Did that response strike you as a bit odd? It would me. I'm still trying to figure out how the City is going to come up with the extra 1.6 million (give or take a $100,000.) to build the BT Fire station. If the same situation occures with the station called for in far N.E. OKC now we're talking 3.2 Million. Where will it come from?

The BT firestation is covered by bonds that haven't been sold yet.

The BT firestation is covered by bonds that haven't been sold yet.I thought they had, but you could be right. I will look again.

What streets will border the park? I seem to recall someone on here posting that the location of the park is well documented.

Thanks

New boulevard x Robinson x new I-40 x Hudson

Here is the story about how Moshe Tal got severely hosed by Oklahoma City and the good old boy system. Even Toby Keith's restaurant is a part of the story:

The Oklahoma Constitution (http://www.oklahomaconstitution.com/ns.php?nid=135&pastissue=1)Here is the rest of the story

Jury Rules In Favor of Taxpayers Group -
Former Oklahoma City Municipal Counselor
Guilty of Malicious Prosecution

After four days of testimony, a Tulsa jury found William Burkett, former Oklahoma City Municipal Counselor, guilty of acting in reckless disregard of the rights of others and acting intentionally and with malice toward others. The jury awarded Moshe Tal, the plaintiff and leader of Taxpayers for Honest Government, actual damages of approximately $27,000 and punitive damages of $50,000. After the trial, some members of the jury said that they hoped verdicts such as this would send a message to public officials letting them know that they are not above the law and that they cannot abuse taxpayers’ rights.

The lawsuit against Burkett for malicious prosecution filed by Moshe Tal stemmed from Burkett’s long-running battle with the taxpayers group which began in February, 2003. At that time, Tal and Taxpayers for Honest Government alleged that the City of Oklahoma City had misappropriated $20 million in tax dollars and that several of its public officials were involved in corrupt dealings and had numerous conflicts of interests.

Rather than doing his job as city attorney and investigating the allegations as required by law, Burkett acted in his personal capacity and three months later filed a libel suit against Tal and the other members of the taxpayers group. An Oklahoma County district judge subsequently ruled against Burkett. Burkett then filed an appeal and the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling in 2004.

Tal, representing himself pro se, then sued Burkett for malicious prosecution in Oklahoma County District Court. Eventually the case was transferred to Tulsa County District Court after all Oklahoma County judges either recused themselves or were disqualified. In 2006, the case was assigned to Judge Jefferson Sellers and four years later, Tal got his day in court.

During the trial, Tal claimed that Burkett lacked any factual or legal evidence to sue him and the members of the taxpayers group. Burkett admitted that his primary motive for suing Tal and others was to deter them from filing taxpayer lawsuits against the City of Oklahoma City and questioning the conduct and good old boy relationships of “reputable business people in the community” and the actions of the Mayor and City Council.

Although Burkett argued that he was acting in his personal capacity, Tal also provided evidence to the Judge and Jury showing that Burkett embezzled taxpayers’ money by using city staff, equipment, and materials, including office of municipal counselor stationery, in conducting his personal legal practice and in pursuing the libel lawsuit against Tal and the others.

Tal said that he never lost faith in the justice system even though it took him seven years to get his day in court. “I always believed that if a jury could see and hear all the facts, then they would rule in favor of myself and the other taxpayers who were wronged by Mr. Burkett,” Tal said.
Tal is a business owner and has lived in Oklahoma City since late 1985. In addition to being the Municipal Counselor for Oklahoma City, Burkett has also served as a District Court Judge and as a United States Attorney (prosecuted and convicted a Governor).

For more information contact:

Taxpayers For Honest Government Inc.

The BT firestation is covered by bonds that haven't been sold yet.

Actually, it the additional funds were appropriated from Public Safety Sales Tax and GO Bond interest, if I understand correctly. The funds had to be in hand before taking bids.

Actually, it the additional funds were appropriated from Public Safety Sales Tax and GO Bond interest, if I understand correctly. The funds had to be in hand before taking bids.I don't recall the additional money needed to complete the BTFS coming from the PSST or for that matter, any portion of the money needed to cover the additional cost. Thats not to say that you are wrong, I may have missed that information. I would think The Council would have had to declair the station an "Other" project in order to spend the money out of the PSST on it it, wouldn't they

I don't recall the additional money needed to complete the BTFS coming from the PSST or for that matter, any portion of the money needed to cover the additional cost. Thats not to say that you are wrong, I may have missed that information. I would think The Council would have had to declair the station an "Other" project in order to spend the money out of the PSST on it it, wouldn't they

My bad - I checked and it was actually Maps for Kids Use Tax and a little bit of GO Bond interest.

My bad - I checked and it was actually Maps for Kids Use Tax and a little bit of GO Bond interest.Hey its no big deal, it's easy to get confused. Happens to me quite often. The way money for certain projects gets transferred, funneled, and shifted back and forth, then round and round from account to account to account year after year for 10 years, it's easy to lose track of who is paying for what. On the bright side, thank goodness that the City had the little kiddies there to bail them out.

Hey its no big deal, it's easy to get confused. Happens to me quite often. The way money for certain projects gets transferred, funneled, and shifted back and forth, then round and round from account to account to account year after year for 10 years, it's easy to lose track of who is paying for what. On the bright side, thank goodness that the City had the little kiddies there to bail them out.

Now to be fair, let's make it clear that NO money that was directly going to MAPS for Kids is being redirected here. It is the accompanying Use tax to that particular sales tax (most of the sales taxes have had this attached). The funds for any of those use taxes are at the complete discretion of the Council. I don't agree with the idea that they can change their intent by a simple majority vote (sound familiar?), but it is completely legal (at least, that is what the court decided back with the Bass Pro deal. Also, recently ran across an item in a City budget report that said the Bass Pro deal involved the use of 3 different Use taxes!

from the City's 03-04 budget report

City of Oklahoma City | Budget Perspective (http://www.okc.gov/budget/fy03_04/q_and_a.html)


There has been a lot of misinformation about Bass Pro. To set the record straight, we are NOT taking, borrowing or spending from the MAPS Sales Tax or any other restricted fund. Dedicated sales tax revenue must be kept in special, separate funds. These funds are audited – internally and externally – every year.

So how are we paying for the building construction?
We are borrowing from three Use Tax reserve funds established by Council resolution: the MAPS Operations, City Schools Use Tax and Public Safety Capital Equipment Use Tax Funds.

Now to be fair, let's make it clear that NO money that was directly going to MAPS for Kids is being redirected here. It is the accompanying Use tax to that particular sales tax (most of the sales taxes have had this attached). The funds for any of those use taxes are at the complete discretion of the Council. I don't agree with the idea that they can change their intent by a simple majority vote (sound familiar?), but it is completely legal (at least, that is what the court decided back with the Bass Pro deal. Also, recently ran across an item in a City budget report that said the Bass Pro deal involved the use of 3 different Use taxes!

from the City's 03-04 budget report

City of Oklahoma City | Budget Perspective (http://www.okc.gov/budget/fy03_04/q_and_a.html)

Larry, you are correct, but those against MAPS3 won't let facts get in the way of arguing a non-issue.

I'll be the first to admit that I know very little about how those bond thingamajigs work. However, I trust that you do, so I'll take your word for it. You have given us your reasons and/or theory regarding the 2007 bond projects and why their start-up may have been slowed. What would your thoughts be regarding the slow start-up and completion of the 2000 bond projects? This has been the issue of my concern regarding the way this City handles business for quite sometime now.

Andy, you asked this a long time ago and I didn't see the question. I will try to answer it quickly. Bond issues are sometimes enormous in size. The repayment of the bonds and payment of interest is based on the tax collections from property taxes.

Bonds from an issue are not issued all at once for many reasons. It could be rising market interest rates have made it more expensive because the bonds would have higher than anticipated coupon rates, it could be that inflation has caused some of the projects to exceed the amount of bonds available to fund them, bond issues are "programs" that occur over a period of time so either due to the size and number of projects to be undertaken, they haven't gotten to them yet. Or, perhaps, like for a fire station, the fire department doesn't have the needed money to staff, equip and operate the station. Finally, they simply may have changed their minds for some reason.

Mainly, the city has to ensure that it's tax collections are adquate to pay the bond maintenance. If tax collections don't keep within certain ratio's, the city risks losing it's bond rating from the ratings firms (Moody's, S & P, etc.). If a city bond rating falls, it is much more expensive for the city to raise new funds through bond issues. Bond ratings are prescious to a city. So, long and short, if the city doesn't issue all of the bonds that were voted, there may be good reasons and they may be fiscal reasons that all of us would agree are prudent.

That's why MAPS is such a great program. It is pay-as-you-go, its a shorter term payout and its far cheaper way to go overall. We're up to our eyeballs in debt at all levels so if the city doesn't issue some of it from the past, no biggie.

...We’re up to our eyeballs in debt at all levels so if the city doesn’t issue some of it from the past, no biggie.

Don’t dispute any of the rest of your post (though it seems a waste of time to have a bond issue for projects that may be over 10 years away, why not just wait and vote on that stuff closer to the point when it is needed?)

The “biggie” to me is when we voted on this stuff, we were told we were going to get certain things (specific road projects, fire stations etc). I doubt that most voters think they are voting on a fire station that isn’t going to get built 10 years down the line (if at all). I think the expectation is, that the projects that the voters approve will be built sooner, rather than later.

A few years ago now there was a City audit and it discovered projects that going back 3 bond issues, as far back as 18 years (at the time of the article, just over 20 years now). Of course the City Manager said it would be a top priority to get those (unmentioned) projects done. To date i haven’t seen any follow up article giving the status. Were those projects ever started much less completed?

Don’t dispute any of the rest of your post (though it seems a waste of time to have a bond issue for projects that may be over 10 years away, why not just wait and vote on that stuff closer to the point when it is needed?)

The “biggie” to me is when we voted on this stuff, we were told we were going to get certain things (specific road projects, fire stations etc). I doubt that most voters think they are voting on a fire station that isn’t going to get built 10 years down the line (if at all). I think the expectation is, that the projects that the voters approve will be built sooner, rather than later.

A few years ago now there was a City audit and it discovered projects that going back 3 bond issues, as far back as 18 years (at the time of the article, just over 20 years now). Of course the City Manager said it would be a top priority to get those (unmentioned) projects done. To date i haven’t seen any follow up article giving the status. Were those projects ever started much less completed?

1989, 1995, and almost every part of the 2000 are now done. City Manager had a report to City Council a few months ago I think. I'll have to check on that.

To date i haven’t seen any follow up article giving the status. Were those projects ever started much less completed?

You could just call the City Manager's office or Public Works Department too...

City Manager
200 N Walker, 3rd Floor
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
405 297-2345
citymanager@okc.gov

Public Works Department
420 W. Main, 7th Floor
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
405 297-2581

Make government responsive, don't wait for government (or other people) to report for you.

You could just call the City Manager's office or Public Works Department too...

City Manager
200 N Walker, 3rd Floor
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
405 297-2345
citymanager@okc.gov

Public Works Department
420 W. Main, 7th Floor
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
405 297-2581

Make government responsive, don't wait for government (or other people) to report for you.

<sigh>Wish it were that easy. I have written about the above and got a wonderful spin filled answer from Mr. Couch. When I asked for a further response...silence.

Larry, you are correct, but those against MAPS3 won't let facts get in the way of arguing a non-issue.Really.

Really.

Yes, Really, it's been proven on thread after thread, post after post.

<sigh>Wish it were that easy. I have written about the above and got a wonderful spin filled answer from Mr. Couch. When I asked for a further response...silence.

I don't doubt you as this is often Mr. Couch's style, but would you be able to scan in and post his response for us? I think it's important to see our City leaders official responses to items. In the future, I'll do the same.

I don't doubt you as this is often Mr. Couch's style, but would you be able to scan in and post his response for us? I think it's important to see our City leaders official responses to items. In the future, I'll do the same.

If I can locate it will see what I can do...this was a couple of years ago. I remember him saying that they basically had the money but didn't have the supervisors to oversee the projects and the City had higher priorities. Hmmm, higher priorities than following through on the what voters approved and paid for? By higher priorities, I took it to mean there were higher profile projects (like maybe the Arena rather than a neighborhood park or something along those lines). Conjecture of course, since the article and City Manager didn't do into any sort of detail as to which projects were undone (much less identifying them).

If I can locate it will see what I can do...this was a couple of years ago. I remember him saying that they basically had the money but didn't have the supervisors to oversee the projects and the City had higher priorities. Hmmm, higher priorities than following through on the what voters approved and paid for? By higher priorities, I took it to mean there were higher profile projects (like maybe the Arena rather than a neighborhood park or something along those lines). Conjecture of course, since the article and City Manager didn't do into any sort of detail as to which projects were undone (much less identifying them).

If it was a couple years ago, that might have been before the audit and the new GO Bond Program. I really suggest asking again...

Yes, Really, it's been proven on thread after thread, post after post.Ok I'll ask it another way. Who is arguing a non-issue? And, which non-issue is being argued?

1989, 1995, and almost every part of the 2000 are now done. City Manager had a report to City Council a few months ago I think. I'll have to check on that.I had lunch with a member of the Bond Advisory Committee a couple of weeks ago, I could have sworn he said there was still some 1989 bond money that has yet to be spent. I may have misunderstood what he said, or I may have been hearing things that were not said, I'll double check on that tomorrow.

If it was a couple years ago, that might have been before the audit and the new GO Bond Program. I really suggest asking again...

It was after the audit and right before the 2007 GO bond vote (the two things that prompted my letter). I had a couple of questions:

1) why did we even need another bond issue when the audit had shown that projects going back 3 bond issues had gone undone? in other words take care of old, unfinished business first before embarking on any new stuff.

2) What projects had gone undone? This question was never addressed. maybe they were relatively minor things that didn't matter to much. Bu then again, they were important enough to be included in the 1st place and important enough that the City needed to take on long-term debt to get them accomplished.

3) Previous reports had put the proposed bond issue at $100M less than what was presented to voters. What was included for the $100M? Again, IIRC, that also went unanswered.