Karchmer Garage

[betts]

I disagree. We have reasonable weather - we're not Minneapolis. I seriously doubt the absence of an above or below-ground connection to a generic parking garage keeps businesses from locating downtown.

[shawnw]

Um, I thought P180 got some outside funding to do EKG? Different part?

[_Kyle]

Is this still in the works?

[Pete]

Yes, but not for a while and it will likely look quite different than last proposed.

[HangryHippo]

What happened with this proposal? Karchmer proposed this and the garage next to the Melting Pot and now neither are going anywhere.

[Pete]

Don Karchmer seems to have Rick Dowell disease.

No matter what, the Sheridan and Oklahoma project would come first and I'm sure it will still happen in some form.

[HangryHippo]

Don Karchmer seems to have Rick Dowell disease.

lulz. It's an epidemic.

[5alive]

If you have been diagnosed with Dowell's Disease and can't get relief call Karr and Karr

[Urbanized]

Karchmer's plans have slowed because of commodities prices. Those plans were based on assumptions and assurances that there would be more parking demand from the other side of the tracks. If prices had rebounded he would be under construction at this point. I believe that you will ultimately see good development out of him; only the timeline has changed.

Completely different than Dowell. I have heard that Dowell's main issue is that he likes to pay cash and only scales up to the next thing when something he has done previously has positive cash flow. It's a nice system for flipping houses but not very scalable for high rise development.

[Pete]

^

That 'Dowell pays cash' thing is a myth.

I've talked to him about this several times and he said he always borrows for his projects, but perhaps less than many other developers.


But good to hear you are hopeful about Karchmer. The many guests and staff at the new Marriott Renaissance will need spaces, as does the entire heart of the district.

[Urbanized]

Well, I did say Dowell "LIKES to pay cash" so I have some wiggle room in that statement.

[Pete]

Well, I did say Dowell "LIKES to pay cash" so I have some wiggle room in that statement.

Don't we all????

[Urbanized]

Haha come on Pete...you of all know that the BEST developers always prefer to use OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY!

[Pete]

City poised to sell parking garage and facilitate the construction of another

[TheTravellers]

City poised to sell parking garage and facilitate the construction of another

Pete - have you brought up all the shenanigans with small-meetings-so-as-to-not-meet-quorum, closed-door meetings, no open records compliance, etc. with the Mayor Holt? Wondering if he might care enough to do something about it (might not have the power, though)? Couch needs to go, he might be good, but his tenure has lasted too long and there's way too much of this good-ol-boy sh!t that's been going on way too long...

[Pete]

Pete - have you brought up all the shenanigans with small-meetings-so-as-to-not-meet-quorum, closed-door meetings, no open records compliance, etc. with the Mayor Holt? Wondering if he might care enough to do something about it (might not have the power, though)? Couch needs to go, he might be good, but his tenure has lasted too long and there's way too much of this good-ol-boy sh!t that's been going on way too long...

Holt or any OKC mayor has no more power than a member of city council.

However, Couch as the City Manager does serve at the discretion of council. Interestingly, he's coming up on his 18-year anniversary in that job (plus 13.5 years as a city employee prior) where previously no OKC City Manager has served more than 7 years and most far less.

[TheTravellers]

Holt or any OKC mayor has no more power than a member of city council.

....

Right, I know that, but he's the public face of OKC, and as such, most likely has enough power to start asking around, digging around, and just to start and initiate things by asking staff/council members, etc. to do things. However, that may amount to absolutely nothing since the status quo is apparently just fine and dandy with Couch (obviously) and the council. Public pressure can sometimes work to uncover or at least start uncovering things.

Tweets directed at Holt saying "Hey, what about <this shady thing>, can you explain this?" over and over from multiple sources/people might be interesting to see, and if any response is made...

[Pete]

Right, I know that, but he's the public face of OKC, and as such, most likely has enough power to start asking around, digging around, and just to start and initiate things by asking staff/council members, etc. to do things. However, that may amount to absolutely nothing since the status quo is apparently just fine and dandy with Couch (obviously) and the council. Public pressure can sometimes work to uncover or at least start uncovering things.

This is what Mayor Holt posted on Twitter when someone tagged him my my article post, asking why the city was selling:

"Well, first of all, “the city” doesn’t “want” to do anything yet. This story is just reporting preliminary conversations. All of this would have its day in front of the Council should it advance. "

That is simply not true.

There is a negotiated Memorandum of Understanding for the Santa Fe Garage that the coucil will be voting on next Tuesday. These are absolutely not "preliminary conversations" and Holt knows that because he has been briefed as well.

Does not give me hope that he is going to lead any change or even challenge the practice of closed-door meetings.

Remember, if not for my reporting no one would even be aware of this and I doubt anyone would have picked up on the item from the agenda which doesn't get posted until Friday.

Now that this has come out, I'm hoping to have the MOU sometime tomorrow.

[Urbanized]

Pete, have the people you've spoken directed you to where in the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act this activity is described as illegal? I'd be very interested in seeing the language. I linked the specific law in another thread, but here it is again if anyone would care to read it (I have): https://www.ok.gov/occy/documents/OpenMeeting.pdf

Here are some excerpts:

§ 303. Times and places — Advance notice. — All meetings of public bodies, as defined hereinafter, shall be held at specified times and places which are convenient to the public and shall be open to the public, except as hereinafter specifically provided. All meetings of such public bodies, except for executive sessions of the State Banking Board and Oklahoma Savings and Loan Board, shall be preceded by advance public notice specifying the time and place of each such meeting to be convened as well as the subject matter or matters to be considered at such meeting, as hereinafter provided.

§ 304. Definitions. —
As used in the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act:

1. “Public body” means the governing bodies of all municipalities located within the State of Oklahoma, boards of county commissioners of the counties in the State of Oklahoma, boards of public and higher education in the State of Oklahoma and all boards, bureaus, commissions, agencies, trusteeships, authorities, councils, committees, public trusts, task forces or study groups in the State of Oklahoma supported in whole or in part by public funds or entrusted with the expending of public funds, or administering public property, and shall include all committees or subcommittees of any public body. It shall not mean the state judiciary, the Council on Judicial Complaints when conducting, discussing, or deliberating any matter relating to a complaint received or filed with the Council, or the State Legislature or administrative staffs of public bodies, including, but not limited to, faculty meetings and athletic staff meetings of institutions of higher education, when said staffs are not meeting with the public body, or entry-year assistance committees, as defined in Section 6-152 of Title 70 of the Oklahoma Statutes. Furthermore, it shall not mean the multidisciplinary team provided for in subsection B of Section 1-502.2 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes or any school board meeting for the sole purpose of considering recommendations of said multidisciplinary team and deciding the placement of any child who is the subject of such recommendations. Furthermore, it shall not mean meetings conducted by stewards designated by the Oklahoma Horse Racing Commission pursuant to Section 203.4 of Title 3A of the Oklahoma Statutes when the stewards are officiating at races or otherwise enforcing rules of the Commission;

2. “Meeting” means the conduct of business of a public body by a majority of its members being personally together or, as authorized by Section 307.1 of this title, together pursuant to a teleconference;

3. “Regularly scheduled meeting” means a meeting at which the regular business of the public body is conducted;

4. “Special meeting” means any meeting of a public body other than a regularly scheduled meeting or emergency meeting;
...

Another pertinent passage:

§ 306. Circumvention of act — Teleconferences excepted. — No informal gatherings or any electronic or telephonic communications, except teleconferences as authorized by Section 3 of this act, among a majority of the
members of a public body shall be used to decide any action or to take any vote on any matter.

Note that as defined above, "Public Body" means a quorum of Council members (in OKC's case five or more when Council is fully seated).

It is also relevant to note that an executive session (non-public meeting of a quorum of officials) is allowed for specifically in cases involving the purchase or appraisal of real property (real estate). NOWHERE have I found actual legal language that says what the City is doing is even unethical, much less illegal as seems to be being alleged.

I'm not a lawyer. I'm also not saying you are wrong; I don't know this for certain. I only know that I can't find language which indicates wrongdoing in any way, shape or form. I trust that you have done research; just asking that if there are going to be public allegations of "shenanigans" on the part of our elected and appointed officials, there should 100% be accompanying proof, such as the passages I am quoting directly from state law. This is an incredibly serious matter on many levels, and I don't think it's a place for casual implication.

If someone wants to advocate that the open meetings laws be changed to include any meeting of two or more elected officials, fine. That exists in some states. But it does not exist in Oklahoma, and I'm sure there would be many unintended consequences to consider before implementing such a change to our laws. I personally think they would make efficient governance very difficult.

As for City staff meeting with Council members and briefing them before Council meetings on agenda items which include large transactions, controversial topics or items which are a part of an overall strategy of growth, economic development, etc., I think such meetings are 100% crucial. As in, the business of City governance would grind to an absolute halt without them. How in the world could we conduct any business when the people casting deciding votes don't have any background on a matter, show up without preparation, interpretation or recommendations from the staff that they appoint/hire to handle the day-to-day business of the City? The answer is: we could NOT expect to conduct City business in this manner. It would be disastrous. And if a law was passed causing any meetings of two or more officials to be a matter of public record - as opposed to the current requirement that this only apply to meetings with a quorum - well, the City Manager and other City officials would just have to meet with them one at a time instead of two or three, making less efficient use of staff time.

I absolutely HATE getting involved in these discussions, for what it is worth. I don't at all enjoy a contrarian role here. I just think it super critical that before everyone here takes as gospel that our officials are doing something wrong, that there be documented evidence provided and accompanying language which confirms that there was indeed wrongdoing.

Also, regarding Mayor Holt, he is a past recipient of FOI Oklahoma's Sunshine Award. He also signed their open government pledge. I've known him for a dozen years, had a number of great conversations with him, and I strongly feel that if he believes the City is acting unethically in this regard, he will seek to fix it. So far I have heard nothing from him to indicate he believes other City officials are acting in manner other than above-board.

I tried yesterday to just leave helpful links and not make an argument for/against, and disappointed that nobody here seemed to bother to read the actual law and contrast what is happening vs what is expected, legally. Again, I'd be very interested to know if there are other laws which apply. I don't know of any, is all that I'm saying.

[Pete]

Pete, have the people you've spoken directed you to where in the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act this activity is described as illegal? I'd be very interested in seeing the language.

As with any statute there is a lot of room for interpretation and there is also a great deal of case law in addition to just the statute itself.

I'm not going to get into this on-line, I will merely say I have spent a ton of time on this, talked to the people at FOI Oklahoma extensively as well as other local experts.

[Rover]

Pete, have the people you've spoken directed you to where in the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act this activity is described as illegal? I'd be very interested in seeing the language. I linked the specific law in another thread, but here it is again if anyone would care to read it (I have): https://www.ok.gov/occy/documents/OpenMeeting.pdf

Here are some excerpts:



Another pertinent passage:



Note that as defined above, "Public Body" means a quorum of Council members (in OKC's case five or more when Council is fully seated).

It is also relevant to note that an executive session (non-public meeting of a quorum of officials) is allowed for specifically in cases involving the purchase or appraisal of real property (real estate). NOWHERE have I found actual legal language that says what the City is doing is even unethical, much less illegal as seems to be being alleged.

I'm not a lawyer. I'm also not saying you are wrong; I don't know this for certain. I only know that I can't find language which indicates wrongdoing in any way, shape or form. I trust that you have done research; just asking that if there are going to be public allegations of "shenanigans" on the part of our elected and appointed officials, there should 100% be accompanying proof, such as the passages I am quoting directly from state law. This is an incredibly serious matter on many levels, and I don't think it's a place for casual implication.

If someone wants to advocate that the open meetings laws be changed to include any meeting of two or more elected officials, fine. That exists in some states. But it does not exist in Oklahoma, and I'm sure there would be many unintended consequences to consider before implementing such a change to our laws. I personally think they would make efficient governance very difficult.

As for City staff meeting with Council members and briefing them before Council meetings on agenda items which include large transactions, controversial topics or items which are a part of an overall strategy of growth, economic development, etc., I think such meetings are 100% crucial. As in, the business of City governance would grind to an absolute halt without them. How in the world could we conduct any business when the people casting deciding votes don't have any background on a matter, show up without preparation, interpretation or recommendations from the staff that they appoint/hire to handle the day-to-day business of the City? The answer is: we could NOT expect to conduct City business in this manner. It would be disastrous. And if a law was passed causing any meetings of two or more officials to be a matter of public record - as opposed to the current requirement that this only apply to meetings with a quorum - well, the City Manager and other City officials would just have to meet with them one at a time instead of two or three, making less efficient use of staff time.

I absolutely HATE getting involved in these discussions, for what it is worth. I don't at all enjoy a contrarian role here. I just think it super critical that before everyone here takes as gospel that our officials are doing something wrong, that there be documented evidence provided and accompanying language which confirms that there was indeed wrongdoing.

Also, regarding Mayor Holt, he is a past recipient of FOI Oklahoma's Sunshine Award. He also signed their open government pledge. I've known him for a dozen years, had a number of great conversations with him, and I strongly feel that if he believes the City is acting unethically in this regard, he will seek to fix it. So far I have heard nothing from him to indicate he believes other City officials are acting in manner other than above-board.

I tried yesterday to just leave helpful links and not make an argument for/against, and disappointed that nobody here seemed to bother to read the actual law and contrast what is happening vs what is expected, legally. Again, I'd be very interested to know if there are other laws which apply. I don't know of any, is all that I'm saying.

Well said.

[HOT ROD]

I want the new garage to be built, as it is a much better use for that land AND is very much needed.

However, I do NOT like this shady 'deal' to sell Bank First AND Continental the city owned Santa Fe garage. Why are these not mutually exclusive (from council prospective)? Why does Bank First (meaning Continental) get to own Santa Fe garage with the carrot that if so, Karchmer will build the much needed Bricktown garage FOR BANK FIRST and connect the two underground (meaning TIF request). ...

I don't get it, and I don't like any of these Couch and Oconner lead shady deals. I honestly do think they mean well for OKC, but this is too much. We shouldn't have to go under the rug for a local developer to build a much needed garage in Bricktown that's basically already approved and waiting on his final designs and financing. OKC shouldn't be forced to sell the highest earning garage to make this happen either.

Why is Continental afraid of a long term lease at Santa Fe? Ditto that qu for Bank First?

I am all for Bank First purchasing Chase Tower and being a major tenant requiring parking lease, but I don't agree they should buy the parking and certainly not for Continental which whom the city seems to be not in favor of doing anyway (since it hasn't yet been done). This screams of corruption and it has Couch's handiwork all over it, particularly the closed door, backroom nature but then last minute disclosure that's basically a rubber stamp. ..

I think Bank First can buy Chase tower and long term leases at Santa Fe garage from OKC. Continental can also get long term leases from Santa Fe garage. Karchmer can build his garage and get long term leases from one or both of the two companies (and more?). OKC should not sell Santa Fe garage, in fact, the garage goes with the Santa Fe train station across the street/diagonal (which is city owned) - please don't mess this up and potentially tie up future development with these 'ownership' issues. ...

[baralheia]

I think it's important to note that Cathy O'Connor, who leads the Alliance for Economic Development, used to be the Assistant City Manager under - you guessed it - Jim Couch, up until 2011 according to this article on NewsOK. Couch also serves on the board of the Alliance. I don't understand why this organization does not fall under the Open Records Act when it's essentially a public trust in all but name. What they are doing isn't strictly illegal by the letter of the law, but it's most certainly unethical.

[Jersey Boss]

Pete, have the people you've spoken directed you to where in the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act this activity is described as illegal? I'd be very interested in seeing the language. I linked the specific law in another thread, but here it is again if anyone would care to read it (I have): https://www.ok.gov/occy/documents/OpenMeeting.pdf

Here are some excerpts:



Another pertinent passage:



Note that as defined above, "Public Body" means a quorum of Council members (in OKC's case five or more when Council is fully seated).

It is also relevant to note that an executive session (non-public meeting of a quorum of officials) is allowed for specifically in cases involving the purchase or appraisal of real property (real estate). NOWHERE have I found actual legal language that says what the City is doing is even unethical, much less illegal as seems to be being alleged.

I'm not a lawyer. I'm also not saying you are wrong; I don't know this for certain. I only know that I can't find language which indicates wrongdoing in any way, shape or form. I trust that you have done research; just asking that if there are going to be public allegations of "shenanigans" on the part of our elected and appointed officials, there should 100% be accompanying proof, such as the passages I am quoting directly from state law. This is an incredibly serious matter on many levels, and I don't think it's a place for casual implication.

If someone wants to advocate that the open meetings laws be changed to include any meeting of two or more elected officials, fine. That exists in some states. But it does not exist in Oklahoma, and I'm sure there would be many unintended consequences to consider before implementing such a change to our laws. I personally think they would make efficient governance very difficult.

As for City staff meeting with Council members and briefing them before Council meetings on agenda items which include large transactions, controversial topics or items which are a part of an overall strategy of growth, economic development, etc., I think such meetings are 100% crucial. As in, the business of City governance would grind to an absolute halt without them. How in the world could we conduct any business when the people casting deciding votes don't have any background on a matter, show up without preparation, interpretation or recommendations from the staff that they appoint/hire to handle the day-to-day business of the City? The answer is: we could NOT expect to conduct City business in this manner. It would be disastrous. And if a law was passed causing any meetings of two or more officials to be a matter of public record - as opposed to the current requirement that this only apply to meetings with a quorum - well, the City Manager and other City officials would just have to meet with them one at a time instead of two or three, making less efficient use of staff time.

I absolutely HATE getting involved in these discussions, for what it is worth. I don't at all enjoy a contrarian role here. I just think it super critical that before everyone here takes as gospel that our officials are doing something wrong, that there be documented evidence provided and accompanying language which confirms that there was indeed wrongdoing.

Also, regarding Mayor Holt, he is a past recipient of FOI Oklahoma's Sunshine Award. He also signed their open government pledge. I've known him for a dozen years, had a number of great conversations with him, and I strongly feel that if he believes the City is acting unethically in this regard, he will seek to fix it. So far I have heard nothing from him to indicate he believes other City officials are acting in manner other than above-board.

I tried yesterday to just leave helpful links and not make an argument for/against, and disappointed that nobody here seemed to bother to read the actual law and contrast what is happening vs what is expected, legally. Again, I'd be very interested to know if there are other laws which apply. I don't know of any, is all that I'm saying.

Is it fair to say you are in favor of the status quo? What is your position on the apparent lie that Pete reported on coming from Holt's twitter?

[Pete]

I'm not going to debate the statute and case law here, for a variety of reasons.

I will merely say the statue is a general guideline and written with the express intent of making government as open as possible and there has been much Oklahoma case law about these very issues, so if you're interested I'd recommend doing some research.