As an alternative to the log-rolling style of voting on MAPS how about this?

Each project will be it's own line item on the ballot and the ballot will specify the total funds required. Any project receiving 40% approval will be considering passing and receive MAPS funding. Once the tax started being collected each project will receive an equal share of the penny. When a project reaches its full funding the 'equal share' gets recalculated and distributed to the remaining projects. This means the least expensive projects get fully funded first and the most expensive projects last (but would be on an accelerated funding track as less expensive projects drop off). Projects can start spending their money as soon as they have enough to buy something with it.

Of course this method might mean that some projects don't get funded but so be it. If 40% seems too high then pick any threshold that seems reasonable. On the other hand, there would be no more MAPS timelines that favor one project over another or delays in one project effecting all the others. In addition - the tax would expire when the funding level is met, not some arbitrary duration set 7 or 8 years in advance which may or may not produce the required funds.

I don't live in OKC but make many purchases. That's how I, unintentionally, support
MAPS. When I did live in OKC I never voted for MAPS because it was a tax increase.
I'll always be against any tax increase until all tax revenue is used to fulfilled obligations
already promised and higher taxes are no longer needed. Of course that will never
happen and I'll never vote for a tax increase.

Something everyone needs to understand about MAPS funding, especially since it's become a continuous thing over the last 25 years, with no end in sight...

The $.01 additional sales tax for MAPS actually comes at the expense of the overall City Budget.

OKC only charges 8.375% in total sales tax, which is lower than average in the metro area -- and that includes the 1% for MAPS.

In other words, without MAPS OKC is only charging 7.375%, while the average in the area is 8.48%:

Del City 8.00%
Edmond 8.25%
Norman 8.25%
Midwest City 8.35%
Oklahoma City 8.38%
Arcadia 8.50%
Bethany 8.50%
Nichols Hills 8.50%
The Village 8.50%
Warr Acres 8.50%
Moore 8.50%
El Reno 8.85%
Mustang 8.85%
Yukon 8.85%
Average 8.48%

So, what is actually happening is that OKC is keeping it's sales tax artificially low, so MAPS can be added and still be below average for the immediate area.

Or to put it more bluntly, without the MAPS sur-charge the City would still charge the same percentage but instead of that 1% going to MAPS, it would go into the general City budget and be used for public safety, roads, etc.

Sales tax is by far the biggest contributor to the City's budget.

What would the City do with the penny if MAPS didn't exist. If people credit MAPS with the resurgence in OKC is it safe to assume the other 7.375 cents are being completely misalocated? What about the surrounding communities who are apparently wasting their extra penny.

Here is how the 8.375% sales tax breaks down for OKC:

State 4.5% (mandated for every municipality)
General City Budget 2%
Police & Fire 0.750%
Zoo 0.125%
MAPS 1%
Total: 8.375%

Just to clarify, the MAPS tax was allowed to expire in 1999 and remained expired for around a year and a half until MAPS for Kids was voted in and implemented. Though there is no doubt that the penny has been largely in place since first passed, is a common misconception that it has been continuous and/or never allowed to expire.

At 8.38%, how does Okc compare to our peer cities in sales tax?

At 8.38%, how does Okc compare to our peer cities in sales tax?

I really do not believe you can compare cities on an interstate comparison. Many places exempt food from this tax, others exempt clothes as well. With these exemptions, you have to make the difference somewhere. Also many places also have an additional county sales tax that apparently OK county does not have when looking at the above breakdown.

If it ain't broke don't fix it, I would say.

The logrolling of projects is the secret behind MAP's success. Why do you think so many cities have looked to OKC to do something similar? Voters have to weight the initiative in it's entirety; if people feel one project is so egregious then they have the ability to vote the whole thing down. And this has happened in other cities.

You can't really compare tax rates to surrounding suburbs, who have to keep their rates a higher because there's significant "leakage" into OKC; I remember back when MAPS3 was up for a vote that 30% of sales tax is generated by people from outside the city. Having the rate a bit lowers also allows OKC to have wiggle room for other funding in the future, like an RTA tax. For reference sake, Tulsa tax is 8.584% while Dallas's is 8.25% (but only 2.0% of that goes to the city). As jerseyboss alluded to, its really hard to have an apples to apples comparison here.

Something everyone needs to understand about MAPS funding, especially since it's become a continuous thing over the last 25 years, with no end in sight...

The $.01 additional sales tax for MAPS actually comes at the expense of the overall City Budget.

OKC only charges 8.375% in total sales tax, which is lower than average in the metro area -- and that includes the 1% for MAPS.

In other words, without MAPS OKC is only charging 7.375%, while the average in the area is 8.48%:

Del City 8.00%
Edmond 8.25%
Norman 8.25%
Midwest City 8.35%
Oklahoma City 8.38%
Arcadia 8.50%
Bethany 8.50%
Nichols Hills 8.50%
The Village 8.50%
Warr Acres 8.50%
Moore 8.50%
El Reno 8.85%
Mustang 8.85%
Yukon 8.85%
Average 8.48%

So, what is actually happening is that OKC is keeping it's sales tax artificially low, so MAPS can be added and still be below average for the immediate area.

Or to put it more bluntly, without the MAPS sur-charge the City would still charge the same percentage but instead of that 1% going to MAPS, it would go into the general City budget and be used for public safety, roads, etc.

Sales tax is by far the biggest contributor to the City's budget.

For this to be true. You have to assume that a general fund tax increase would have passed in the last 20 years and I think that is a pretty huge assumption. Maps passes because people know what they are being taxed for.

A general tax increase is not close to the same thing. I for one wouldn't vote for it

I would actually like to see Oklahoma change the way sales tax is administered because it creates competition between neighboring cities which often results in even more tax subsidies.

Classic case in point is Cabela's, where the City of OKC gave them incentives to locate within the city limits rather than Edmond or Moore.

For this to be true. You have to assume that a general fund tax increase would have passed in the last 20 years and I think that is a pretty huge assumption. Maps passes because people know what they are being taxed for.

A general tax increase is not close to the same thing. I for one wouldn't vote for it

Every other single surrounding municipality has done it, most to even a larger extent (see the list I provided for comparison) so I wouldn't call it a huge assumption but rather likely.

There is no way OKC would be sitting at 7.375% when every town around them is way more.

For this to be true. You have to assume that a general fund tax increase would have passed in the last 20 years and I think that is a pretty huge assumption. Maps passes because people know what they are being taxed for.

A general tax increase is not close to the same thing. I for one wouldn't vote for it

So, let's codify that. The state should allow cities to be specific about each project. Because, as of the last "logrolled" MAPS vote, we were only trusting the council to carry out what they say the vote was all about on a few of the issues. To me, when some of them have to point to advertising to debate what a logrolled vote was really about, something is really wrong.

What would the City do with the penny if MAPS didn't exist. If people credit MAPS with
the resurgence in OKC is it safe to assume the other 7.375 cents are being completely
misalocated? What about the surrounding communities who are apparently wasting
their extra penny.
Of course it's being misappropriated, i.e. not spent properly, which is why I will never
vote for any kind of tax increase that comes out of my pocket. Bethany is close to 9%
and what do we have to show for it? I mean besides nothing.

In the 90's Warr Acres cut their sales tax from 7.5% to 6.5% and revenues increased.

Every other single surrounding municipality has done it, most to even a larger extent (see the list I provided for comparison) so I wouldn't call it a huge assumption but rather likely.

There is no way OKC would be sitting at 7.375% when every town around them is way more.

When is the last time any central Oklahoma city raised taxes

When is the last time any central Oklahoma city raised taxes

Quick research shows:

Moore 2012
Midwest City 2011
Edmond 2011
Choctaw 2011
Warr Acres 2008
Norman 2008

I'm sure if I looked all the way back to 1990 when MAPS started that every single municipality has had significant increases.

I think Norman just raised theirs this or last year.

For this to be true. You have to assume that a general fund tax increase would have passed in the last 20 years and I think that is a pretty huge assumption. Maps passes because people know what they are being taxed for.

A general tax increase is not close to the same thing. I for one wouldn't vote for it


Quick research shows:

Moore 2012
Midwest City 2011
Edmond 2011
Choctaw 2011
Warr Acres 2008
Norman 2008

I'm sure if I looked all the way back to 1990 when MAPS started that every single municipality has had significant increases.


Always good to see maps where "republican" is viewed as a cut

Fail

I appreciate Pete's informed response, but I don't understand why some posters are taken seriously anymore...

I appreciate Pete's informed response, but I don't understand why some posters are taken seriously anymore...

Boulder is a good dude who loves OKC and puts a lot of his time and effort into improving it.

He just likes to stir the pot and even though we frequently disagree, I respect his opinions and perspective.

Boulder is one of my favorite posters: dude clearly has super solid information, but the fact that he never posts more than 3 sentences always leaves you wondering what you're missing that he knows.

Quick research shows:

Moore 2012
Midwest City 2011
Edmond 2011
Choctaw 2011
Warr Acres 2008
Norman 2008

I'm sure if I looked all the way back to 1990 when MAPS started that every single municipality has had significant increases.

Thanks for looking that up Pete. That info is a little suprising to me. And does indicate that Okc would likey have passed a tax raise.

On the sales tax issue, Pete mentioned it earlier in this thread and I have brought it up several times, but the cities and towns in Central Oklahoma need to enter into a sales tax sharing agreement. We are leaving a lot of money on the table when places like Cabela's and Walmart pit one local community against another chasing sales taxes. Not only could we eliminate the threat of lost sales tax revenue but we could give a big middle finger to the very same companies when they threaten to go to an adjacent city unless millions of dollars in 'incentives' (bribes, kickbacks, extortion) are handed over. Honestly, this is one issue that should be supported by everyone from all political persuasions. Companies should pick the best location to attract customers - and leave it at that.

In short, how would a sales tax sharing agreement work? Would it be forced by the state?

I also wonder if they could just completely eliminate the income tax and then raise property taxes a little bit and give some money from property taxes to the city.

In short, how would a sales tax sharing agreement work? Would it be forced by the state?

I also wonder if they could just completely eliminate the income tax and then raise property taxes a little bit and give some money from property taxes to the city.

The state wouldn't have anything to do with it (although with the crew running the State right now, they might decide to make it their business like they a do a lot of other things). As for HOW it is done, I will have to read up on that. I know Minneapolis and St. Paul have an agreement in places as do several counties in Tennessee, and a quick Google search show it is popular in California. I think the jest of it would be to calculate the total pot of sales taxes collected and then divvy it up by population.

As to your final point, that is how we do it here in Florida. No income tax but we pay a pretty steep property tax. On the plus side, one can easily control how much property tax they are willing pay simply by choosing to live in a smaller home, rent (yes I know renters indirectly pay property taxes), live in a less expensive home OR (and here is my favorite), develop the city so it doesn't cost so much to maintain and serve.

Boulder is one of my favorite posters: dude clearly has super solid information, but the fact that he never posts more than 3 sentences always leaves you wondering what you're missing that he knows.

I don't think very many have figured out that his three sentences are usually an unfortunate fact, that he wants to bash people with, hopes that said fact is true, then it turns out said fact is not true. It's called "talking out of his ---" but I just wanted to get at least three sentences in.

Patterns people...lol

Boulder is a good dude who loves OKC and puts a lot of his time and effort into improving it.

He just likes to stir the pot and even though we frequently disagree, I respect his opinions and perspective.

What has he improved? Funding for highway boulevards? Support for polarizing republicans?