MAPS 3 Trails complete or not?

[Larry OKC]

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.

[OKCisOK4me]

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!

[Rover]

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.

[Spartan]

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.

[Larry OKC]

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".

[ljbab728]

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.

[Larry OKC]

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?

[rcjunkie]

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.

[Spartan]

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.

[BDP]

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.

[Larry OKC]

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

[Larry OKC]

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]

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.

[Larry OKC]

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).

[Larry OKC]

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)

[Midtowner]

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?

[kevinpate]

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]

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.

[Larry OKC]

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).

[Larry OKC]

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)....

[Larry OKC]

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?"

[Larry OKC]

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)

[BDP]

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.

[BDP]

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

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

[Larry OKC]

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.