In a recent Council meeting (7/20/10), Parks & Recreation Director, Wendel Whisenhunt, gave a presentation and stated that there are 207 miles in the Master Trail plan. AFTER the 57 miles (mol) of MAPS 3 trails are complete, there will be 140 miles of completed trails but there remains 60 miles of trails that are unfunded.

This seemed to come as a surprise by two Councilmen

Marrs: "But I thought the MAPS 3 trails project was going to build all of the trails in the Master Plan?"

Kelley: "It is my understanding then from the MAPS 3 that there will not be funding to complete the trails as mapped out here?"

The answer to both by Mr. Whisenhunt was that MAPS 3 does not fully fund/complete the Master Plan.

The City manager tried to explain it away by saying that MAPS 3 was very fluid before presented to voters and things were being fine tuned. That what they tried to do with the Trails element was take the proposed trails that they thought would get the most use. Of course this doesn't address what was presented to voters and what the reality was then and now.

Can understand their confusion as during the campaign, phrases like "virtually completing" and "almost complete" were used...

From the City's site: http://www.okc.gov/maps3/summary.html (Summary of MAPS Projects)

Description: This project will construct 57 new miles of bicycling and walking trails, all but completing Oklahoma City’s trails master plan.


Oklahoma City unveiled MAPS 3 plan today (Oklahoman, 9/17/09)

The city's trails system would also be finished off with $40 million included in MAPS 3. The city has slowly been upgrading its trails, but would need decades to finish the 57 miles of trails left in the plan without MAPS funding.

Smaller projects included in Oklahoma City MAPS 3 proposal explained (Oklahoman, 11/29/09)

City officials came up with a master plan for trails 15 years ago. But at the rate funding has become available, it would take decades to complete the plan.

Many of the trails are already built around city lakes and the Oklahoma River. MAPS 3 would help connect them with 50 to 60 miles of new trails.

"The MAPS 3 money would do the big majority of what we need,” said Hal McKnight, chairman of the Oklahoma City trails advisory committee. "It would create a large contiguous circle around Oklahoma City of about 40 miles.”

From Yes for MAPS http://www.yesformaps.com/ (10/20/09)

The trails component of the proposal will complete a series of biking / walking / running / rollerblading trail loops throughout Oklahoma City, creating one of the longest and most impressive trail systems in the country. Over 50 miles of new trails will be added, and will create connections that give access to major destinations like the Oklahoma River, Lake Hefner, Lake Overholser, Lake Stanley Draper and other points of interest.

from an Oklahoman article (before the vote)
AT A GLANCE: MAPS 3 DETAILS

A master plan calling for additional bicycle and walking trails all across the city has been largely unfunded. This money would pay for 57 miles of new trails, virtually completing the city’s trails plan.

I can appreciate the fluidity the City Manager spoke of, but why was it never corrected? The quote I provided from the City's site is current, it still gives the impression the trails will be complete or nearly so.

Question is, when you heard those phrases did you realize that only half of the proposed remaining trails of the Master Plan were being funded? That although 57 miles (mol) are being funded w/MAPS 3, that 60 miles are still unfunded?

"The City has a trails master plan that will not be complete for decades, unless this initiative passes." (from the City's site) But the reality is that even with MAPS 3, it might be decades before the remaining 60 miles are completed.

This is one of the lesser projects and hope it doesn't apply to the rest, we can only wait and see if what was presented to voters aligns with reality.

All I gotta say is, if they take the money they plan on spending for citywide senior citizen aquatic centers then they can build all the trails. Why do we need senior citizen aquatic centers when everyone is fat anyway? Best place to lose the weight is on the trails!

All I gotta say is, if they take the money they plan on spending for citywide senior citizen aquatic centers then they can build all the trails. Why do we need senior citizen aquatic centers when everyone is fat anyway? Best place to lose the weight is on the trails!

I certainly hope this is said sarcastically. No one could be that callous and be serious.

It seems more as though they forgot about the remaining 60 miles than that MAPS 3 would only fund 57 new miles. It was never sold as more than 57 miles, despite being sold as completing the masterplan. Interesting.

I seriously believe that there is nobody at City Hall who has even read more than half of the existing plans for this city.

It seems more as though they forgot about the remaining 60 miles than that MAPS 3 would only fund 57 new miles. It was never sold as more than 57 miles, despite being sold as completing the masterplan. Interesting.

I seriously believe that there is nobody at City Hall who has even read more than half of the existing plans for this city.

You are right, and a point that I didn't include, they have been consistent in the number of miles that are funded w/MAPS 3 (57 mol). Its just the remaining amount of trails that has changed. The Parks Director was on the "Mayor's Magazine" show pre-vote but can't recall what he said then. Seems it was the "virtually complete" language. IF it was, that is in direct contradiction to what he said in the Council presentation. If anyone should know what the Master plan was/is and what was being funded under MAPS 3, he should be the man. Will try to locate my notes or the video of it.

The skeptics among us have to ask, how many other of the MAPS 3 projects are going to be along the same lines? They may very well all get built but just as with the trails, people thought they were getting a completed project in the end. Just as our own Council members who supported MAPS 3 thought it was going to complete the Trails. Not something that is going to have to be added on to later (at additional cost). Will be pitched along the same lines as "finishing MAPS 3 right" and "continuing the momentum".

There is no real reason to think that a trails system will ever be complete. I'm sure there will always be new proposals for expansion in years to come. While I understand the points bieng made, that won't mean that just because at some point it was suggested to be complete or had complete funding that we were lied to.

ljbab728: Of course there is a reason. They have a Master Trail plan. Said it was going to be complete (or nearly so) with MAPS 3. Not just suggested, they flat out said it. This is a Master Plan that is at least 15 years in the making. They haven't added anything to it since the MAPS 3 vote. Could they decide to add more proposed trails at some point in the future? Of course, but that isn't what I am talking about. I am talking about the announced trail system and how much of it will be funded/completed. If what they said during the campaign doesn't match up with reality, what would you call it?

ljbab728: Of course there is a reason. They have a Master Trail plan. Said it was going to be complete (or nearly so) with MAPS 3. Not just suggested, they flat out said it. This is a Master Plan that is at least 15 years in the making. They haven't added anything to it since the MAPS 3 vote. Could they decide to add more proposed trails at some point in the future? Of course, but that isn't what I am talking about. I am talking about the announced trail system and how much of it will be funded/completed. If what they said during the campaign doesn't match up with reality, what would you call it?

I would call it you trying to make a non-issue an issue. Why do you feel the need to make anything the city does a big conspiricy.

You are right, and a point that I didn't include, they have been consistent in the number of miles that are funded w/MAPS 3 (57 mol). Its just the remaining amount of trails that has changed. The Parks Director was on the "Mayor's Magazine" show pre-vote but can't recall what he said then. Seems it was the "virtually complete" language. IF it was, that is in direct contradiction to what he said in the Council presentation. If anyone should know what the Master plan was/is and what was being funded under MAPS 3, he should be the man. Will try to locate my notes or the video of it.

The skeptics among us have to ask, how many other of the MAPS 3 projects are going to be along the same lines? They may very well all get built but just as with the trails, people thought they were getting a completed project in the end. Just as our own Council members who supported MAPS 3 thought it was going to complete the Trails. Not something that is going to have to be added on to later (at additional cost). Will be pitched along the same lines as "finishing MAPS 3 right" and "continuing the momentum".

Convention center?
C2S boulevard?

And on a side note, I find it interesting that you actually keep notes of all of this stuff. I just assumed you had an incredible memory.

If the 57 miles are completed, that sounds like it would be about 70% of the master plan. So, really, from there it becomes a perception call of what "virtually complete", "all but complete", and "big majority" of it being completed means. Personally, I understood it to mean that it would have taken decades to get the proposed 57 miles without MAPS 3 and if MAPS 3 adds 57 miles, regardless of how much or how little that adds to the master plan, in a shorter amount of time, I won't feel lied to. IMO, 57 miles is the standard for MAPS 3.

And wherever anything was quantified in the MAPS 3 proposal, that's my standard. I'm not going to hold the city to any standard set by the subjective terminology or the relative perception of anyone who may have been stumping for the plan. The reality is that, in politics, one person is never responsible for the implementation of a program, and I default to taking qualitative or superlative statements mad by individuals that have not been or can not be quantified with a grain of salt. And the reality is that MAPS 3 was presented as a fluid plan, so I fully expect changes over the next decade anyway.

And given that we do this with sales tax, who knows what will really happen? But that is a choice this community has made and, hopefully, understands that aspect of it. In the end, I hope all projects promised are addresses by MAPS 3 and my best hope is that all the money is spent in a proportional manner to what was proposed and, if needed, to make priorities based on projected use and economic benefit.

Anyway, where can we see this master plan? Hopefully, MAPS 3 will focus on trails that help connect what we already have. I think the more useful and contiguous it is, it will be easier to complete the additional 60 miles or so in the future.

Spartan...Memory is pretty good...things get stuck....google and bookmarks help a lot to verify if the info I am remembering is correct...but when it comes to the video, recording & notes are about the only way to go...and as you know, there are some that will insist that a certain item was never said etc and you have to be able to cite the source...LOL

BDP, I understand what you are saying but seriously, do you really consider 70% to be "virtually complete" etc? Would you be happy with your contractor if he came to you and said, "well we have 70% of the house built, we think thats close enough and are calling it Done"

Think most would put that percentage much higher than that...especially when other quotes said completed without the qualifiers. When taking all of the statements as a whole, think most would put it in the 90% to 100% range.

ljbab728: Of course there is a reason. They have a Master Trail plan. Said it was going to be complete (or nearly so) with MAPS 3. Not just suggested, they flat out said it. This is a Master Plan that is at least 15 years in the making. They haven't added anything to it since the MAPS 3 vote. Could they decide to add more proposed trails at some point in the future? Of course, but that isn't what I am talking about. I am talking about the announced trail system and how much of it will be funded/completed. If what they said during the campaign doesn't match up with reality, what would you call it?

You misunderstood my point. I wasn't just talking about MAPS 3 planning and funding. I was talking about what might happen in the future. In 20 years if all of the current plans have been completed and a few years later a new plan comes into being that adds to the trails system does that mean that we were lied to when we were told it was complete? Nothing in city planning is ever finalized or complete even when it is stated it is. I do understand what you're saying which is a different perspective.

ljbab728: sorry for the misunderstanding. I agree, if 20 years from now a new Master Plan is devised, does that mean that we were lied to now? No, not at all. My point is were we mislead about it completing the current plan or not. Even the Mayor thought it would "fundamentally complete" the plan (just as those surprised Council members thought). Ran across this by Mayor Cornett from the MAPS 3 Announcement Press Conference (Sept 2009)


"We have a Master Bicycle Trail Plan and we have been implementing that slowly through the years. We felt though that at the current rate of funding it was going be a couple of decades before we finished it and that was not acceptable. In our effort to be a more healthy community and to prioritize people getting out and exercising we have decided to place $40 million for the Master Trail plan into MAPS 3. This will fundamentally complete the Master Trail package we have been working on for over 10 years and would have been working on for another two decades had it not been placed into MAPS 3."

Now we learn that about half of the Master Plan is still unfunded and due to the time lag in collecting the tax and a future MAPS tax or even with bond issues, it may still be decades before the plan is complete.

Interesting side note, this is what he had to say at the same press conference about the Fairgrounds improvements:


"We have $60 million in there that will fundamentally, if not totally almost complete the Master Plan at the Fairgrounds."

While that one is a bit convoluted and certainly open to some interpretation, it should be quite a while (your 20 year time frame is acceptable) before they ask for any more money for the Fairgrounds (which has the ongoing Hotel/Motel tax for any future needs).

I would call it you trying to make a non-issue an issue. Why do you feel the need to make anything the city does a big conspiricy.

As far as the "conspiracy" word, I think Spartan is more qualified to address that.

Why do your posts come across as if the City can do no wrong?

Why don't you think that having 60 miles of unfunded trails (when you were told the number would be near zero) isn't an issue? Presumably, it will cost at least $40M more for the remaining portion (due to inflation and eventual method of funding, could be considerably more)

Trails only benefit existing development. When the show is run by developers, only projects which benefit new development are going to get priority. Maybe if the existing network of trails could be extended out into the far reaches of NW Oklahoma County, connections made with Moore and Edmond, we'd see a different level of enthusiasm?

Just curious. If M3 adds about 54 miles, but when all is said and done, there are still roughly 60 miles not done, did someone draw up a new set of 54 miles worth of trails and insert that into the master plan, or did several someones just forget their basic math.

Sounds more like the latter.

BDP, I understand what you are saying but seriously, do you really consider 70% to be "virtually complete" etc? Would you be happy with your contractor if he came to you and said, "well we have 70% of the house built, we think thats close enough and are calling it Done"

Think most would put that percentage much higher than that...especially when other quotes said completed without the qualifiers. When taking all of the statements as a whole, think most would put it in the 90% to 100% range.

I wouldn't consider it virtually complete, but I didn't say it. I wouldn't be happy with that contractor at all, as a contractor should build 100% of what they were contracted to build. But, I also wouldn't sign a contract that just said "complete" the house. It would say exactly what was to be completed and what jobs they were to do. If the contract said to build three walls and they built three walls, then I'd have to be happy, right? Even if that is only 75% of a room.

If they build 57 miles of trails, then that fulfills the agreement, imo. How one perceives the relative completeness of the job after that is done is up to the individual, I guess. Did they use terminology that oversold the completeness? Probably. Were some that were selling it ignorant of the master plan? Probably. So, yes, not surprisingly, some politicians were guilty of jackassery. If we could impeach them on jackassery, that is all we would do. However, I do , in good faith, believe that the intent is to build 57 miles of trails and if that is not done, then they have failed. If that happens, I'll look at all the factors of why they failed us and make a judgment then. If they build 57 miles, hopefully they will do it in a way that really adds to the city. In the end, I don't think 57 miles would be a failure and would likely be a nice addition to the city.

Just curious. If M3 adds about 54 miles, but when all is said and done, there are still roughly 60 miles not done, did someone draw up a new set of 54 miles worth of trails and insert that into the master plan, or did several someones just forget their basic math.

Sounds more like the latter.

All indications from the Council meeting pointed to no new additions to the Master Plan that was drawn up 15 years ago (and nothing added since the vote).

I...Were some that were selling it ignorant of the master plan? Probably. ...

Given the quotes from those that should be in a position to know (the Mayor and the Parks Dept head)....:LolLolLol

I wouldn't consider it virtually complete, but I didn't say it. I wouldn't be happy with that contractor at all, as a contractor should build 100% of what they were contracted to build. But, I also wouldn't sign a contract that just said "complete" the house. It would say exactly what was to be completed and what jobs they were to do. If the contract said to build three walls and they built three walls, then I'd have to be happy, right? Even if that is only 75% of a room. ...

Not trying to give you a hard time, but trying to understand.

Did you vote for MAPS 3? If you did, you essentially signed a blank contract. Not only does MAPS 3 not specify the amount of completeness or the number of miles funded, but the Trails themselves aren't mentioned in the Ballot or Ordinance at all (true for all of the announced MAPS 3 projects). Only reference is to the non-binding Resolution of Intent (which is not legally tied to the Ballot or Ordinance in any way). Here is what the non-binding Intent Resolution "Exhibit A" stated about the Trails:


5. Improvements and/or enhancements to the Oklahoma City public trails system.

That's it.

If this is the contract you signed, then as long as they make ANY improvement at all (no matter how small), then you would "have to be happy, right?"

BDP: you asked where we can see this plan...go here http://okc.gov/trails/index.html may have to navigate to find exactly what you are looking for. Interesting to note, the Master Plan is a 176 page file that doesn't include a single map of the proposed trails. Plenty of diagram/cross sections describing how the trail itself should be constructed (width etc). The Master Plan lists the total number of miles at 207 which matches up with what has been reported. Apparently, this was the document that they used as a jumping off point for later maps...

There is one composite map (not in that report) showing completed/under construction/proposed trails (but not what was presented in the Council meeting)

If this is the contract you signed, then as long as they make ANY improvement at all (no matter how small), then you would "have to be happy, right?"

OK, so then this whole thread is just as much a ruse as the statements made that oversold it. If MAPS 3 didn't quantify anything, then it's all a moot point and an exercise in "GOTCHA!" politics. Which I guess can be fun, but it's kind of irrelevant.

In the end, yes, if they make improvements to the trails, then they have fulfilled the intent of the agreement. If they build 57 miles of trails, I would certainly consider that a significant improvement.

So, to sum up: No, the trails will not be completed by MAPS 3. It sounds like 57 miles will be added. Whether one considers that an improvement is up to the individual.

Given the quotes from those that should be in a position to know (the Mayor and the Parks Dept head)....:LolLolLol

SHOULD is the key word. It sure sounds to me like ignorance is a possibility in this case.

Guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. It appears that you are willing to hold the City to a very low standard. Even the Mayor said something to the effect, because of previous MAPS, expectations are going to be high...that the citizens are going to demand excellence with each of the projects (many were described as being "world class"). I am taking him up on the challenge and insisting that they not only fulfill the vague, generic, barely defined (if at all) elements of the Ballot/Ordinance but also hold them to what specifics they did give.

Not a ruse at all...have to remember even Council members who supported MAPS 3 were surprised to hear that 60 miles (at least $40M) was unfunded. Are they engaging in "gotchya"?

We had many a thread discussing how lax and vague the Ballot and Ordinance was before the vote...nothing but a handshake agreement on the part of the City...a $777M blank check...am surprised that so many are willing to hold the City to such a low standard. This is your money being spent. Demand excellence and you might get it. Demand bare minimum and you just might get that too.

Low standard? Are you politicking Larry? That seems like an overstatement or misstatement, to me. I think, if we demand that the same amount of money be used to construct twice as many miles of trails, that's when we can expect something less than "excellence". I'll let you argue any day of the week that the language being used prior to the vote was inaccurate. But, if the amount of money available only pays for half the trails in the Master Plan, I'd rather have 55 miles constructed in the proper fashion than have some vague campaign promise filled by cutting corners and doubling the number of miles completed. That, to me would be a low standard, giving us less than excellence. It's like buying a dress at Walmart for half the price and expecting it to be as well tailored and last as long as one you purchase at Dillards. Not going to happen. So, regardless of election overstatement, if we only have money to do 55 miles right, that's what I want. That to me is excellence. So, continue your campaign against campaign promises.....fine with me......just don't imply that failing to fulfill them gets us something less than "excellence".

We had many a thread discussing how lax and vague the Ballot and Ordinance was before the vote...nothing but a handshake agreement on the part of the City...a $777M blank check...am surprised that so many are willing to hold the City to such a low standard. This is your money being spent. Demand excellence and you might get it. Demand bare minimum and you just might get that too.

I agree with betts. How is 57 miles a "low standard", especially if it is done nicely? It increases the trails by over 60% to 140 miles. That doesn't sound too shabby at all, imo.

The vagueness is clearly a fault of MAPS 3, if anything, it opens them up to stuff like this. Basically, people are going to attach their own subjective assumptions to what will happen and basically never be satisfied with the progress if it doesn't meet their own ideas of excellence. I have no problem with you badgering the city for this, but it's also a vanity exercise, imo.

Basically, what I am say is, if you want to complain to the city about 57 miles because it doesn't fulfill ambiguous promises made about an ambiguous proposal, then go for it. But I'll save my breath for when I see what I perceive as a real unnecessary compromise or mistake on a MAPS 3 project. I care more about the project and what it produces than I do about any of the politicians involved. They will all be gone soon and these projects will define the city for decades. And before I read you post about their interpretations of what MAPS would do for the City Trails, I would have thought everyone would be happy with an additional 57 miles of trails.

And, btw, it's not just MY money. It's OUR money.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it has been billed as 57 miles from day one right? We can argue all day about what "almost" or "virtually" complete means but it has always been 57 miles. I guess I don't see the problem. We weren't promised 100 miles and now were are getting 57. We were promised 57, until we get less than that I guess I don't see the problem.

Exactly. I appreciate Larry's watchdog mentality, but in this case, he's really splitting hairs.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it has been billed as 57 miles from day one right? We can argue all day about what "almost" or "virtually" complete means but it has always been 57 miles. I guess I don't see the problem. We weren't promised 100 miles and now were are getting 57. We were promised 57, until we get less than that I guess I don't see the problem.

If you count the Mayors statement at the MAPS 3 Announcement Press Conference as "day 1", no mention was made about the number of miles (but when mentioned later, has remained consistently the 57 number).


"We have a Master Bicycle Trail Plan and we have been implementing that slowly through the years. We felt though that at the current rate of funding it was going be a couple of decades before we finished it and that was not acceptable. In our effort to be a more healthy community and to prioritize people getting out and exercising we have decided to place $40 million for the Master Trail plan into MAPS 3. This will fundamentally complete the Master Trail package we have been working on for over 10 years and would have been working on for another two decades had it not been placed into MAPS 3."

Just as the Council members who supported MAPS 3 were surprised to learn this (see post #1) in essence we were promised 120 miles (mol) by the various versions of the "complete" statements. So yes anything less than 120 miles is a problem mainly because those remaining 60 miles of trails are going to cost at least $40M more to actually complete what they were saying they were going to do.

BDP: You said that you wouldn't sign a contract without having the specifics spelled out. But apparently that is exactly what you did when it came to MAPS 3. You took the verbal assurances, and then when it is discovered that they only plan on doing half of what they said, you go back and read the contract and it says "going to make improvements". So as long as they made some improvements (no matter how minor), its ok? You seemed to accept the fairly "low standard" set out in the Intent Resolution.


5. Improvements and/or enhancements to the Oklahoma City public trails system.

I don't understand that at all. .

Then you said


But I'll save my breath for when I see what I perceive as a real unnecessary compromise or mistake on a MAPS 3 project.

Presuming the greatest benefit of a doubt and lets say this was out of "ignorance" or just a mistake, it is a mistake that is going to cost at least an additional $40M to rectify.

Let that sink in for a minute.

Now if you are fine with a $40M mistake, then so be it. We don't have even have half of that amount in the "contingency" fund ($17M) to cover this mistake. This is not a good start. As I tried to point out, this is one of the lesser projects and if they are making $40M mistakes this early in the game...

jbrown84: Splitting hairs? I would agree if we were talking about the meaning of virtually/fundamentally/nearly complete and if that meant 190, 200 or all 207 miles of the Master Plan. But the amount of the remaining trails has doubled form pre-vote to after vote. Still being 60 miles away.

You are driving from OKC to Dallas (208 miles) and your car breaks down halfway between Gainesville and Denton. Are you at your destination in Dallas? Virtually in Dallas? Nearly in Dallas? No, you are still 60 miles away. Sure you are closer to Dallas than you are to OKC at that point, but how much more is it going to cost you to get your car fixed and get the rest of the way to Dallas?

In the case of the Trails, that additional 60 miles to make it all the way is going to be an additional $40M. Lets hope it doesn't cost that much to get your car fixed.

WOW

These most recent posts are starting to remind me of the indefensible positions taken up by some of the SandRidge supporters.

Betts, thats not what I am saying.

Re: the "low standard": go back and read the discussion BDP and I were having.

"some vague campaign promise"? Go back and read the quotes, starting with the Mayor himself. No problem with some wiggle room with the qualifiers (fundamentally, virtually, etc) but otherwise they are pretty specific (unlike the Resolution). Either it is going to complete the Master Plan or it isn't.

You are correct, they got themselves boxed in the corner with no easy way out. Either complete the entire Master Plan and cut corners to do it (but we are talking biking/walking trails here, how much can you really cut?). Or do the 57 miles and have it cost another $40M to finish it later. Neither is desired.

By the way, may want to be careful about the dress...have seen the 20/20 type reports where the same clothing that is sold in the regular department stores is also available at a discount store. Same dress, made at the same factory, on the same machine, by the same operator. No difference in quality or fit. What is the difference? Which label they sew in the back.

If you count the Mayors statement at the MAPS 3 Announcement Press Conference as "day 1", no mention was made about the number of miles (but when mentioned later, has remained consistently the 57 number).



Just as the Council members who supported MAPS 3 were surprised to learn this (see post #1) in essence we were promised 120 miles (mol) by the various versions of the "complete" statements. So yes anything less than 120 miles is a problem mainly because those remaining 60 miles of trails are going to cost at least $40M more to actually complete what they were saying they were going to do.

I'm pretty naive to this who thing, but $40M to do 60 miles of trail? Does anyone else find this insane that it would cost over 600k to do a mile?

Larry, what is the exact number of miles that needs to be built for you to be satisfied with virtually complete?

I'm pretty naive to this who thing, but $40M to do 60 miles of trail? Does anyone else find this insane that it would cost over 600k to do a mile?

Depends on how much has to be spent on right of way acquisition. I can't imagine the construction getting anywhere close to that, but taking easements, dealing with the courts and compensating landowners for those easements ain't cheap.

Larry, what is the exact number of miles that needs to be built for you to be satisfied with virtually complete?

Before I answer, what do you consider to be fundamentally/virtually/nearly complete (remembering that the Master Plan has 207 miles)?

The answer to that is going to vary from person to person and everyone is getting bogged down in minutia when we aren't even close to that point yet.

But to answer your question, personally would count anything in the 95 to 100% range or 196 to 207 miles. According to the information presented at the Council meeting, after MAPS 3 is done, they will still have 60 miles to go (at an additional $40M+)

60 miles @ $40 million is the Big Picture that everyone is missing (and the MAPS history and the implications for the other MAPS 3 projects).

To me, MAPS is all about getting better, about as a community voting together to say, "We want to make our city a better place in which to live." To me, better doesn't have a finite definition or an endpoint....it's a process and a a concept. So, to me, the MAPS history is all about how much better we are now than we were 20 years ago, and we have MAPS and the development spurred by MAPS to thank for that. Personally, there is no "completion" of projects. I would expect as we increase the number of trails we think, "how can we continue this to keep making it better"? When we build the streetcar line my first thought upon completion will be, "What do we do next, where should the first extension go". When we finish the park I will be thinking about what kind of development will make the surrounding areas better, etc. So, for someone who thinks like me, I want us to build the trails we can afford, and I don't worry about language.

What the mayor says in his campaign doesn't affect me as a person, but what actually is completed does. If he says 57 miles, that's the important figure to me, not how close that gets us to our goal, which to me is only a waypoint in an ongoing set of goals. What would make me unhappy is having the money to complete a project and not finishing it. From my point of view, this is a lot of splitting hairs. I like the concept of MAPS, I like what we have accomplished, and I don't worry so much what rhetoric is used in a campaign....I pay more attention to what they actually say they're going to do.

Good post betts.

I like the concept, too. MAPS provides a definite, long time frame and a specific rate. But neither total revenue nor costs can be certain. Yet at the end we have the benefit of enjoying accomplished and paid for projects. It does require considerable flexibility regarding the projects undertaken and thereby demands considerable trust of leadership.

That trust of leadership is fragile but remarkably more intact now than ever I would have guessed when the first one was proposed.

Larry,
I think they are all missing the point that I believe your trying to make. Accountability!

Politicians routinely make promises to gain the public trust for their vote on specific projects or just to get elected to a position. But the Public seems to have short term memory loss and is willing to accept less than completely fulfilled promises. I like your analogies and am pretty sure that no one on this forum would sign an open ended contract. Pretty sure if Betts ordered a pt. to be given 125mg of a drug, she'd be upset if they only got 80 mg. instead; even though it's almost a complete dose.

I like all the improvements made by the MAPS projects and think they enhance the city, but a blank check book to the politicians will do nothing but eventually breed loss of public trust and corruption. We've got our own "bridge to no-where" if we don't hold the politicians accountable for their promises.

I think they are all missing the pointThat's funny.

I understand Larry's point. But to me it seems as if he is trying to blur the distinction between what the mayor gave as a campaign promise and what MAPS promised. MAPS promised 57 miles of trails, and at this point in time we have no data proving we're not going to get those 57 miles. If Larry is unhappy with what the mayor promised, then he should be his target. I get the feeling Larry is already campaigning against MAPS 4, rather than the mayor. It reminds me of what our illustrious politicians do, which is why I asked him if he was politicking. Your analogy only fits if we're talking about the mayor barnold, which was never my subject. I'm fine with Larry stating his objections to statements made by a specific individual as long as the implication is clear and direct.

Flinty,
You're correct. I should have started with "they don't really care", it would have been more appropriate.

Betts, you are also correct. You probably understand Larry's point but like most others here refuse to hold politicians accountable for anything they promise while trying to win over the hearts and votes of "the people". Little lies, only lead to more lies that grow larger each day. As I've stated since the whole Maps3 debacle started, I support the projects and idea of Maps but believe that specific language should be included in any deal that gives politicians Millions of dollars to spend at their will, regardless of public opinion or lack thereof.

Flinty,
You're correct. I should have started with "they don't really care", it would have been more appropriate.

Betts, you are also correct. You probably understand Larry's point but like most others here refuse to hold politicians accountable for anything they promise while trying to win over the hearts and votes of "the people". Little lies, only lead to more lies that grow larger each day. As I've stated since the whole Maps3 debacle started, I support the projects and idea of Maps but believe that specific language should be included in any deal that gives politicians Millions of dollars to spend at their will, regardless of public opinion or lack thereof.


Barnold, I saw nothing in any of Betts' posts indicating that she was refusing to hold politictians accountable for anything they promised. Just because she didn't jump on that bandwagon as her main issue doesn't mean she that she falls in that category.

It took me awhile to dig up the DVD, but from the Mayor's Magazine (replay date 11/7/09, before the vote)

RE: the MAPS 3 Trails Component discussion with Mayor Cornett and Parks & Recreation Director, Wendel Whisenhunt (not a complete transcript, just the relevant parts).

Mayor: "We have been putting forth this wonderful Trail Plan for years, but in MAPS we have the opportunity to really complete what we envision as being a totally comprehensive trail system for people who love to run or like to bike and they can go throughout the entire City area."

Whisenhunt: "We have had a Trails Master Plan for years and we have been working to complete that but we are just getting to the point where we don't have the resources to complete it. But we will have with this proposal ... What is exciting about this proposal is of course that it helps us to get really close to completing the Master Plan ... We are really excited that we can see the Trails Master Plan all but completed with this proposal."

Mayor: "The Trail System, in its entirety, how many miles throughout Oklahoma City?"

Whisenhunt: "Well, we have about 60 plus 80 that are soon to be on the ground. Our Trails Plan is about 200...200 plus. We will add 50 more plus with this proposal so we are getting pretty close to completing that plan."

Mayor: "So with passage of MAPS, in the 10 year span it will take to totally build out what is in the project, we will see 200 miles of bicycle trails."



The "200 plus" & "50 more plus" has been consistently stated elsewhere as 207 & 57 respectively... adds up to 197 miles (mol) out of the 207, within 95 to 100% of completion. I have no problems there. Not splitting hairs between complete and almost complete variations, since all were mentioned.

But that is not what we are talking about. There are 60 miles still unfunded that is going to cost at least another $40M.

Please Larry, would you say "mayor" and not "City". Again, these sound like campaign terms. Or, are you running for mayor, which would make your statements clearer, in terms of intent. And then, please don't use the words "excellence", "standard" or "world class" until you've seen the finished product. World class, excellence and standard almost always denote quality of a product, and rarely have to do with size. The failure to potentially be less than your required length is currently the only objection you can have prior to completion. At this point, they haven't started.

I think we should build everything every interest group has interest in and keep taxing and overspending until everyone is totally happy. Why give everyone a Mercedes when they want a Rolls? Give EVERYBODY what they want even though it may only be interesting to a minority of people.

Does any reasonably intelligent person believe that everyone's interests will be maximally done for a penny sales tax? Surely people aren't that naive. And for politicians to imply more vision than resources...well there is something new.

MAPS spending has been extremely efficient and a model around the country. However, that isn't good enough for all special interest groups who see evil in everyone and everything.

Larry,
I would prefer that you preface it with the word "politician (insert name)" since they are elected officials. This would be a true representation of what their title means. Of course the city manager is easily the CM.....

Betts, still waiting for you to come on over and assist with all the changes in our medical direction. Haven't seen much of you in the FD taking over the ambulance posts.

... MAPS spending has been extremely efficient and a model around the country. However, that isn't good enough for all special interest groups who see evil in everyone and everything.

You are joking, right? MAPS was sold to the public as costing $237.6M. When it was all said and done, it cost $351.7M. Thats $114.1M or 48% over.

Then again, maybe you meant they are efficient at over spending?

Betts, still waiting for you to come on over and assist with all the changes in our medical direction. Haven't seen much of you in the FD taking over the ambulance posts.

I started the thread, and I thought maybe people would be tired of me reiterating that I thought it was a good idea. I stated my opinion on the previous thread, and since I long since stopped reading the prior fire department thread due to the fact that people kept restating their opinion ad nauseum, I though perhaps people didn't want to hear mine again.

Betts:

Can only presume that you have been working several back-to-back shifts and are severely sleep deprived or something. Just about the time I have a response to your post (beginning w/Concept post #38), you add another one with more oddities in it. So for now will let it all slide....This has nothing to do w/post #50

Maps has been a HUGE success despite continual harping by some who are so taken with their own opinions that nothing will ever be good to them unless it is exactly the way they suggest themselves. If anyone has to be reminded of the level of success and the growth spurred by a relatively small amount of money spent by the public then they need to get out in the real world. Was it perfect...no. But if the perfect came there would be some on here who would challenge it anyway.

You are joking, right? MAPS was sold to the public as costing $237.6M. When it was all said and done, it cost $351.7M. Thats $114.1M or 48% over.

Then again, maybe you meant they are efficient at over spending?

THat seems pretty cheap if you add up the payroll of the CHK, the Thunder, Devon and others that have stayed or made OKC home because of MAPS. In fact, it is friggin chump change. I guarantee me and many other young professionals I know would not have even thought of making OKC home without that investment that has spurn so much more.

Quote Originally Posted by Larry OKC View Post
You are joking, right? MAPS was sold to the public as costing $237.6M. When it was all said and done, it cost $351.7M. Thats $114.1M or 48% over.

Then again, maybe you meant they are efficient at over spending?

---------------

MAPS was funded by a temporary one-cent sales tax approved by city voters in December 1993, and later extended an additional six months. The tax expired on July 1, 1999. During the 66 months it was in effect, over $309 million was collected. In addition, the deposited tax revenue earned about $54 million in interest that was used for construction also.

So Maps collected and earned $363 million. If it cost the $351.7 million you claim then I applaud the city. Given the extreme escalation in construction costs during that time, it seems OKC did a remarkable job. Instead of feeling cynical you should thank them Larry

Betts:

Can only presume that you have been working several back-to-back shifts and are severely sleep deprived or something. Just about the time I have a response to your post (beginning w/Concept post #38), you add another one with more oddities in it. So for now will let it all slide....This has nothing to do w/post #50

Larry, I'm curious, do you live in Edmond, Tulsa or maybe somewhere in Texas, because it obvious you hate OKC and don't want to see it prosper. I ask because I know there's no way you would set foot in this Great City, let alone live here.

And then here comes the Tuttle resident RC to chime in ask about qualifications of opinions based on current home location......or are you at the lake this week RC? Perhaps it's your land in Norman this week? Do you even own property in Okc anymore or does 20 years of lawn mowing in Okc give you the expert opinion? Give it a rest.

Larry, I'm curious, do you live in Edmond, Tulsa or maybe somewhere in Texas, because it obvious you hate OKC and don't want to see it prosper. I ask because I know there's no way you would set foot in this Great City, let alone live here.

Sorry to disappoint but am a native born OKCitian. Born in OKC in 1963, raised elsewhere after the age of 2 (dad was in drug store management and transferred almost as often as the military), moved back during my college days and live across the street from the hospital I was born in.

I don't hate OKC at all, and unlike some was never ashamed to tell people I was from OKC and/or Oklahoma.

And then here comes the Tuttle resident RC to chime in ask about qualifications of opinions based on current home location......or are you at the lake this week RC? Perhaps it's your land in Norman this week? Do you even own property in Okc anymore or does 20 years of lawn mowing in Okc give you the expert opinion? Give it a rest.

Well if it's not my old buddy barnold. Who lifted the rock?

I apologize in advance for the length of the post, if it doesn't interest you, feel free to scroll right on by...


MAPS was funded by a temporary one-cent sales tax approved by city voters in December 1993, and later extended an additional six months. The tax expired on July 1, 1999. During the 66 months it was in effect, over $309 million was collected. In addition, the deposited tax revenue earned about $54 million in interest that was used for construction also.

So Maps collected and earned $363 million. If it cost the $351.7 million you claim then I applaud the city. Given the extreme escalation in construction costs during that time, it seems OKC did a remarkable job. Instead of feeling cynical you should thank them Larry

Thank someone for charging us 48% more than they were going to? I think not. Even if you still get "a bargain" are you as pleased with it when it costs you more than what you were quoted?

Starting to sound like the SandRidge defenders that suggested we should thank them for preserving 1 building out of 6 (and destroying important History in the process). Again, thanks but no thanks.

The $351.7M isn't my claim but what the City's website states when you add up the individual projects (navigate from the same page where it looks like you got your quote for more info). The site still has the cost of the River improvements as estimated so most likely higher than stated. The Oklahoman had even higher costs listed for some items than the City site in a "MAPS Timeline" that I think is still part of their MAPS 3 section (but I didn't use any of those higher figures).

If the cost was worth it or not is a valid point but for another discussion.

I have always given them credit for building the main 9 projects (but not as promised, not on time and not anywhere close to being on budget).

MAPS projects and revenue varied wildly over the span of the term. Some projects were estimated at times to cost even more than they ended up costing, some were bid (but not completed) under budget, so a wide variety of numbers can be used to exaggerate a point. To simplify, chose not to do that and took the beginning and ending numbers.

Were you aware that there were supplemental projects on the original MAPS ballot?

It is an interesting point about the total revenue you mentioned. Were they that far off in their revenue projections and they exceeded them? The Mayor has said that with MAPS 4 Kids they came within $2M of projections so I don't know if that would explain it. Think the "extra" amount was originally planned for a short list of supplemental projects that were on the original MAPS ballot that due to the massive cost over runs of the main projects, that never happened. Those projects were:

(C)(1) Additional improvements to the Oklahoma City Fairgrounds ...

(C)(2) All or part of a transportation system and/or related facilities to provide access between downtown Oklahoma City and the vicinity of Remington Park, provided said system and/or facilities shall be funded only if a Federal grant covering not less than 50% of applicable costs is obtained.

(C)(3) Art, natural history, history, cultural, or educational museums and/or facilities;
Speculation of course but the supplemental Fairgrounds improvements could be the very ones in MAPS 3 that are now costing $60M

When it comes to the amount of interest earned, that is questionable. Current City Manager (then MAPS project manager) said:

MAPS may end up with cash surplus (Journal Record, 2/24/99)

"We feel good that the numbers that we presented today are very solid." More important, the MAPS program has earned around $4.7 million of interest income, which will be funneled back into the program. "Most of the additional interest income is due to the delay of the downtown arena," he explained. "We had anticipated spending that money earlier to begin construction of the arena and since we did not, the money was invested and has now come back with a pretty good return for us."

Look at the date of the article. The tax and the 6 month extension had ended (no new revenue coming in) somehow another $49.3M in interest happened (a 10 fold increase)? Have to remember too that there wasn't a ton of excess money just lying around collecting interest. Most of the other projects had massive cost over runs. That money was gone paying for those. So much so that there were at least 3 projects where they were going to have to issue long term bond debt.

EPA challenge gets OKC council eye (Journal Record, 9/9/1997)
1). "$7.4 million shortfall in the budget for the Civic Center Music Hall"
2). "$10 million in costs for the Library/Learning Center"

Extension Vote Forces Lesson in MAPS History, (Oklahoman, 11/15/98)
3). $13M in bonds to cover the KNOWN cost over runs of the Convention Center and Ballpark

That's $30M in possible bond issues to cover the known/projected cost over runs at the time. Actual cost over runs ended up totaling $78.9M. The 6 month extension may have eliminated the need for the bonds (raised $30M), but didn't come close to covering the actual cost over runs (another $48.9M). They are even deeper in the hole than when they started so not sure how bond debt was avoided. I haven't run across any article that definitely states that no bonds were issued for any of the projects. Just the unverified claims on the City site and statements by former leaders to that effect.

If they did achieve a 10 fold increase in interest, I definitely applaud those kind of results. There is the funding for any MAPS project. Collect the money, put it in the bank, let the interest grow and pay for things off the interest.

Larry, to me the question is not how much was spent, but rather, was money wasted. When we voted on the original MAPS, we voted on three things: how large the tax would be, how long the tax would run and what projects would be built. To me, completing the projects was more important than the length of time the tax runs or how much was spent, as long as there wasn't graft or money wasted. I voted to extend the orginal MAPS. Obviously if there was graft or waste we might never find out, or we might found out after the fact. But the fact that projects cost more than anticipated doesn't necessarily mean there was waste. Having built three different houses, I know that many factors can lead to increases in costs, and not all of them are anyone's fault.

The reason you may not have a lot of success getting people angry about cost overruns is because we have no data showing there was waste and at least I, and I suspect others, are more interested in what is done than whether it costs more than originally anticipated. If you come up with evidence showing there was waste or graft, you'll get more attention.