Bad Information on $30 Million Core to Shore Acquisition?
Today city staff went out even further insisting that $30 million of the $280 million Core to Shore convention site favored by Mayor Mick Cornett be used to buy out an OG&E substation on the site regardless of whether it’s chosen for the convention center.
As you’ll recall, the mayor tried to tell the MAPS 3 citizens’ advisory board at its very first meeting that this site, and the current location of the Southwest Producers Cooperative are the only two viable sites for a convention center. He also instructed the committee that no matter what, $30 million of the $280 million for the convention center would be used to buy the substation property – essentially telling them if they chose a different site, they would have $30 million less to work with.
Recall also that the resolution the city council passed never mentioned $30 million for the substation – only that $280 million go toward construction of the convention center. The city council never had a public discussion or vote indicating otherwise.
So on July 23 of last year I reported the following:
Councilman Larry McAtee, a member of the oversight committee, said the selection process will be handled fairly, and without bias.
McAtee said the city council never agreed to reserve $30 million for the OG&E property, that no public discussion of such a purchase has occurred, and that $280 million will be budgeted for a convention center regardless of what site is chosen.
“This will get cleared up as we move forward with the process of selecting a site, and selecting the consultants, and looking at the details of the sites,” McAtee said. “There will be an open selection process for the convention center.”
I talked again with Councilman McAtee on Tuesday. He said this whole matter remains to be “debated,” and that he needs to visit with Wenger because he believes the instructions as I’ve reported are incorrect.
“I say give the voters what they voted for,” McAtee said. “And what the voters voted for was a $280 million convention center that was to be located at a later time.”
Conversations with other council members indicate they also had not agreed to dedicate $30 million of MAPS 3 funds for the substation. In fact, on Tuesday Councilman Pete White suggested at the council meeting (Cornett was out of town and not present) that the $30 million be spent on a wellness center for south Oklahoma City if the substation site is not chosen for the convention center.
Now for the good part: Despite all this, despite previous comments by MAPS 3 program manager Eric Wenger in the past that there was no direction on spending $30 million on the substation, that all changed Tuesday at the meeting of the convention center subcommittee. The meeting began with a report by MAPS 3 consultant Mike Mize that the CITY COUNCIL had instructed him to reserve $30 million of the $280 million convention center funding for the substation (when asked about this, he said this instruction came through Wenger).
I asked Wenger, and he confirmed the instruction. I asked him if he could direct me to any moment that the city council had made any such policy decision. He instead told me this instruction was passed on by Mayor Mick Cornett.
I then went to Assistant City Manager Cathy O’Connor. She also could not provide any moment when the city council voted and publicly committed to this expenditure. She insisted, however, that this was always a part of the budgeting for MAPS 3.
Where? When? So far, there is no documentation of any such decision. And clearly there seems to be some dispute by the council on this matter.
So here’s the punchline to all this: the threat of having $30 million less to work with if the mayor’s favored site wasn’t chosen went nowhere with the committee, which includes civic leaders like Russell Perry, Larry Nichols, Roy Williams, and Kirk Humphreys. They threw out both of the Core to Shore sites favored by the mayor and went with four other sites as finalists, three of which were added into consideration after the mayor told the citizens’ advisory board that they really had only his two favored Core to Shore sites to consider.
This committee’s vote was unanimous. Consultants with Populous then provided them with their preliminary scoring, which matched the committee’s choices.
This, my friends, ought to get interesting.
Thank you for joining our conversation on OKC Central. We encourage your discussion but ask that you stay within the bounds of our commenting and posting policy.
Comments
Isn’t it interesting that our mayor is employed by an advertising agency whose largest client is OG&E? Interesting? Yes!
I’m not sure it’s fair to insinuate that Obie Won. Note also that it’s been Kirk Humphreys, a board member of OG&E, who has been less than supportive of the Core to Shore site favored by Cornett and told the committee today that there are alternatives to buying and moving the substation, including building a $2 million building shell that hides the operation from public view. Clearly though, Cornett has made Core to Shore a priority, and in the eyes of critics, with blinders on to other needs of the urban core and at the expense of other areas of downtown.
Although it would seem unlikely that the Council would go against the unanimous recommendation by the Oversight Committee and the Consultant, they can still decide to put the C.C. in the Park/Core to Shore site.
Refreshing find Steve, great job. I hope Ed Shadid wins. He is staying more independent from outside money than any candidate this cycle.
While I never liked the substation as a site for the convenion center, I also don’t like the appearance of the substation, especially right next to our new Central Park. I would like to see it moved. However, $30 million seems a bit pricey for the land, given what has been paid for the other land in the area. I would think the city might have some land for which they could trade with OG&E, and could simply pay the cost of relocating the equipment. It’s hard to believe the relocation costs would approach $30 million, although I’m not knowledgeable on the subject of moving substations, I must admit.
Of course OG+E was looking for a premium price, which shouldn’t even have to be said.
The way I see this is more public pressure on the convention center issue. But they already funded nearly $200,000 for a pedestrian TUNNEL under Robinson at the same meeting yesterday.
Perhaps they need to un-fund that at the next meeting.
While I agree that OG&E was undoubtedly looking for a premium price, so were the cotton gin owners. Both just found themselves holding a piece of property with considerably less value than they’d assumed yesterday. If the lumberyard ends up being the hub, that’s going to add value to the cotton gin property, but it’s always easiest to sell land at a premium to a city that needs said land.
Guys, another thing to keep in mind on the substation – I’ve seen NOTHING that indicates OG&E sought out this transaction. Instead, public documents show city staff, directed by the mayor, began negotiations with the utility about buying the property for a potential convention center site A FULL YEAR before voters approved MAPS 3. As with the current discussion, one question that arises is whether city staff is taking policy directions from the mayor that traditionally were to be made by the mayor and council.
I believe the City, not OG&E, initiated the negotiations to acquire the substation. At the time the site was being sought for the new convention center. The $30 million mol represents the cost to OG&E to rebuild the same substation infrastructure elsewhere. While the effective price of the land from the City’s perspective would be a very ridiculous $400+ per square foot for the 1.7 acre site, OG&E does not appear to benefit significantly from the transaction.
I have no doubt that the civic benefits of moving the substation in no way outweigh the cost, and there are plenty of lower-cost solutions to improve the substation’s physical and visual presence on the park, as outlined in this OK Gazette commentary: MAPS 3.1.
Even if the city council decides to spend the $30 million on something other than the convention center, the substation should remain, and the money should be used for projects that provide more civic benefit. Moving the substation is not an effective expenditure of these funds and not in the city’s best interest.
Why would you locate a park next to a substation?
Move the park or substation. Build condos next to the park which will bring more people out to use the park. You may get some of the costs back if some developers wanted that land to build next to the park.
I say OG & E should pay the City $30 million since we the people allow them to operate as a utility in the corporate limits and suck profits out of the taxpayers pockets. Leave it where it is and slap some neon lights on it and call it good.
Down here in Dallas, we have an electric substation happily coexisting in the middle of the expensive Turtle Creek/Uptown area, adjacent to Turtle Creek Park and the Katy Trail. We simply surrounded the thing with a high, decorative stone wall and landscaping, while simultaneously burying the cables that connect it to its distribution line.
That is a much lower cost alternative.
Steve, you said, “on Tuesday Councilman Pete White suggested at the council meeting (Cornett was out of town and not present) that the $30 million be spent on a wellness center for south Oklahoma City if the substation site is not chosen for the convention center.”
Actually, a new family aquatic center (like Earlywine) was being discussed and that’s when Pete said that he thought that the unused part of the $30 million might be able to be used to fund it. Here’s a YouTube video I did last night … March 20, Sam Bowman & Pete White
Yes Doug, I meant to call it an aquatics center. But what this all means is the same – the city council has not, as told to the MAPS 3 subcommittee, directed that this $30 million be spent on the OG&E substation no matter what. In fact, at least half the council says that was never their intent.
Hmmm. Looks like this process is starting to build, you should pardon the expression, momentum.