for the construction of sidewalks, sidewalk amenities, and placemaking, including but not limited to trees, sustainable infrastructure, landscaping, drainage and public art, prioritizing the “Pedestrian Priority Areas” and schools identified by the BikeWalkOKC plan, as well as other districts and community assets, including the Clara Luper Corridor, Capitol Hill, Stockyards, Windsor District, Old Britton, and MAPS youth and senior wellness centers.

It is the intent of the Council to further allocate $20 million for the construction of bicycle lanes and related bicycle facilities, taking into consideration the guidance of the BikeWalkOKC plan.

It is the intent of the Council to further allocate $8 million for trail connectivity to Lake Stanley Draper and the Oklahoma River in south Oklahoma City, as well as trail amenities including but not necessarily limited to bathrooms, fountains and signage throughout the Oklahoma City trail system.

It is the intent of the Council to further allocate $4 million to fund ten years of operating costs relating to the construction of approximately 1,000 new streetlights to be placed along arterial roads in areas currently underserved by lighting. Commencement of operations will be conditional on agreement with relevant agencies.


HOMELESSNESS $50M
For the purpose of transforming our city’s approach to reducing and eventually eliminating homelessness, it is the intent of the Council to allocate $50 million for the provision of truly affordable housing to implement a “housing first” strategy to address homelessness in Oklahoma City. It is acknowledged this funding will potentially leverage over $400 million in housing funding available from various sources. Commencement of expenditures is conditional on approval of an operating agreement with a government agency that includes measurable benchmarks.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY ARENA AND RELATED FACILITIES $115M
For the purpose of sustaining the transformational effect that the downtown arena currently known as Chesapeake Energy Arena and related facilities have had in facilitating economic development and the arrival of major league professional sports, top tier concerts and other entertainment, it is the intent of the Council to allocate $115 million to address necessary capital maintenance and provide fan and tenant enhancements to Chesapeake Energy Arena and the related sports facility at 9600 North Oklahoma Avenue. It is the intent of the Council that no more than nine percent of this total allocation may be utilized for the latter facility and that such improvements at the latter facility are conditional on a lease extension with the existing tenant prior to the end of the current lease term in 2023. It is the intent of the Council that future long-term lease agreements with professional sports teams for the use of the improved facilities referenced in this paragraph contemplate and include a mechanism for revenues to be directed toward a fund for future capital improvement needs.


ANIMAL SHELTER $38M
For the purpose of transforming our city’s main location for intake, care and adoption of animals in our city, it is the intent of the Council to allocate $38 million for the construction of a new main animal shelter to replace the existing aging facility.


FAIRGROUNDS COLISEUM $63M
For the purpose of sustaining and growing the transformational economic impact of the events held at the Jim Norick Arena, it is the intent of the Council to allocate $63 million for the construction of a new coliseum to replace the existing aging venue. It is expected that this funding will be supplemented by at least $25 million of Hotel Tax revenues earmarked by law to improvements at the OKC Fairgrounds, as well as funding from MAPS 3 excess funds, naming rights and other sources.


DIVERSION HUB $17M
For the purpose of transforming the City’s approach to criminal justice and to diminish pressures on the county jail, it is the intent of the Council to allocate $17 million for the construction of a “Diversion Hub” to assist low-level offenders in establishing a more productive life. Commencement of construction will be conditional on the identification of operational funding from a non-municipal source as well as approval of operating agreements that include measurable benchmarks, all prior to December 31, 2026. It is acknowledged that an offer of a $20 million philanthropic donation to provide operational funding for a Diversion Hub has been made by a private donor, and it is the intent of Council to secure a Memorandum of Understanding to this effect prior to December 10, 2019.


INNOVATION DISTRICT $71M
For the purpose of transforming our entrepreneurial ecosystem to create jobs and foster a more diverse economy, it is the intent of the Council to pursue several projects at the Innovation District in near northeast Oklahoma City.

It is the intent of Council to allocate $15 million to open the Henrietta B. Foster Center for Northeast Small Business Development and Entrepreneurship, to specifically include minority small and disadvantaged businesses. Commencement of renovation of the existing Foster Center will be conditional on the approval of operating agreements with an operator prior to December 31, 2026.

It is the intent of the Council to further allocate $25 million for connectivity in and around the Innovation District, including improvements to the Northeast 10th Street bridge over Interstate 235, as well as additional bridges over Interstate 235 if funds allow. At least half of this allocation must provide for connectivity improvements from the Innovation District core to surrounding neighborhoods and neighborhood assets.

It is the intent of the Council to further allocate $10 million for the purpose of matching up to $10 million raised from non-MAPS sources for an “innovation hall” and related infrastructure where activities to grow our city’s innovation economy can be facilitated. Such activities could include but are not necessarily limited to learning academies such as coding training for all ages; versatile space for meetings and events related to innovation and entrepreneurship; and pop-up spaces for entrepreneurs to showcase new ideas and build connections. Matching dollars must be identified by December 31, 2026. Commencement of construction will be conditional on the approval of operating agreements that include measurable benchmarks with an operator prior to December 31, 2026. It is the intent of the Council that if co-working services are offered, that such agreements relative to co-working services prioritize, where possible, relationships with existing operators in Oklahoma City providing coworking services.

It is the intent of Council to further allocate $21 million to an operating fund to provide for the operations of the Foster Center and the “innovation hall.” It is acknowledged that both projects are expected to receive operating dollars from other sources as well.

It is acknowledged that the Booker T. Washington Park project within the larger Parks project and the northeast transit enhancement project within the larger Transit project can also be contributors to the success of the Innovation District project.


FREEDOM CENTER AND CLARA LUPER CIVIL RIGHTS CENTER $25M
For the purpose of transforming our city’s knowledge of its civil rights history and positively influencing the future of northeast Oklahoma City and all our city, it is the intent of Council to allocate $16 million for the renovation of the historic Freedom Center, home of the Oklahoma City civil rights movement, as well as construction of an adjacent civil rights museum and community gathering place to be named for civil rights pioneer Clara Luper. Commencement of renovations and construction will be conditional on the approval of operating agreements with an operator prior to December 31, 2026.

It is the intent of Council to further allocate $9 million to an operating fund to provide for the operations of the facilities described herein.


BEAUTIFICATION $30M
For the purpose of transforming the appearance of our city to elevate our daily experiences in it and to improve the first impression we give visitors, it is the intent of Council to allocate $25 million for beautification projects along major corridors, which may include but are not necessarily limited to, as funding allows:

City entrance gateways along the interstates
Approaches to Will Rogers World Airport including:
Creation of a Bessie Coleman Garden near the airport
State Highway 152 from Meridian Avenue to Interstate 44
Interstate 44 from State Highway 152 to Interstate 40
Enhancement of the three pedestrian bridges over the interstates in south Oklahoma City
Interstate 240 from Interstate 44 to Interstate 35
East and west entrances to the Clara Luper Corridor
Intersection of Northeast 23rd and Martin Luther King Avenue, including up to $5 million for potential land acquisition and remediation of the northeast corner
Oklahoma City University corridor along Northwest 23rd Street
Reno Avenue and Eastern Avenue corridor between Bricktown and the American Indian Cultural Center
Interstate 35 bridge over Oklahoma River
Interstate 44 bridge over Oklahoma River
Interstate 44 from Portland Avenue to Classen Boulevard
Interstate 40 and Council Road interchange
Route 66
Public art and/or monuments at key intersections around city, including a statue of Ralph Ellison
Updated and low maintenance landscaping along key arterials
Trees (a minimum of a $1 million allocation)

Commencement of projects will be conditional on the approval of agreements with relevant entities.

It is the intent of Council to further allocate $5 million to an operating fund to provide permanent City staff dedicated to the issue of beautification, as well as provide funding for ongoing maintenance, as funds allow. It is the intent of Council that once funding is secured, the Council will add the positions to the budget of the City, with the intent for the positions to promote and facilitate beautification within public and private capital projects, pursue grants, coordinate public-private partnerships to clean public areas, assist and encourage private businesses to keep their property clean and updated, troubleshoot issues like mowing and graffiti on public property, pursue murals and other public art, and coordinate efforts with local beautification organizations, among other activities.


MULTIPURPOSE STADIUM $37M
For the purpose of pursuing the transformational power demonstrated by previous MAPS projects like the ballpark and the arena, it is the intent of the Council to allocate $37 million to a multipurpose stadium suitable for professional and college soccer, high school football and soccer, concerts and other events, similar in concept to multipurpose stadium venues found in every other large American city. Commencement of construction will be conditional on the approval of operating agreements with an established professional soccer operator / lessee before December 31, 2026 who can offer a self-sustaining operational model similar to the ballpark.

kevin lee
08-24-2019, 07:11 AM
This is like getting only socks and clothes for Christmas. Even though you needed them, it's not quite what you was hoping for.

OKCRT
08-24-2019, 07:25 AM
This is like getting only socks and clothes for Christmas. Even though you needed them, it's not quite what you was hoping for.

If that's it,I am voting NO

5alive
08-24-2019, 07:34 AM
We can't always get all we want...sometimes we get what we need. This is known as being an adult :)

OKC Guy
08-24-2019, 07:58 AM
Horrible. And some are creating new positions yet nothing about how many and what they will pay and administration of them. Plus this is for 8 years that means nothing else gets approved for all those years.

The first 3 worked because they were transformative and needed the big/long term timeline. But now we are dreaming up projects and very vague in them. I see a lot of potential for abuse.

Most here know I am not supportive of the streetcar because I felt we needed to get buses fixed first to get people to downtown and then could have used micro luxury buses around downtown which can also adjust routes based on needs and changing dynamics. Having said that what if after CC, Omni and CP open the SC takes off and the near west downtown becomes the new Bricktown? If SC does great we might want to expand it to newly ID’d areas. But now its locked out for at least 8 years. And this M4 doesn’t truly transform buses either.

Thats the issue here is at 8 years long it locks out ability to adjust as our city grows. When we started M1 our downtown was dead. We mostly focused on Bricktown. After M3 we have grown and changed a lot. Bricktown is no longer the only game in town and if one looks back 8 years to how our downtown was and look at now - its changed dramatically. The same thing will happen going forward and with another 8 year Maps we will have no ability to do any other projects.

I strongly feel we need to tailor Maps down to 2 year cycles. Another need or transformative project might gain support but will be lost due to length of M4. If Aquarium is popular then it won’t have any chance for at least 8 years. Doing 2 year cycles we could create a permanent Maps community committee composed of citizens who would be changed out often. This allows ideas to constantly be formulated and would allow us to adjust to new needs faster.

As written my vote is a solid no on M4. There are a few good projects but nothing that says “I have to have that”. I see huge waste potential and will vote no to give me my penny per dollar back.

king183
08-24-2019, 08:06 AM
Were they any projects that had official, dedicated presentations to the council that did not make the list?

Zuplar
08-24-2019, 08:12 AM
You know after reading through this list I’m more inclined to vote yes now. Sure there is not as much that’s big and sexy, but so much of this will enhance existing projects. It’s like all the little details that’s go no one thinks about but really bring everything together and I think it might just work.

king183
08-24-2019, 08:17 AM
Were they any projects that had official, dedicated presentations to the council that did not make the list?

To be more direct: Were the council presentations just part of a PR effort dressed up as a "transparent, public process" to support a predetermined list of items chosen behind closed doors long ago? That may seem iike a loaded question, but it's an honest one--I don't know. But it does seem suspicious given the historical way decisions have been made in this city.

I'd like to know what changes were made to the proposed projects as a result of the public process.

Ed Shadid
08-24-2019, 09:28 AM
It is difficult to overstate the stress on future budgets which this fiscally irresponsible, logrolled package of projects will induce.

Bowing to the pushback on the lack of operations funding to accompany hundreds of millions of dollars in capital projects, Holt has pushed the idea of setting aside roughly $100 million of MAPS4 dollars and investing the money to achieve what he hopes to be an average annual rate of return of 4% or roughly $4 million/year to pay for the operations of these roughly $1 billion in projects.

There are several problems with this approach.

First, it takes years to collect the $100 million while trying to complete the 16 projects. This leads to a lost decade of increased pressure on the budget without a corresponding increase in funds for operations.

Second, the endowment fund will perform the worst at exactly the time when we would need it the most; during a recession/depression. Every downturn in the OK/OKC economy leads to sharp cuts in services by the City of OKC and it is usually departments such as parks and transit which get hit the hardest. A dedicated fund for operations (such as the 1/8 cent for the zoo etc..) would provide funds for operations even in a downturn while the endowment fiasco is potentially going to have a negative return during such times and for the privilege of losing money you get to pay a management fee to the banker administering the fund.

Third, the council is not being honest about the continued stress on the budget from the MAPS3 projects. Months ago the council met in small groups to discuss the fact that, for the second year in a row, the Boathouse Foundation was requesting millions of dollars from the City's general fund to plug hemorrhaging budgetary holes; roughly $3 million is being sought this year. The Mayor/Council are keeping this hidden from the public presumably until after the MAPS vote in December. In other words, 75% of the expected return of the MAPS4 endowment fund to pay for the operations of the $1 billion in MAPS4 programs would be eaten up by the Boathouse Foundation shortfall alone.

The MAPS 4 program in which a maximum number of constituencies were appeased (logrolling) in an attempt at securing passage without adequate funds for operations is incredibly fiscally irresponsible and there will be great pain to be endured during the inevitable future economic downturns.

A dedicated quarter cent for operations would have gone a long ways towards fiscal responsibility and protecting us from the pain headed our way.

OKC Guy
08-24-2019, 09:51 AM
It is difficult to overstate the stress on future budgets which this fiscally irresponsible, logrolled package of projects will induce.

Bowing to the pushback on the lack of operations funding to accompany hundreds of millions of dollars in capital projects, Holt has pushed the idea of setting aside roughly $100 million of MAPS4 dollars and investing the money to achieve what he hopes to be an average annual rate of return of 4% or roughly $4 million/year to pay for the operations of these roughly $1 billion in projects.

There are several problems with this approach.

First, it takes years to collect the $100 million while trying to complete the 16 projects. This leads to a lost decade of increased pressure on the budget without a corresponding increase in funds for operations.

Second, the endowment fund will perform the worst at exactly the time when we would need it the most; during a recession/depression. Every downturn in the OK/OKC economy leads to sharp cuts in services by the City of OKC and it is usually departments such as parks and transit which get hit the hardest. A dedicated fund for operations (such as the 1/8 cent for the zoo etc..) would provide funds for operations even in a downturn while the endowment fiasco is potentially going to have a negative return during such times and for the privilege of losing money you get to pay a management fee to the banker administering the fund.

Third, the council is not being honest about the continued stress on the budget from the MAPS3 projects. Months ago the council met in small groups to discuss the fact that, for the second year in a row, the Boathouse Foundation was requesting millions of dollars from the City's general fund to plug hemorrhaging budgetary holes; roughly $3 million is being sought this year. The Mayor/Council are keeping this hidden from the public presumably until after the MAPS vote in December. In other words, 75% of the expected return of the MAPS4 endowment fund to pay for the operations of the $1 billion in MAPS4 programs would be eaten up by the Boathouse Foundation shortfall alone.

The MAPS 4 program in which a maximum number of constituencies were appeased (logrolling) in an attempt at securing passage without adequate funds for operations is incredibly fiscally irresponsible and there will be great pain to be endured during the inevitable future economic downturns.

A dedicated quarter cent for operations would have gone a long ways towards fiscal responsibility and protecting us from the pain headed our way.

Totally agree. And some of the vagueness long term funding is bad as written. We need to address continuing operations and I have stated this many times, each Maps increases future operations to unsustainable levels. Just for street car alone I don’t think the masses realize how much it will cost once the shine wears off. A replacement car is going to run around $3,500,000 and up. We have what, 7? Just imagine the upkeep costs of the whole system and we cannot adjust the route.

This Maps 4 is filled with pork and more pork. And we’ll have a downturn at some point yet are locked in paying a full penny for 8 years with no ability to adjust to changes.

This Maps 4 will be the end of Maps as we’ve known it. We had a chance to shorten it and then address reocurring costs but have failed. All of us pay for operations one way or another and if approved we are voting to pay a ton of future upkeep costs that are not being publicly talked about at local gov level.

king183
08-24-2019, 09:53 AM
Bowing to the pushback on the lack of operations funding to accompany hundreds of millions of dollars in capital projects, Holt has pushed the idea of setting aside roughly $100 million of MAPS4 dollars and investing the money to achieve what he hopes to be an average annual rate of return of 4% or roughly $4 million/year to pay for the operations of these roughly $1 billion in projects.


While I believe your general point may stand, you're greatly overstating the particulars of the MAPS4 induced stress on city operating funds when you say endowments aren't big enough or are flawed mechanism to operate $1 billion in new programs. It's not $1 billion in new MAPS programs that require operating funds; it's substantially less. If you read the resolution, many of the projects will receive the capital funding only after they have identified non-municipal operating fund sources. The diversion hub and mental health crisis centers, for example, fall into this category.

Further, many of the high cost projects require no additional expenditure to operate. Chesapeake Energy upgrades, the biggest ticket item, for example, won't require an operating fund.




Third, the council is not being honest about the continued stress on the budget from the MAPS3 projects. Months ago the council met in small groups to discuss the fact that, for the second year in a row, the Boathouse Foundation was requesting millions of dollars from the City's general fund to plug hemorrhaging budgetary holes; roughly $3 million is being sought this year. The Mayor/Council are keeping this hidden from the public presumably until after the MAPS vote in December. In other words, 75% of the expected return of the MAPS4 endowment fund to pay for the operations of the $1 billion in MAPS4 programs would be eaten up by the Boathouse Foundation shortfall alone.


How are they keeping this hidden from the public when you know about it and can speak to it in public forums? Are you delivering more information to Pete and the Gazette about it so it can be reported more widely?

Ed Shadid
08-24-2019, 10:25 AM
Repeatedly members of the media refer to the MAPS4 projects as if they are going to appear on the December 10th ballot just as they did in the MAPS1 vote. Here is the actual ballot language which will be presented to voters on December 10th:

Shall ordinance No. 26.255 ("Ordinance") of the City of Oklahoma City ("City") be approved?

The ordinance levies a City excise tax of one percent (1%) upon the gross proceeds or gross receipts derived from all sales taxable under the sales tax laws of the State of Oklahoma for a limited term of eight (8) years. The Ordinance provides for the sales tax levy to become effective at 12:00 am on April 1, 2020, with the eight-year term expiring at 12:00 am on April 1, 2028. Section 1 of the Ordinance would be codified as Section 52-23.7 in Article II of Chapter 52 of the Oklahoma City Municipal Code, 2010. The sales tax levied by the Ordinance would be cumulative of other City sales tax levies effective as of April 1, 2020. The Ordinance is subject to approval by City voters pursuant to Section 2705 of Title 68 of the Oklahoma Statutes.

For the Ordinance--Yes [ ]

Against the Ordinance--No [ ]

OKCRT
08-24-2019, 11:05 AM
We can't always get all we want...sometimes we get what we need. This is known as being an adult :)

Looks like a bunch of watered down 1/2 arsed projects.

bucktalk
08-24-2019, 11:08 AM
"Additional 1,000 new streetlights"....baahahahahah....to go along with the 5,000 which don't work right now???

chuck5815
08-24-2019, 11:18 AM
Would definitely prefer that the bulk of the 0.9B be spent on (a) attracting high paying non-O&G jobs; (b) capping the highway between the innovation district and automobile alley; (c) micro capping I-44 to provide additional connectivity and walkability; and (d) building a world class aquarium/extending the canal through the boat house district.

Most of the proposed projects are absolutely terrible and will generate zero in the way of ROI. This tax is supposed to create transformational projects.

OKCRT
08-24-2019, 11:19 AM
Mind boggling to think they had a chance to put a World Class Aquarium on the list and we get this. If they did a poll with all these projects plus the Aquarium I would be willing to bet a World Class Aquarium would finish at the top. And it would be a better return for the tax payers. It would be something that would have people flocking to the downtown area ready to spend their money.

Plutonic Panda
08-24-2019, 11:28 AM
^^^ No kidding. While these things will likely make the city better, I don't understand why MAPS has to cover all of this. Maybe it is time Oklahoma raises its taxes and goes big league. If the only way for cities to do these kinds of things is through sales taxes, than the cities need to lobby for change at the state level.

I also hope if this maps passes that we get updates on each project frequently. I feel like that was easy with MAPS 3 because it had fewer items. This MAPS will have many projects spread out.

Plutonic Panda
08-24-2019, 11:32 AM
https://kfor.com/2019/08/23/maps-4-projects-announced-city-council-to-vote-on-plans/

https://oklahoman.com/article/5639432/maps-4-goes-to-the-council

https://oklahoman.com/article/5639414/soccer-stadium-new-fairgrounds-arena-among-maps-4-proposals

dankrutka
08-24-2019, 11:40 AM
While I don't agree with the flashier, capital projects included, I think there are some tremendously important projects included. I am glad to see some attention to boost social service issues, include projects for northwest OKC, etc.

AnguisHerba
08-24-2019, 11:47 AM
While I don't agree with the flashier, capital projects included, I think there are some tremendously important projects included. I am glad to see some attention to boost social service issues, include projects for northwest OKC, etc.

I agree with your sentiment. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. I will be voting yes.

TheTravellers
08-24-2019, 11:48 AM
"Additional 1,000 new streetlights"....baahahahahah....to go along with the 5,000 which don't work right now???

Yeah, that one just baffled me, wish I could've been at their presentation to ask about that. Fix the ones you have, then figure out how to put more up *and* keep them lit.

shawnw
08-24-2019, 11:49 AM
While I have the same beef, the reality is that there are number of places surprisingly not even served by streetlights that should have them.

Hollywood
08-24-2019, 12:30 PM
Would definitely prefer that the bulk of the 0.9B be spent on (a) attracting high paying non-O&G jobs; (b) capping the highway between the innovation district and automobile alley; (c) micro capping I-44 to provide additional connectivity and walkability; and (d) building a world class aquarium/extending the canal through the boat house district.

Most of the proposed projects are absolutely terrible and will generate zero in the way of ROI. This tax is supposed to create transformational projects.

Exactly why I’ve added Election Day to my calendar to not forget to vote no. MAPS has been modified to cover what should be done by other entities or by normal municipal means.

Social movement doesn’t elevate the city above others; but outstanding projects result in the increase of sales tax to fund those extras from general operations.

OKC Guy
08-24-2019, 12:54 PM
Would definitely prefer that the bulk of the 0.9B be spent on (a) attracting high paying non-O&G jobs; (b) capping the highway between the innovation district and automobile alley; (c) micro capping I-44 to provide additional connectivity and walkability; and (d) building a world class aquarium/extending the canal through the boat house district.

Most of the proposed projects are absolutely terrible and will generate zero in the way of ROI. This tax is supposed to create transformational projects.

This is transformational in that it transforms 3 successful Maps into a complete boondoggle. Like stated adding street lights lol they can’t keep up with current ones. Heck we can’t even get paint to stick on roads and no amount if lights will fix that. This does not move the needle at all it is fraught with potential waste and no real oversight.

Short of bus funding too. They are throwing darts at a board just to dream up stuff and this is not going to make our city better. It will lock us in a death spiral of future costs and not adding anything transformative.

Laramie
08-24-2019, 12:56 PM
http://rishikajain.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Appreciation.jpg

Our new councilors, one rides a bike, the other a bus. They feel and see the city, experience its inadequacies on a daily basis.

MAPS 4 is not a cure all initiative for our city. Pete has provided an unlimited number of threads to develop on OKCTalk forum for civil discussion.

Just want to commend you Pete for your work; you have been steadfast, as you have addressed as much as you could possibly implement for one individual.

BoulderSooner
08-24-2019, 02:11 PM
I will be a no vote on maps for the first time

jonny d
08-24-2019, 02:19 PM
I am just curious everyone's main objections to the projects for MAPS? Like, are there any on there that are inherently bad or detrimental to OKC? If so, please enlighten me. I see a focus on homelessness, mental health, bus transit, sidewalks, the Innovation Link, and the Peake (constant improvements are necessary to keep the arena NBA-quality) as reasons to vote yes. I only have qualms with the soccer stadium. But I am not letting great be the enemy of good.

soonerguru
08-24-2019, 02:22 PM
I think many of these projects will have a much greater impact down the road than it seems they will now. Some of the corridor improvements alone could have transformational impacts.

The social services projects may be harder to track, but they will make our city a better place. Some of them may not work as well as hoped but we are never going to be able to count on help from the state or feds at this point. They would let OKC rot if they could.

The bike, sidewalk, trees and transit and beautification may not be sexy like a single big building or stadium, but will help us realize many of the urbanist goals we have been discussing since I joined this forum 14 years ago (amazing to think about that).

Some of the best MAPS projects look better in hindsight, like the library. I think many of these things won't necessarily be recognized as MAPS projects but our city will be a much better place as a result of us having them.

I am a definite yes vote on MAPS, even though there are projects included I have asked many questions about.

Plutonic Panda
08-24-2019, 02:23 PM
I think I will support it. I can't vote in OKC elections anyways so it doesn't really matter. That said I am not too happy with the final list of projects. I wish we would have gave it more money and thought bolder adding real light-rail lines(NOT STREETCARS!!!!) and the aquarium.

Miracle121
08-24-2019, 02:43 PM
New state fair arena needs to be used for more than a horse barn. Ice hockey needs a home.

HOT ROD
08-24-2019, 04:25 PM
Where to begin.

In general I am in favor of the transformative projects but I agree with Ed that we should be increasing tax rate not misusing MAPS to create endowments that could very well be abused. Im not sure why we have to increase MAPS by $100M in endowments to fund operations for these - let me go into specific details.

Total Requested $948M
Total Endowments $76M

My Pics $770M
My Pics fully funded $871M (doing real BRT, full beautification, full parks (no endowment), full sidewalks)

MAPS 4

* PARKS $140M - I'm in favor of the parks projects but NOT in favor of the Endowment since parks are a municipal function. Subtract out the $16.5M slush fund (aka Endowment) and IMO this is a logical transformative go at $124M

(I'd even be open to keeping this at $140M with all the funds going to parks since OKC is long overdue here).

* YOUTH CENTER $110M - I'm in favor of youth centers, IMO should have been done before Senior Centers. I'm not in favor of the endowment here since there will be private entities running the facilities. IF (and a big IF) the Endowment fund would establish future facility and/or equipment upgrades ONLY, I would support such a CAPITAL Endowment fund. But this is written as an Operations Fund, which again should be either part of the municipal government or private operations. Maybe i'd support the full amount if it meant youth had no fees to enter. Anyway - Go at $80M

* Senior Wellness Centers $30M - I'm generally in favor of this but I thought we already got 5 of them paid for. Why do we need 5 of these? But anyway, I support the new facility. Not in favor of the endowment, as I mentioned for the youth - there are private entities running these. Go at $15M only.

* Mental Health & Addiction $40M - full support. Not sure why there's $7M here for Housing when there's another housing initiative though. .....

* Family Justice Center (Palomar) $38M - full support.

* Transit $87M - full support. Should be even higher actually.
$10M bus stops YES
$60M transit buses YES (should be more here, to get real articulated BRT and a few double deckers for commuter bus)
$12M signal prioritization YES
$5M acquisition YES

IMO I'd up this to $100M and get real BRT buses as well as some commuter bus. I know ACOG will lead that effort but since EMBARK is running Norman there's reason to implement Commuter bus to Norman immediately.

I don't like the idea at all of using 40' buses for BRT, that's ridiculous and defeats the whole purpose of BRT - frequent vehicles with available seating with rapid transportability (paraphrased). I'd argue those 40' buses will fill up very quickly before anybody in the Classen corridor could think of getting on-board. This is the beauty of the articulated buses, they can hold way more people for crush rush hour loads. I think 40' buses will enact the SAME reaction that the loop streetcar has, should have done it right the first time.

BTW, I'm not against the streetcar or its loops. I just think there should have been a dual track along Sheridan and probably one along N Broadway to S Robinson to provide for easy expansion and flexibility. Another $10M would have likely covered that.

* Sidewalks, Bike Lanes, Trails, Streetlights $87M - Full support
I think this should have been higher as well, OKC dropped the ball here long ago and now should catch up.
$55M sidewalks (should be $80M)
$20M bike lanes
$8M trail conectivity (not sure what this means???)
$4M Arterial Lights (can this be implemented immediately, at the same time with sidewalk and bus routes)

I'd argue for $112M here.

* Homelessness $50M. Support
I generally support this one however I do agree there should be some sort of rules/regulations established. OKC is way behind the curve here as Seattle has long implemented public housing and administered it. I'd recommend OKC benchmark Seattle on the rules and regulations managing these facilities. You can't just only rely on the private sector handouts here, big cities also provide low cost housing; using SRO type with onboard security and possible services. Perhaps this could be piggy-backed with the mental health center for synergy.

I do not agree with Greenwell per his verbiage of accountability benchmarks. Not sure how that would be implemented other than year 1 we had X homeless on the streets and year 2 we had Y. Yet that does nothing to manage the $50M investment in a building(s) to house homeless.

Again, this is where I think we can combine the Mental Health center budget, perhaps create two or more combination Mental Health centers with Housing - so the mental health operations could manage it according to city bylaws. By combining, we could have more than one location for both operations; it'd be nice to have one near downtown (of course) but also in the poor areas of the southside and eastside; combining could open the possibility for 3 or 4 such centers.

* Chesapeake Energy Arena $115M - in favor.
I'm in favor of this and it has little to do with the Thunder. It has to do with the city being the owner of the buildings, they need to be upgraded to compete with other markets. In my opinion, this is what TEMPORARY TAXES like Maps are all about - specific, quick capital expenditures outside of the general municipal function/fund.

I think OKC should have gone big the first time and not reduced the original upgrade. We probably wouldn't need as much now if that were the case, but upgrades to sound, lighting, electronics, and seats will always be the case.

I'd love if the OKC Thunder could partner with the city to ensure all original amenities to the building are implemented. Thunder has a vested interest and has received preference for 10 years for the building and associated revenues. Let's invest in the facility as a partnership, keeping OKC at the top of the fan experience in the NBA.

* Animal Shelter $38M - Full Support.

* Fairgrounds Coliseum $63M - Do Not Support
Sorry, I would not fund any more projects for the fairgrounds. They can rename it back to the "Oklahoma City Fairgrounds" all they want. But they killed the experience of the fair yet are always coming to the city for capital funds for this or that. Why they refused to use revenue generated to maintain existing venues is beyond me, but to then ask for a new arena.

Fairgrounds is a big generator for OKC and receives MOST of the Hotel-Motel tax. This and revenue from operations should be enough for the fairgrounds to run a top knotch operation. If they want an arena they should use bonding capacity of OKC and allow the hotel-motel tax to pay it off.

Again, the fairground is not run by OKC or municipal operations (unlike the Cox and Chesapeake arena) - therefore, the fairgrounds should not be privy to every MAPS, Sorry no more pork-barrel here.

* Diversion Hub $17M - full support.

* Innovation District $71M - support but not the $21M endowment.
Again, these are private businesses that want to receive a $21M endowment from the city. That should be the other way around, the city builds the capital expense for the district $50M and the ORMF creates the private endowment fund for operations. ...

I support this at $50M only. I would support more if it included a much better connection/cap over I-235 but NOT for an endowment. ...

* Freedom Center and Clara Luper Center $25M - support but not the endowment per se.
Again, there are private organizations who will run these facilities and there likely will be an admissions fee charged. Therefore, not seeing why the city needs to build the buildings AND fund operations.

Now, if we decide that these fine new facilities would become part of the parks department then perhaps an endowment might be a good idea since these are building specific uses and not just general fund operations/maintenance.

I'd support this for $16M only.

* Beautification $30M - full support.
This is where I think we should easily double this to $60M. OKC is long far behind the curve on beautification as a city wide effort. I can't believe OKC doesn't even have a municipal position in charge of water and maintenance of plants/foliage.

Since we're so behind I think this should be fully supported, even the $5M in operations since that would go to adding staff and not an endowment. Hopefully foliage selected is region appropriate since OKC does get enough rain, after the $5M emergency fund is consumed this should go to the parks department (who should create dedicated staff for this operation).

* Multipurpose Stadium $37M - no support.
I'm not against the stadium but I am against the current effort led by Funk. There's nothing concrete in their plan. They're looking to the city to bail them out, plain and simple. Also, the stadium is too small; $10K seats??? We already have larger than that with the bricktown ballpark, why not look to use it while OKC is in USL?

I'd be in favor of this if there were a REAL effort to get OKC an MLS team, with Funk or whoever being owner and having funds for the fee/team, a location established/paid or at least conditionally agreed, and the stadium being no smaller than 25K seats. You can't have it both ways, either it's a Multipurpose stadium (therefore needing more than 20K seats for a city the size of OKC) or its a Soccer specific stadium built to soccer specifics 10K or whatever it is.

Make up your minds here and come back later. Not fully against this but AM in its current edition.

LocoAko
08-24-2019, 05:55 PM
It is really.... interesting... to see the general response here versus the general response I've seen on other platforms. I've seen a ton of praise that it is a MAPS that [generally] focuses on citizens and the entire city, which is apparently what everyone outside of this forum wanted and was vocal about, versus big downtown civic projects. People actually seem really enthused that it addressed a number of social issues: homelessness, mental illness/addition, beautification/transit/sidewalks, etc. It doesn't have big sexy projects like the aquarium (which I agree is disappointing) but I think it addresses a number of key issues that desperately need addressing.

If you think it was simply a pre-determined outcome (and I can see why some would), apparently it didn't include the entire council. At least JoBeth has already been outspoken on her page that she doesn't like how low it is aiming for many of the social services and apparently feels like the included programs started from a compromised position already.

And simply LOL if you're waiting for the city to "lobby" this state's legislature to raise taxes instead of doing it this way. Good luck with that.......

d-usa
08-24-2019, 06:20 PM
I think the issue for me is that many of the projects are good, but they aren’t MAPS.

Half the projects make me think off MAPS projects, but the other half just feel like “crap the city should be doing because we’re a city”. I don’t think they should be part of MAPS, but I would support them if it was a general sales tax increase to fund city issues.

HOT ROD
08-24-2019, 06:55 PM
And I made my list before reading about the aquarium. Add that to my list. ...

Total Requested $1,048M
Total Endowments $76M

My Pics $870M
My Pics - fully funded $971M

very doable actually.

kevin lee
08-24-2019, 07:46 PM
I don't agree with the final list but it is making OKC better. I'll give up 1 cent for the rest of my life to help make this city one of the best in the country. Regardless if I like the list or not.

shawnw
08-24-2019, 08:12 PM
Nice perspective

TheTravellers
08-24-2019, 09:14 PM
I think the issue for me is that many of the projects are good, but they aren’t MAPS.

Half the projects make me think off MAPS projects, but the other half just feel like “crap the city should be doing because we’re a city”. I don’t think they should be part of MAPS, but I would support them if it was a general sales tax increase to fund city issues.

Totally agree, this is the city's definition, from their website: "MAPS (Metropolitan Area Projects) is Oklahoma City's visionary capital improvement program for new and upgraded sports, recreation, entertainment, cultural and convention facilities."

Unfortunately, we've completely failed at funding the "we should be doing these because that's what a city does" things for decades, and apparently MAPS is the only vehicle for doing what we should've been doing for years.

mattyiceokc
08-24-2019, 10:47 PM
Where to begin.

In general I am in favor of the transformative projects but I agree with Ed that we should be increasing tax rate not misusing MAPS to create endowments that could very well be abused. Im not sure why we have to increase MAPS by $100M in endowments to fund operations for these - let me go into specific details.

Total Requested $948M
Total Endowments $76M

My Pics $770M
My Pics fully funded $871M (doing real BRT, full beautification, full parks (no endowment), full sidewalks)

MAPS 4

* PARKS $140M - I'm in favor of the parks projects but NOT in favor of the Endowment since parks are a municipal function. Subtract out the $16.5M slush fund (aka Endowment) and IMO this is a logical transformative go at $124M

(I'd even be open to keeping this at $140M with all the funds going to parks since OKC is long overdue here).

* YOUTH CENTER $110M - I'm in favor of youth centers, IMO should have been done before Senior Centers. I'm not in favor of the endowment here since there will be private entities running the facilities. IF (and a big IF) the Endowment fund would establish future facility and/or equipment upgrades ONLY, I would support such a CAPITAL Endowment fund. But this is written as an Operations Fund, which again should be either part of the municipal government or private operations. Maybe i'd support the full amount if it meant youth had no fees to enter. Anyway - Go at $80M

* Senior Wellness Centers $30M - I'm generally in favor of this but I thought we already got 5 of them paid for. Why do we need 5 of these? But anyway, I support the new facility. Not in favor of the endowment, as I mentioned for the youth - there are private entities running these. Go at $15M only.

* Mental Health & Addiction $40M - full support. Not sure why there's $7M here for Housing when there's another housing initiative though. .....

* Family Justice Center (Palomar) $38M - full support.

* Transit $87M - full support. Should be even higher actually.
$10M bus stops YES
$60M transit buses YES (should be more here, to get real articulated BRT and a few double deckers for commuter bus)
$12M signal prioritization YES
$5M acquisition YES

IMO I'd up this to $100M and get real BRT buses as well as some commuter bus. I know ACOG will lead that effort but since EMBARK is running Norman there's reason to implement Commuter bus to Norman immediately.

I don't like the idea at all of using 40' buses for BRT, that's ridiculous and defeats the whole purpose of BRT - frequent vehicles with available seating with rapid transportability (paraphrased). I'd argue those 40' buses will fill up very quickly before anybody in the Classen corridor could think of getting on-board. This is the beauty of the articulated buses, they can hold way more people for crush rush hour loads. I think 40' buses will enact the SAME reaction that the loop streetcar has, should have done it right the first time.

BTW, I'm not against the streetcar or its loops. I just think there should have been a dual track along Sheridan and probably one along N Broadway to S Robinson to provide for easy expansion and flexibility. Another $10M would have likely covered that.

* Sidewalks, Bike Lanes, Trails, Streetlights $87M - Full support
I think this should have been higher as well, OKC dropped the ball here long ago and now should catch up.
$55M sidewalks (should be $80M)
$20M bike lanes
$8M trail conectivity (not sure what this means???)
$4M Arterial Lights (can this be implemented immediately, at the same time with sidewalk and bus routes)

I'd argue for $112M here.

* Homelessness $50M. Support
I generally support this one however I do agree there should be some sort of rules/regulations established. OKC is way behind the curve here as Seattle has long implemented public housing and administered it. I'd recommend OKC benchmark Seattle on the rules and regulations managing these facilities. You can't just only rely on the private sector handouts here, big cities also provide low cost housing; using SRO type with onboard security and possible services. Perhaps this could be piggy-backed with the mental health center for synergy.

I do not agree with Greenwell per his verbiage of accountability benchmarks. Not sure how that would be implemented other than year 1 we had X homeless on the streets and year 2 we had Y. Yet that does nothing to manage the $50M investment in a building(s) to house homeless.

Again, this is where I think we can combine the Mental Health center budget, perhaps create two or more combination Mental Health centers with Housing - so the mental health operations could manage it according to city bylaws. By combining, we could have more than one location for both operations; it'd be nice to have one near downtown (of course) but also in the poor areas of the southside and eastside; combining could open the possibility for 3 or 4 such centers.

* Chesapeake Energy Arena $115M - in favor.
I'm in favor of this and it has little to do with the Thunder. It has to do with the city being the owner of the buildings, they need to be upgraded to compete with other markets. In my opinion, this is what TEMPORARY TAXES like Maps are all about - specific, quick capital expenditures outside of the general municipal function/fund.

I think OKC should have gone big the first time and not reduced the original upgrade. We probably wouldn't need as much now if that were the case, but upgrades to sound, lighting, electronics, and seats will always be the case.

I'd love if the OKC Thunder could partner with the city to ensure all original amenities to the building are implemented. Thunder has a vested interest and has received preference for 10 years for the building and associated revenues. Let's invest in the facility as a partnership, keeping OKC at the top of the fan experience in the NBA.

* Animal Shelter $38M - Full Support.

* Fairgrounds Coliseum $63M - Do Not Support
Sorry, I would not fund any more projects for the fairgrounds. They can rename it back to the "Oklahoma City Fairgrounds" all they want. But they killed the experience of the fair yet are always coming to the city for capital funds for this or that. Why they refused to use revenue generated to maintain existing venues is beyond me, but to then ask for a new arena.

Fairgrounds is a big generator for OKC and receives MOST of the Hotel-Motel tax. This and revenue from operations should be enough for the fairgrounds to run a top knotch operation. If they want an arena they should use bonding capacity of OKC and allow the hotel-motel tax to pay it off.

Again, the fairground is not run by OKC or municipal operations (unlike the Cox and Chesapeake arena) - therefore, the fairgrounds should not be privy to every MAPS, Sorry no more pork-barrel here.

* Diversion Hub $17M - full support.

* Innovation District $71M - support but not the $21M endowment.
Again, these are private businesses that want to receive a $21M endowment from the city. That should be the other way around, the city builds the capital expense for the district $50M and the ORMF creates the private endowment fund for operations. ...

I support this at $50M only. I would support more if it included a much better connection/cap over I-235 but NOT for an endowment. ...

* Freedom Center and Clara Luper Center $25M - support but not the endowment per se.
Again, there are private organizations who will run these facilities and there likely will be an admissions fee charged. Therefore, not seeing why the city needs to build the buildings AND fund operations.

Now, if we decide that these fine new facilities would become part of the parks department then perhaps an endowment might be a good idea since these are building specific uses and not just general fund operations/maintenance.

I'd support this for $16M only.

* Beautification $30M - full support.
This is where I think we should easily double this to $60M. OKC is long far behind the curve on beautification as a city wide effort. I can't believe OKC doesn't even have a municipal position in charge of water and maintenance of plants/foliage.

Since we're so behind I think this should be fully supported, even the $5M in operations since that would go to adding staff and not an endowment. Hopefully foliage selected is region appropriate since OKC does get enough rain, after the $5M emergency fund is consumed this should go to the parks department (who should create dedicated staff for this operation).

* Multipurpose Stadium $37M - no support.
I'm not against the stadium but I am against the current effort led by Funk. There's nothing concrete in their plan. They're looking to the city to bail them out, plain and simple. Also, the stadium is too small; $10K seats??? We already have larger than that with the bricktown ballpark, why not look to use it while OKC is in USL?

I'd be in favor of this if there were a REAL effort to get OKC an MLS team, with Funk or whoever being owner and having funds for the fee/team, a location established/paid or at least conditionally agreed, and the stadium being no smaller than 25K seats. You can't have it both ways, either it's a Multipurpose stadium (therefore needing more than 20K seats for a city the size of OKC) or its a Soccer specific stadium built to soccer specifics 10K or whatever it is.

Make up your minds here and come back later. Not fully against this but AM in its current edition.

It blows my mind when people support upgrades to the Peake, but not a stadium. Make up your mind.

Also, using Bricktown ballpark is a no go. There are multiple issues with using a baseball stadium for soccer. 1. The sightlines for anything but baseball are absolutely horrible. I've been to multiple Energy games in Tulsa, and it's not a pleasant viewing experience. The seats are either 30 yards from the field, in the corner where home plate should be, or behind the goal. 2. Not all baseball stadiums can fit regulation size soccer fields in them. Not sure if this applies to Bricktown however. 3. Baseball teams typically get priority when it comes to scheduling and field use. This season, the Energy had only 1 home game on a week night. This is important because obviously weeknight games get less attendance. Tulsa has 4 this season. I know in previous seasons, this was even worse for Tulsa. The Energy would be at the mercy of the baseball schedule.

chuck5815
08-25-2019, 07:46 AM
It blows my mind when people support upgrades to the Peake, but not a stadium. Make up your mind.

Also, using Bricktown ballpark is a no go. There are multiple issues with using a baseball stadium for soccer. 1. The sightlines for anything but baseball are absolutely horrible. I've been to multiple Energy games in Tulsa, and it's not a pleasant viewing experience. The seats are either 30 yards from the field, in the corner where home plate should be, or behind the goal. 2. Not all baseball stadiums can fit regulation size soccer fields in them. Not sure if this applies to Bricktown however. 3. Baseball teams typically get priority when it comes to scheduling and field use. This season, the Energy had only 1 home game on a week night. This is important because obviously weeknight games get less attendance. Tulsa has 4 this season. I know in previous seasons, this was even worse for Tulsa. The Energy would be at the mercy of the baseball schedule.

Bob, is that you?

soonerguru
08-25-2019, 09:43 AM
It is really.... interesting... to see the general response here versus the general response I've seen on other platforms. I've seen a ton of praise that it is a MAPS that [generally] focuses on citizens and the entire city, which is apparently what everyone outside of this forum wanted and was vocal about, versus big downtown civic projects. People actually seem really enthused that it addressed a number of social issues: homelessness, mental illness/addition, beautification/transit/sidewalks, etc. It doesn't have big sexy projects like the aquarium (which I agree is disappointing) but I think it addresses a number of key issues that desperately need addressing.

If you think it was simply a pre-determined outcome (and I can see why some would), apparently it didn't include the entire council. At least JoBeth has already been outspoken on her page that she doesn't like how low it is aiming for many of the social services and apparently feels like the included programs started from a compromised position already.

And simply LOL if you're waiting for the city to "lobby" this state's legislature to raise taxes instead of doing it this way. Good luck with that.......

I don't really understand what JoBeth is saying. It's my understanding that many of the "chamber projects" had their budgets cut from their original ask, such as the soccer stadium, arena, Chesapeake, and Innovation Hub. All received substantially less than they originally asked for.

Some of the "human needs" budgets were increased.

Someone up thread posted a list of original budget requests and finals so I don't understand what she is saying. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the point she is trying to make.

I guess my question would be, if the negotiation for the human needs elements was too low, wasn't she one of the negotiators? I think the other thing that seems clear is that about two-thirds of this MAPS is going toward non-chamber stuff. That seems like a big win if you are aiming for human needs.

OKCRT
08-25-2019, 10:05 AM
I don't really understand what JoBeth is saying. It's my understanding that many of the "chamber projects" had their budgets cut from their original ask, such as the soccer stadium, arena, Chesapeake, and Innovation Hub. All received substantially less than they originally asked for.

Some of the "human needs" budgets were increased.

Someone up thread posted a list of original budget requests and finals so I don't understand what she is saying. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the point she is trying to make.

I guess my question would be, if the negotiation for the human needs elements was too low, wasn't she one of the negotiators? I think the other thing that seems clear is that about two-thirds of this MAPS is going toward non-chamber stuff. That seems like a big win if you are aiming for human needs.

Seems to me there are too many underfunded projects on the list that will be done 1/2 arsed. Should scrap some and do the rest properly. Do it right or don't do it at all.

soonerguru
08-25-2019, 11:13 AM
Seems to me there are too many underfunded projects on the list that will be done 1/2 arsed. Should scrap some and do the rest properly. Do it right or don't do it at all.

Respectfully, based on what? Is that just your gut feeling? We are building a new Palomar building. We are getting 500 bus shelters, etc. We are getting a new arena at the Fairgrounds. There are specific budgets for specific items. I'm not seeing the people associated with these individual projects complaining that they were shorted.

Teo9969
08-25-2019, 11:23 AM
Really torn on this.

The hurdle for me is going to be the 8-year timeline and the $1B of investment. I will want to weigh if it's going to become more difficult to get the far NW and far SW OKC Voting block to agree to the RTA when they've already allocated 8 years of 1% to a MAPS they may view as not doing a lot for them, even if it is good for the city overall.

Here is what I like about this iteration of MAPS:

1. Most importantly, this shows that the city is committed to improving quality of life for the less fortunate and those who need/want to become more productive citizens.

2. The CHK Arena upgrades should solidify the arena for another 15+ years, which should be sufficient time to guarantee Cox and REHCO sites do not become replacement sites for the Thunder's home.

3. This does guarantee some funding for "passion projects" that I think will help retain many people currently aged 15 to 25.

4. The endowment issue is an interesting one. I'm not necessarily convinced that it is the right choice from MAPS but I do like the out of the box thinking, and I also like believing that the city should not rely on wealthy donors to step up to the plate for these kinds of things. That being said, this obviously poses a new type of mismanagement and/or market risk and I think that has to be seriously considered.

Laramie
08-25-2019, 11:56 AM
MAPS 4: Eight year extension, 16 projects, $978 million initiative, everybody got something--a few received more, some less. This will strengthen Oklahoma City as a community, provide a catalyst for job growth--especially our Innovative Link.

Endowments, if used wisely will keep these program & projects afloat and on track while they apply for more federal funds & grants during the interim.

Concept of MAPS' were designed to address 8-10 year solutions. It has alternated from MAPS I (core) to MAPS II for KIDS (neighborhood & community schools), MAPS III back to more core and MAPS IV a combination of community & core projects with more emphasis on human needs.

OKCRT
08-25-2019, 12:34 PM
Respectfully, based on what? Is that just your gut feeling? We are building a new Palomar building. We are getting 500 bus shelters, etc. We are getting a new arena at the Fairgrounds. There are specific budgets for specific items. I'm not seeing the people associated with these individual projects complaining that they were shorted.

Just one example is the soccer stadium. Although I don't agree with building one if they are going to build it and spend 37 mil. that comes up way short IMO. Scrap it and put that money to better use. I mean if they are intent on building it lets do it first class.

dankrutka
08-25-2019, 01:22 PM
In my opinion, 500 bus shelters is one of the most important items included. They can both provide critical shelter to those who rely on buses while at the the same time promoting bus use. As others have said, this should have been done with other city funds already, but I'd be glad to see it done with MAPS IV.

soonerguru
08-25-2019, 02:24 PM
Just one example is the soccer stadium. Although I don't agree with building one if they are going to build it and spend 37 mil. that comes up way short IMO. Scrap it and put that money to better use. I mean if they are intent on building it lets do it first class.

As others have pointed out, it is way more than enough to build what they are discussing.

okccowan
08-25-2019, 02:46 PM
I'll vote yes, but I agree that much of this should have been done from a dedicated tax, not through MAPS. Basically, I agree with Ed that we should be increasing tax rate not misusing MAPS to create endowments that could very well be abused. I also agree we should do things like the soccer stadium right ($72 million) rather than take half measures. The same applies to the non-BRT BRT.

Laramie
08-25-2019, 02:49 PM
Sixteen projects, $978 million initiative, MAPS IV covers more projects & funding than any previous penny sales tax initiative.

catch22
08-25-2019, 03:39 PM
Seems clear to me that the city leaders don’t have the political ability to get OKC voters to tax themselves for the things they need to fund through the general budget and standard sales tax. They must know OKC voters won’t agree to a permanent tax hike to fund the things that need to be funded. So instead of finding a permanent solution, they are hoping to use the MAPS brand to fund these things. I’m glad they are seeking to resolve some of these problems, but they are going about it the wrong way.

Laramie
08-25-2019, 05:17 PM
Seems clear to me that the city leaders don’t have the political ability to get OKC voters to tax themselves for the things they need to fund through the general budget and standard sales tax. They must know OKC voters won’t agree to a permanent tax hike to fund the things that need to be funded. So instead of finding a permanent solution, they are hoping to use the MAPS brand to fund these things. I’m glad they are seeking to resolve some of these problems, but they are going about it the wrong way.

Well, not necessarily, voters like the fact they feel there's some input with capital improvement projects thru MAPS. If this were apart of the general fund; it's strictly thru council representative government affirming 'aye or nay.' Much like when the city approves its budget.

Ed Shadid
08-25-2019, 06:28 PM
Well, not necessarily, voters like the fact they feel there's some input with capital improvement projects thru MAPS. If this were apart of the general fund; it's strictly thru council representative government affirming 'aye or nay.' Much like when the city approves its budget.

So. Incredibly. Frustrating. The language for MAPS4 is new and unlike previous MAPS ballots. The only language on the ballot in December will be to call for a 1-cent tax for the General Fund for 8 years.

mugofbeer
08-25-2019, 07:34 PM
Seems clear to me that the city leaders don’t have the political ability to get OKC voters to tax themselves for the things they need to fund through the general budget and standard sales tax. They must know OKC voters won’t agree to a permanent tax hike to fund the things that need to be funded. So instead of finding a permanent solution, they are hoping to use the MAPS brand to fund these things. I’m glad they are seeking to resolve some of these problems, but they are going about it the wrong way.

I'm going to guess part of the city's problem is the source of their operating revenue. Since the city can't use property taxes and must rely on sales taxes and other fees, they are limited in their ability to fund "those things cities should normally be funding" that many of the posters feel are not MAPS issues.

If property taxes could be used, there would be a greater ability to fund "human based" things that are really a function of how much citizens want to to give to those sorts of things. Sales taxes are not infinite and have a certain amount of a competition factor if OKCs tax rate starts to get too high. Retailers could opt to go across the hiway to Edmond or Moore.

soonerguru
08-25-2019, 07:59 PM
Basically the city is stepping up to fund infrastructure for things that were chiefly the province of nonprofits. Having worked in government, I can assure you that a sudden funding pool for, say, an animal shelter, would never happen. Government budgeting is always, "what can you cut this year?" in the rare event of any kind of sudden budget increase (pink unicorn) it is usually expended on COLAs for employees or something to cover health care cost increases or when a few additional employees are hired.

The fact that we are funding all of these separate facilities and projects in one fell swoop is transformational, whether it is more buses and bus shelters, facilities for people with addiction and mental health problems, sidewalks and streetlights, etc.

It's easy to throw stones, but these investments -- which is what they are -- will be game changing for our city.

It's absurd to just say, "The city should just.have a billion dollars and pay for this stuff out of the budget." Anyone who says that has clearly never worked in city or state government. Perhaps it's different for federal agencies, but I doubt it, because even DOD outsources practically everything to the private sector.

SoonerQueen
08-26-2019, 12:38 AM
We were really pulling for the World Class Aquarium. That is something that would attract all ages and would be a destination place for visitors.

Geographer
08-26-2019, 06:23 AM
It's absurd to just say, "The city should just.have a billion dollars and pay for this stuff out of the budget." Anyone who says that has clearly never worked in city or state government. Perhaps it's different for federal agencies, but I doubt it, because even DOD outsources practically everything to the private sector.

My only pushback here is that there are other general obligation bonds that could be an avenue for some of the projects listed here that could be argued don't match official language of intent for what MAPS is.

Bunty
08-26-2019, 08:02 AM
Mind boggling to think they had a chance to put a World Class Aquarium on the list and we get this. If they did a poll with all these projects plus the Aquarium I would be willing to bet a World Class Aquarium would finish at the top. And it would be a better return for the tax payers. It would be something that would have people flocking to the downtown area ready to spend their money.

Find a billionaire to build the aquarium, like how Tulsa got its world class park.

soonerguru
08-26-2019, 09:46 AM
My only pushback here is that there are other general obligation bonds that could be an avenue for some of the projects listed here that could be argued don't match official language of intent for what MAPS is.
Agreed. But the last round focused mostly on roads, an area of great need as well.

TheTravellers
08-26-2019, 09:56 AM
Agreed. But the last round focused mostly on roads, an area of great need as well.

Not really. Convention Center, Scissortail Park, Streetcar, Riversport Rapids, Fairgrounds bldg, trails, sidewalks, senior centers, and infrastructure. Infrastructure got $47M out of it, so that's not anywhere close to "mostly" (and I didn't dig into how much roads actually got out of that $47M, so it could be even less).

https://www.okc.gov/government/maps-3/projects

You might be thinking of the Better Streets Safer City thing, which is mostly road-related.

Pete
08-26-2019, 10:35 AM
Gazette has a story coming out later today with extensive interviews with the mayor and JoBeth Hamon.

It will be worth reading as much is mentioned about the process.