MAPS 3 Press release

[ChowRunner]

09/17/09
Contact: David Holt, 297-3073

Mayor and Council announce MAPS 3 proposal Initiative includes eight projects to create jobs and improve quality of life
Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett and members of the Oklahoma City Council today announced plans for a MAPS 3 proposal that is expected to be considered by the citizens of Oklahoma City on December 8.

The ordinance calling for the election will be introduced at the September 22nd City Council meeting and considered at the September 29th meeting.

The initiative proposes a diverse list of eight projects:

• A new, approximately 70-acre central park linking the core of downtown with the Oklahoma River

• A new rail-based streetcar system, plus potential funding for other rail transit initiatives, such as commuter lines and a transit hub

• A new downtown convention center

• Sidewalks to be placed on major streets and near facilities used by the public throughout the City

• 57 miles of new public bicycling and walking trails throughout the City

• Improvements to the Oklahoma River, including a public whitewater kayaking facility and upgrades intended to achieve the finest rowing racecourse in the world

• State-of-the-art health and wellness aquatic centers throughout the City designed for senior citizens

• Improvements to the Oklahoma State Fairgrounds

“This proposal dreams big, and it continues the momentum and renaissance of the last 15 years,” said Mayor Cornett. “I believe it will achieve the goals that have always defined MAPS projects – creating jobs and improving our quality of life. I think it recognizes the needs of the world-class city we are becoming, and I think it will capture our imaginations. If this initiative moves forward, the next 10 years of this City’s history will be more exciting than the last 10. We have hardly scratched the surface of what this City is capable.”

The MAPS 3 proposal calls for a seven-year, nine-month one-cent sales tax that will maintain the Oklahoma City sales tax rate where it currently stands. Oklahoma City’s sales tax rate is one of the lowest of all municipalities in central Oklahoma. If approved, the collection of the sales tax will commence on April 1, 2010, the day after the conclusion of the sports facilities sales tax collection that voters approved in March, 2008. The MAPS for Kids sales tax collection lasted seven years.

The estimated total cost of the initiative is $777 million. That total cost includes $17 million in contingency funds.

The creation of previous MAPS packages were inclusive for their time, created through committees or by elected City leaders, but technology allowed this initiative to be molded by the people of Oklahoma City through the most inclusive process to date. In 2007, Mayor Cornett announced the launch of The City of Oklahoma City's Offical Home Page, which for four months conducted a “call for ideas” open to all citizens.

Eighty-five percent of respondents urged the City to consider a MAPS 3 proposal. Respondents also provided 2,747 ideas. Of the 14 ideas that were most popular in that survey, 12 have been included in MAPS 3 or other City initiatives since 2007.

Mayor Cornett urged citizens to withhold judgment on the MAPS 3 proposal as he and the Council explain the eight projects in detail over the next two-and-a-half months. The Mayor announced that each of the projects will be the focus of regular press conferences starting in October.

“Today’s announcement is exciting, but it’s also a lot to take in,” said Cornett. “We will spend the next two-and-a-half months fully informing the citizens of the benefits of these projects. No one who wants to see our City’s momentum continue should be complacent just because MAPS and MAPS for Kids have been successful. These MAPS 3 projects must stand on their own, and the Council and I believe they will.

“We look forward to what will be a very public discussion. At the end of it, I believe we will have accomplished the most important initiative in our history, and this City will never be the same.”

Information on MAPS 3 will continue to be added at City of Oklahoma City | Public Information & Marketing.

# # #

[metro]

http://www.okctalk.com/okc-metro-are...t-ready-4.html

[OKCTalker]

Wow - as ambitious a plan as I've seen, and diverse enough for everyone to find something they like and dislike. The one penny sales tax financing is easy and painless, but who thinks that this is too many projects wrapped up into one package?

[shane453]

Wow - as ambitious a plan as I've seen, and diverse enough for everyone to find something they like and dislike. The one penny sales tax financing is easy and painless, but who thinks that this is too many projects wrapped up into one package?

The reason for the success of MAPS is the combination of many projects into one vote. This is the reason that MAPS is widely known and replicated as probably the most innovative and creative urban revitalization strategies ever.

[westsidesooner]

I have not had time to study the proposal yet....maybe tonight, but the the pics in the image area are sweet...esp #2 and #7 showing Devon, and #6 showing union station. Maybe someone can copy and paste those pics. http://www.okc.gov/maps3/OKCCentralPark.pdf

[circuitboard]

I have not had time to study the proposal yet....maybe tonight, but the the pics in the image area are sweet...esp #2 and #7 showing Devon, and #6 showing union station. Maybe someone can copy and paste those pics. http://www.okc.gov/maps3/OKCCentralPark.pdf

I agree, the pictures are impressive!

[soonerguru]

The park looks very cool. My only beefs from looking at the renderings:

1. The lake looks too small for rowboats
2. Not enough forestation

It is very urban and cosmopolitan. In the end, despite the critiques we've had, it may end up being our favorite of the projects. It is certainly something that will benefit the whole city.

Now, does anyone doubt this can be built to this quality with the budget set aside in MAPS? I would have no way of knowing.

[mugofbeer]

I agree with the lake. Make it larger or more round to accomodate paddle boats.

[andy157]

I agree with the lake. Make it larger or more round to accomodate paddle boats.

So, what your saying is that, you really don't agree with the lake. You can always vote no, you know.

[benman]

I dont doubt that it can be built to this quality with the budget. Usually a project will go over budget, but I'm sure they will be watching this very closely and its not the type of project that will go over budget. The main reason I dont see it being a problem is because the park will not consist of any buildings of substantial size. Basicallly, they just have to go in, clear out the square, dig a hole, add water, pour some sidewalks, add landscaping, and the place will be done.

[metro]

The park looks very cool. My only beefs from looking at the renderings:

1. The lake looks too small for rowboats
2. Not enough forestation

It is very urban and cosmopolitan. In the end, despite the critiques we've had, it may end up being our favorite of the projects. It is certainly something that will benefit the whole city.

Now, does anyone doubt this can be built to this quality with the budget set aside in MAPS? I would have no way of knowing.

Again, the lakes are NOT designed for rowboats. Model boats yes, the intent of C2S is to keep the water activities at or near the Oklahoma River. Paddle Boats and the whitewater course will be on the Oklahoma River. Notice $60 million in MAPS 3 being proposed for River Projects. The south side of the river will get permanent video boards, bleachers, lighting, and other amenities. This has always been the proposal. Quality, I'm sure it will be built as proposed, keep in mind renderings change, this is just initial renderings, final wouldn't come until after funding is passed. Again, if funding is passed, citizen panels, consultants and others come into play. The only water feature in the "Central Park" (remember C2S will be a string of 5 parks) will be the interactive kids water fountain area. It will be impressive and supposed to be nationally recognized when built.

I agree with the lake. Make it larger or more round to accomodate paddle boats.

See above.

[soonerguru]

Again, the lakes are NOT designed for rowboats. Model boats yes, the intent of C2S is to keep the water activities at or near the Oklahoma River. Paddle Boats and the whitewater course will be on the Oklahoma River. Notice $60 million in MAPS 3 being proposed for River Projects. The south side of the river will get permanent video boards, bleachers, lighting, and other amenities. This has always been the proposal. Quality, I'm sure it will be built as proposed, keep in mind renderings change, this is just initial renderings, final wouldn't come until after funding is passed. Again, if funding is passed, citizen panels, consultants and others come into play. The only water feature in the "Central Park" (remember C2S will be a string of 5 parks) will be the interactive kids water fountain area. It will be impressive and supposed to be nationally recognized when built.



See above.

Metro,

What is the thinking on having no interactivity with the lake in the park? I understand the improvements on the river, but one of the most charming aspects of Central Park in NYC is the boathouse and the ability to take a rowboat out on the lake.

Regarding the river, there is a sense -- perhaps misplaced -- that the river is for rowers. Some of them are a bit snooty about it, too. I remember being rudely rebuffed by one of the rowing officials early on when I inquired about renting a rowboat. "You have to belong to a rowing team," I was told.

Truly, the rowers have a sense of ownership of the river.

If you're suggesting a more public-oriented water space at the river, that's great. But that wouldn't negate the value of people using the lake in the park for activities also. Otherwise it's just a reflecting pond.

[metro]

guru, that's what I was told by the consultants. to maximize use of the Oklahoma River and all water activities will take place there. Again, model boats and such will be used on the mini lakes in the park, but that's about it. I too was surprised and voiced my concerns. Basically they are saying to help build up use of the Oklahoma River as the park will still be busy with other highly programmed activities. I don't know if you all caught it but directly southeast of the lakes (and perhaps on the burms in between them) will be some smaller artful wind turbines to help generate power for the park. Hopefully the park will be self sustaining with power, but at least the lighting can be with wind and solar.

[DelCamino]

Generally, I like the rendering of the park and believe the people interaction is good. However, there definately needs be an activity section of the park, with ball fields, backstops and play areas. The area is big enough to accomodate both strollers, model boats and day dreamers, and those those users who want to have some activity. If the proposed abutting residential is to be successful, they will need such a space.

[metro]

DelCamino, there is an activity section to the park and includes ball fields, etc. The "great lawn" part of Central Park will have unstructured field to allow for multiple use and "pick up" games.

The park directly south of the highway (on opposite side of new I-40) will have the ball fields, etc. If you see the new renderings you will see it.

[DelCamino]

Also, I definately believe there needs to be an east vehicular access through the center of the park, midway (SW 5th??). No more than a two-lane street, that could have a slight 'esss' curve quaility to it.

Without it, drivers on the east/west sides of the park (north and south bound traffic)will not have access to the other side for a distance of 7 to 8 blocks, a far too long of a distance without an east/west crossing. Example: 79th St. Traverse Rd, Central Park in NYC; 7th St/9th St crossings on the National Mall in D.C.

[mugofbeer]

Also, I definately believe there needs to be an east vehicular access through the center of the park, midway (SW 5th??). No more than a two-lane street, that could have a slight 'esss' curve quaility to it.

Without it, drivers on the east/west sides of the park (north and south bound traffic)will not have access to the other side for a distance of 7 to 8 blocks, a far too long of a distance without an east/west crossing. Example: 79th St. Traverse Rd, Central Park in NYC; 7th St/9th St crossings on the National Mall in D.C.

I respectfully disagree. The less parkgoers have to worry about cars the better. If drivers have to go a few blocks to get to the other side, then so be it. Washington Park in Denver is 3/4 mile long and has no access to the other side and no one complained about that while I was there. They were too busy looking at the babes jogging and biking.

[metro]

Also, I definately believe there needs to be an east vehicular access through the center of the park, midway (SW 5th??). No more than a two-lane street, that could have a slight 'esss' curve quaility to it.

Without it, drivers on the east/west sides of the park (north and south bound traffic)will not have access to the other side for a distance of 7 to 8 blocks, a far too long of a distance without an east/west crossing. Example: 79th St. Traverse Rd, Central Park in NYC; 7th St/9th St crossings on the National Mall in D.C.

I disagree the park needs a street through it, we're not NYC and have a MASSIVE park and don't have the traffic of LA, but as I pointed out in another thread a month or two ago, ODOT currently has an off ramp going into the park at NW 7th. Hopefully they will not go through with it.

[betts]

I disagree the park needs a street through it, we're not NYC and have a MASSIVE park and don't have the traffic of LA, but as I pointed out in another thread a month or two ago, ODOT currently has an off ramp going into the park at NW 7th. Hopefully they will not go through with it.

I don't know how we object, but this needs vociferous objection. I don't understand why we need any streets bisecting the park. Since there is currently nothing of significance in that location right now, there's no reason we cannot plan around it and ensure there are no streets running through it. It's bad enough that we have to have I-40 running through it.

[bdhumphreys]

I don't understand why we need any streets bisecting the park.

Does this comment include the boulevard? We don't need it for traffic reasons, so I wonder why the park shouldn't just connect all the way north to Reno. What is called the "boulevard" could just be a curvilinear cut-through called SW 3rd Street.

[Oil Capital]

Also, I definately believe there needs to be an east vehicular access through the center of the park, midway (SW 5th??). No more than a two-lane street, that could have a slight 'esss' curve quaility to it.

Without it, drivers on the east/west sides of the park (north and south bound traffic)will not have access to the other side for a distance of 7 to 8 blocks, a far too long of a distance without an east/west crossing. Example: 79th St. Traverse Rd, Central Park in NYC; 7th St/9th St crossings on the National Mall in D.C.

Looks more like 4 blocks, which, incidentally is planned to be blocked by the convention center anyway.

[DelCamino]

I see it now, Metro. While not across the street and easily accessed from the proposed residential, it could work. However, that's the portion of the park ODOT agreed to fund/construct, inconjunctin with the I-40 relocation project. Hope they keep their word and none of the building of that park comes from the funds meant for this new city park.

[mugofbeer]

If you're talking about the point where I-40 breaks the park, a drive through there would be fine.

[kevinpate]

An off ramp at NW 7th goes into the park?
Where exactly is the northern boundary of this park?

Sorry to get confused, but I is.

[kevinpate]

Ok, if even a chicken fry lovin largie like me doesn't think the distances are a big deal, adding yet another road into a not so large to begin with park seems just a tad excessive.