I am not saying that MAPS hasn't been good for the City. The problem is when they over promise and under deliver, engage in illegal ballots etc. Unless the voters hold them accountable, they won't change the way they do things. Get a No vote and if the projects are really that important, they will figure out what went wrong, repackage it (hopefully the legal way) and try again.

maps 3 was a legal ballot .. i don't think there is any question about that

Luckily the people of OKC have been smart enough to see the amazing things Maps has done for this city and don't have the same axes to grind as a number of people here.

Luckily the people of OKC have been smart enough to see the amazing things Maps has done for this city and don't have the same axes to grind as a number of people here.

Agreed. Regardless of any short comings, given what each MAPS project has produced, you would have to be pretty dense to look back and think voting "no" was the right choice.

Agreed. Regardless of any short comings, given what each MAPS project has produced, you would have to be pretty dense to look back and think voting "no" was the right choice.

We are definitely the envy of other progressive communities with MAPS. We are regularly visited by groups from other cities who are here to find out :how we did it”. Other cities have tried and failed and continue to try again. We are known as a city that is willing to invest in itself and it had paid off.

Without MAPS, we'd still be looking up to Tulsa, enough said.

I'm sorry, but is this really a debate whether or not MAPS has helped OKC?

Apparently so. There are still those on here trying to prove how bad Maps was and how incompetent everyone associated with it is. It's like saying a Mercedes is a bad car because it gets flat tires sometimes, so don't buy another one.

+1
Apparently so. There are still those on here trying to prove how bad Maps was and how incompetent everyone associated with it is. It's like saying a Mercedes is a bad car because it gets flat tires sometimes, so don't buy another one.

Apparently so. There are still those on here trying to prove how bad Maps was and how incompetent everyone associated with it is. It's like saying a Mercedes is a bad car because it gets flat tires sometimes, so don't buy another one.*like*

So I take it you'd like to go back to 1993 and keep everything the way it was then, oh, Devon would have left sometime after that so throw them in there as being gone ???

I am not saying it was bad but it has been problematic and if the voters that vote continue to poor money into furtherances then there is not reason to hold the city accountable. Also you "assumption" on Devon is just that. There is no undeniable proof that they would have moved. I just want to see ALL that was promised finished and completed as PROMISED before we move on. As to OKC being the example I am aware of firms from afar that have looked at us and asked the same ticklish questions many here have asked.

I am not saying it was bad but it has been problematic and if the voters that vote continue to poor money into furtherances then there is not reason to hold the city accountable. Also you "assumption" on Devon is just that. There is no undeniable proof that they would have moved. I just want to see ALL that was promised finished and completed as PROMISED before we move on. As to OKC being the example I am aware of firms from afar that have looked at us and asked the same ticklish questions many here have asked.

Mustang, it is not an assumption. Larry Nichols has stated that if it weren't for MAPS they would have moved to Houston. I will find the quote when I have a chance.

[QUOTE=MustangGT;630787]I am not saying it was bad but it has been problematic and if the voters that vote continue to poor money into furtherances then there is not reason to hold the city accountable. Also you "assumption" on Devon is just that. There is no undeniable proof that they would have moved. I just want to see ALL that was promised finished and completed as PROMISED before we move on. As to OKC being the example I am aware of firms from afar that have looked at us and asked the same ticklish questions many here have asked.[/

One would have to have their head in the sand if you can't see the overwhelmingly positive effect Maps has had on this city. It was sick and dying and businesses couldn't wait to leave. If the standard is perfection, no public or private, or even personal effort will ever reach it.

Are there things to be done better...absolutely. Should everyone be held accountable...sure. But, there will never be 100% consensus...never.

OKC may need to change the MAPs process (e.g., specify projects), but killing it would be killing the thing that jump started OKC. That seems to risky considering the momentum the city has now. Why risk losing it?

I am not saying it was bad but it has been problematic and if the voters that vote continue to poor money into furtherances then there is not reason to hold the city accountable. Also you "assumption" on Devon is just that. There is no undeniable proof that they would have moved. I just want to see ALL that was promised finished and completed as PROMISED before we move on. As to OKC being the example I am aware of firms from afar that have looked at us and asked the same ticklish questions many here have asked.

Problematic ? You try taking the projects defined for the last 18 years and see if you have a problem or two. You try spending a billion dollars dealing with the processes from start to finish and see if you come across a problem or two.

It's sad to say, some folks on this board just don't get it .....

Now, for those of you that 'just don't get it', please watch the video. Without MAPS, we really suck - this is a good video for those that do get it also -

OETA | Stateline 1404 (http://www.oeta.tv/video/3279.html)

Idea, tell me if it's stupid:

Have a vote for a permanent MAPS tax (instead of having all these "momentum throttlers", e.g. the strife over future MAPS 4, MAPS 5, MAPS 37 votes). As part of the ballot an oversight board/committee of some kind is defined, with more power than the citizen advisory boards (those can still exist), and their job is to have master plan like oversight with the projects and interface with the citizen committees and council, and most importantly, keep a running/vetted/defined list of "next projects" (per input from council, which gets feedback from their wards), say the next ten projects or something (the priorities of which they can adjust based on circumstances/council input, etc, and also, perhaps the first 3-5 projects can be in the initial ballot so things are still moving and it's future projects that are defined by the board), and as the money comes in we work the projects one at a time. In addition, as part of the ballot, there is a required "Repeal Vote" every five years, so that if we ever become overly dissatisfied with how MAPS is going, we can vote to stop it, and that vote would be defined as finishing all started projects as of the date of the vote, with no further projects being started, and the tax collection process stopping once the budgets for the in progress projects are funded, with any excess going into an overall O&M fund, which would also be part of the ballot (e.g. the ongoing tax revenue brought in is to cover all new projects AS WELL AS O&M for all MAPS projects, past, present, and future... so yes, the proportion would have to change over time, which would inherently mean fewer projects over time). I'm thinking something like this would mean sustained, continued growth, continued momentum, and more rigid planning, oversight, etc.

Am I dreaming? Or being unrealistic? I will disclaim that I know nothing about the practicalities of my suggestion from a city government perspective... I just feel like there's a gap between each maps project that slows momentum and a ton of strife at the time while projects for the ballot are being debated, plus all this trouble of project priorities, oversight, and lack of O&M funds, etc. So if there is to be a future MAPS vote, can we make it somewhat bullet proof? Design our ideal "MAPS of the Future"...

The absence of our Planning Director, Russell Claus, durring the formation of projects and the ongoing implementation of the projects, is the biggest problem with the MAPS program.

We have under-qualified engineers making major planning and architectural decisions.

That is the fundamental problem with MAPS.

Fortunately for the streetcar/transit committee, we hired the most qualified subcontractor consultants, to make up the difference.

The absence of our Planning Director, Russell Claus, durring the formation of projects and the ongoing implementation of the projects, is the biggest problem with the MAPS program.

We have under-qualified engineers making major planning and architectural decisions.

That is the fundamental problem with MAPS.

Fortunately for the streetcar/transit committee, we hired the most qualified subcontractor consultants, to make up the difference.

So, for example, our Planning Director has had little or no input in the convention center location/design? I wonder then, who is making these critical decisions and what are their qualifications?

This sounds like something Mr Lackmeyer should be looking into and writing stories about instead of making questionable insinuations.

So, for example, our Planning Director has had little or no input in the convention center location/design? I wonder then, who is making these critical decisions and what are their qualifications?

This sounds like something Mr Lackmeyer should be looking into and writing stories about instead of making questionable insinuations.

Controversy sells. Stories about the planning department's (lack of) involvement wouldn't sell nearly as many newspapers and web clicks.

So, for example, our Planning Director has had little or no input in the convention center location/design? I wonder then, who is making these critical decisions and what are their qualifications?

This sounds like something Mr Lackmeyer should be looking into and writing stories about instead of making questionable insinuations.

I don't know about the questionable insinuations part, but I'd be very keen to learn why the planning director isn't being included... What the hell kind of sense does that make?

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." -Abraham Lincoln

You are correct Sid. I offer my sincere apologies to Steve, I got flustered in an argument in another thread and spoke out of emotion.

Convention center reflects challenges of Oklahoma City's MAPS 3 | News OK (http://newsok.com/convention-center-reflects-challenges-of-oklahoma-citys-maps-3/article/3778859?custom_click=rss)

In light of my earlier post, I nearly fell out of my chair when I saw this. I don't think many people have a problem with asking questions about any of the MAPS3 projects as long as it is focused on how to best implement the resolution (non-binding though it may be) and most efficiently build the designated projects.

If a serious effort to redirect funds away from those specific projects is ever undertaken, there needs to be very clear justification and compelling reasons publicly explained before proceeding down that path. This also includes redistributing MAPS tax revenue within the designated projects. As of now, I have yet to hear anyone offer any reasonable justification for doing so IMO.

For the good ideas that were not included in this round, I say make MAPS 3 the best it can be and work hard to get those ideas included in MAPS4. But do so within the spirit of cooperation that has generally been associated with the MAPS program for as long as I personally have been observing. I think this is the best way to build consensus and keep the discussions constructive.

April 2013 update:

http://gallery.mailchimp.com/c067e0500e2a024737cbed896/images/maps_3_newsletter_041013.jpg

Source: MAPS 3 Project Updates (http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=c067e0500e2a024737cbed896&id=92e5f0730a)

I'd like to see the "MAPS 3 sidewalks master plan".

I'd also like to see the design sketches for the Fairgrounds Expo Center.

Also, for the CC, it says "land acquisition is being planned".
Shouldn't that be "land acquisition is underway"?

Praedura: if not mistaken the Oklahoman printed the Sidewalks Master Plan map. if not there, am fairly certain it is floating around OKCTalk someplace.

There were early renderings during the campaign for the Fairgrounds

Here is a link to the State Fairgrounds improvements:

City of Oklahoma City | Public Information & Marketing (http://www.okc.gov/maps3/fairgrounds.html)

Tiny little milestone for MAPS 3

MAPS 3 lights up the Oklahoma River (http://www.okc.gov/news/2013_06/MAPS_3_lights_up_the_Oklahoma_River.html)

As in, this is the first official part of MAPS 3 to be completed.



The Oklahoma River will become the world’s first permanently lighted racecourse when the lights
are illuminated during a MAPS 3 River Lighting Ceremony at 8:45 p.m. on June 29.

This marks the first large-scale MAPS 3 project to be completed.

The ceremony will take place during the second annual SandRidge Energy Stars and Stripes River Festival
and is open to the public.

Also, there's an update on the trails portion of the project:

OKC Trails System: Construction Update (http://www.okc.gov/news/2013_06/OKC_Trails_System_Construction_Update.html)

The West River Trail (new trail on the north side of the river) set to begin construction this fall.

also in the agenda for this week the city is going into negations with the first 2 possible wellness center partners

city county health ..

and a non profit connected to FBC putnam city

I saw a report on this same story last night on TV news...

OKC considers paying $5.4 million for 2 police helicopters | The Journal Record (http://journalrecord.com/2013/11/18/helicopters-general-news/)

...anyway, my question is, on the news report they said we're funding these helicopters at least partially out of MAPS 3 money. Huh? Can someone please explain?

I saw a report on this same story last night on TV news...

OKC considers paying $5.4 million for 2 police helicopters | The Journal Record (http://journalrecord.com/2013/11/18/helicopters-general-news/)

...anyway, my question is, on the news report they said we're funding these helicopters at least partially out of MAPS 3 money. Huh? Can someone please explain?

Possibly with the Use Tax?

Possibly with the Use Tax?

Yes, I forgot that detail, they did specify use tax, but I don't understand how that works.

Cool!

OKC will be officially big-time when we have the ghetto birds flying overhead! ;)

Actually these would be replacing the ones we already have (they are over my neighborhood nearly every night). I guess we're ALREADY big-time!

Yes, I forgot that detail, they did specify use tax, but I don't understand how that works.

Here you go:

Every state with a sales tax has a companion tax for purchases made outside the state. In Oklahoma, that tax is called "use tax". If you have purchased items for use in Oklahoma from retailers who do not collect Oklahoma sales tax, you owe Oklahoma use tax on those items. Use tax is paid by the buyer when the Oklahoma sales tax has not been collected by the seller. Individuals in Oklahoma are responsible for paying use tax on their out-of-state purchases.

Hope this helps.

I understand Use Tax from a tax return perspective, but I don't understand the combination... "Maps 3 Use Tax"

I understand Use Tax from a tax return perspective, but I don't understand the combination... "Maps 3 Use Tax"

I believe it is just the use tax from the same time period as the Maps 3 sales tax runs. $60 million was raised in use tax when Maps for Kids was running.

Okay, so not part of the original $777M?

Okay, so not part of the original $777M?

Correct. A seperate tax altogether. The MAPS3 tax pulls in the sales tax from within the metro area. The Use tax is a tax on items purchased outside of the state for use in Oklahoma from retailers who do not collect a sales tax in Oklahoma.

Makes sense, just super confused about why the news station would put them together like that.

Makes sense, just super confused about why the news station would put them together like that.

I understand. It is confusing to me too. Again, I think it is just to show the tax would only be collected during the MAPS3 collection period.

Cool!

OKC will be officially big-time when we have the ghetto birds flying overhead! ;)

We've had two MD 500Es for a long while now. I love their sound - very unique and maneuverable. However, they can only be used for surveillance/pursuit type activities. I'm not a fan of the look of the Eurocopters, but I do like their capability, which includes the ability to begin doing water drops for wildfires. If OKC starts doing that, it could speed up response times during wildfire season. I also see that they note small rescues, another big help in times of need.

When we were planning the 2007 GOB, I remember Police coming in and giving a presentation on their needs. Even back then, they were aware that the two existing birds would need to be replaced in the near future.

Cool!

OKC will be officially big-time when we have the ghetto birds flying overhead! ;)

We already have one, or is that operated by the county?

And thumbs up to the use of the word "ghetto bird." I say that all the time in reference to police choppers and always get strange looks.

Here is a particularly well-written piece from News 9:


OKLAHOMA CITY - Oklahoma City Police are getting two brand new state of the art helicopters. The aircraft will replace the two current helicopters which are to cost the department a lot money in repairs.

The new helicopters will allow officers to perform more tactical operations and even repel out of the aircraft.

A basket can be attached, so the $3 million helicopter can assist with a fire, or air rescue.

Current aircraft can't be either.

The current fleet started to cost the department a lot of money in repairs, according to the Chief.

"You get into 10 and 12 years old like our helicopters now, parts starts to break down and need to be replaced," OCPD Chief Bill Citty said.

Both helicopters will be ordered with the hope that they will be operational by May or June.

Here is a particularly well-written piece from News 9:

HA! Just wonderful editing!

Dear God, was that written by a 6th grader?

Dear God, was that written by a 6th grader?

Probably not, but I read it in a 6th grade voice... Try it.

We already have one, or is that operated by the county?

And thumbs up to the use of the word "ghetto bird." I say that all the time in reference to police choppers and always get strange looks.

We have two (as referenced by others and myself). The county does not have one of their own. OHP has one Bell Jet Ranger with hoisting capability (that I know of) and a few fixed-wing aircraft. National Guard helicopters are used for firefighting currently. It'll be nice to be able to not have to wait for their response, or to add to it.

So these new OKCPD choppers will have capabilities to have water buckets/bags/scoops (whatever the official term is) for fighting wildfires? That is very cool if true.

So these new OKCPD choppers will have capabilities to have water buckets/bags/scoops (whatever the official term is) for fighting wildfires? That is very cool if true.

According to the City Council memo, yes.

Maybe they can fly some water up to Canton?

From the City home page:


http://youtu.be/m7Jw7bQ7geE

Really surprised me to see that the zoo gets a fraction of every sale permanently. That's a good thing. But if we can do this, there's no reason we can't do a permanent fractional-cent transit tax.

From the City home page:


http://youtu.be/m7Jw7bQ7geE

Really surprised me to see that the zoo gets a fraction of every sale permanently. That's a good thing. But if we can do this, there's no reason we can't do a permanent fractional-cent transit tax.

Uh oh, you just dug up a can of worms. :)

Oklahoma City councilman questions dedicated zoo funding | News OK (http://newsok.com/article/3689227) "Oklahoma City councilman questions dedicated zoo funding"

Redirecting Oklahoma City Zoo tax revenue not a good idea | News OK (http://newsok.com/redirecting-oklahoma-city-zoo-tax-revenue-not-a-good-idea/article/3689345) "Redirecting Oklahoma City Zoo tax revenue not a good idea"

Thanks for that, not sure how I missed it before. When I saw that movie it immediately brought to mind the MAPS4/Transit/RTA funding debate.

Why not make the MAPS sales tax a permanent tax and then decide on which capital projects the city should undertake?

The Zoo has been enjoying their 1/8 cent sales tax for years and we should keep that like it is and decide on a MAPS permanent tax which could be used for city capital improvements separate from a bond funded capital improvement projects.

As far as deciding piece meal sales tax for various projects; we need to look at the overall picture.

Here are some 'brainstorming' items the city will probably be considering in the future:

1. Expand Bricktown canal.
2. Expand Rapid Transit Commuter Rail.
3. Replace and/or renovate Cox Convention Center/Chesapeake Energy Arena.
4. City Football Stadium: Retractable roof, domed, open air, 25,000-seats, 50,000-seats 75,000-seats
5. Incentive money to attract businesses/hotels etc.
6. Continuous upgrades/improvements at Fair Park.
7. Continuous upgrades/improvements to the Riverfront.
8. Continuous upgrades/improvements to City schools.
9. More iconic structures which landmark our city like the Skydance Bridge.
10. Bricktown Ballpark: Upgrades, improvements.

These are just a few ideas and I'm sure we could use a whole thread dedicated to a MAPS for Futures.

Are we planning for our city's future?

I've long thought MAPS should be a permanent 1-cent (but it could even be a 7/8s-cent tax so that combined with the zoo it's a cent) with repeal votes every 5-years, managed by a "MAPS commission" that selected the "next 5" projects to be worked as funds became available, where the project candidates were submitted to the commission by council members via feedback from their wards. If we ever have another MAPS vote, it should be to make it permanent with periodic repeal votes.

I've long thought MAPS should be a permanent 1-cent (but it could even be a 7/8s-cent tax so that combined with the zoo it's a cent) with repeal votes every 5-years, managed by a "MAPS commission" that selected the "next 5" projects to be worked as funds became available, where the project candidates were submitted to the commission by council members via feedback from their wards. If we ever have another MAPS vote, it should be to make it permanent with periodic repeal votes.

That is a very interesting proposition Shawn and worthy of consideration. But I can only imagine the histrionics of the usual suspects should it ever be implemented. To use a Shadidism, transparency in the processes would have to be paramount; and results would need to be obvious to sustain the willingness of the voters to continue their support. The main issue I see is making the selected projects "immune" from selective targeting as the people on the City Council change over time. It would work with 6 of the 9 people we have now because they are willing to work together to achieve consensus - but if the attitudes often displayed by the other three ever become dominant, the program would end at the next repeal vote for sure.

I've long thought MAPS should be a permanent 1-cent (but it could even be a 7/8s-cent tax so that combined with the zoo it's a cent) with repeal votes every 5-years, managed by a "MAPS commission" that selected the "next 5" projects to be worked as funds became available, where the project candidates were submitted to the commission by council members via feedback from their wards. If we ever have another MAPS vote, it should be to make it permanent with periodic repeal votes.

Wow... in theory, it works. BUT, the more hands that touch this process, the greater the % of failure. Lets keep it like it is for the next few initiatives.

Let's go back to the original MAPS projects which passed in 1993.

Mayor Ron Norrick took this behind closed doors; he knew that the more hands and people you had scrutinizing the projects the less likely you were to get anything done. Keeping this closed to the media was another key element.

Let's forget about the Zoo for now and grandfather in that 1/8 penny sales tax.

The question becomes one of making the MAPS a permanent one cent sales tax with periodic checks and/or benchmarks in place every five to seven years where we evaluate where we are and where we want to go.

The committee would mirror that of the original members of the 1993 group.

Members of a MAPS committee would need to have their terms staggered so that we keep a host of veterans and rookie members together at all times.

Trying to take the MAPs tax permanent, with scheduled reviews to cancel it, is probably the second fastest way to sour folks on the entire process.
Many already view it as semi permanent. Though it has been allowed to expire before, it's certainly been in place many more months than not since MAPs was first birthed.

Today, the people know if things do not go well, they are not stuck long term. The politicos know well, the funds are finite. Turning that on its head could create a scenario where politicos say ah, they may kill it after this, but let's build something X wants before they do.