The ballots contain the language " to be completed with or without the use of other funds, and levy and collect an annual tax, in addition to all other taxes, upon all the taxable property in said City sufficient to pay the interest on said bonds as it falls due".

What does that mean?

It's really just generic language that expresses the fact that the city will collect a tax on property to pay off the bonds, and the monies used for the project may come from other, unspecified sources beyond the tax. I think that's essentially boilerplate language, although some similar questions I've seen do specify the millage rate.

This is not true. There are 2 votes for taxes.

1. extending the maps cent tax for roads and streets (Not permanent)

And 2. Creating S BRAND NEW 1/4 cent permanent tax increase (which the council has said will go to hiring more police and fire)

I am very much for the first and very against the second as our sales tax is high enough

I hear ya, Boulder, believe me, but even I am hard-pressed to deny the fact we need a way to fund some expanded police/fjre resources. Wasn't our last expansion as a result of some one-time federal monies? If there's a better way to pay for it, I'm all ears.

I have not heard and statement on how much taxes would go down if the bonds did not pass.

My understanding from attending one of the bond meetings is that your taxes would not go down if everyone votes no. The county collects the same amount of property tax in this scenario no matter what, however the city cannot access that property tax unless the people vote that they can via bond issues.

This is not true. There are 2 votes for taxes.

1. extending the maps cent tax for roads and streets (Not permanent)

And 2. Creating S BRAND NEW 1/4 cent permanent tax increase (which the council has said will go to hiring more police and fire)

I am very much for the first and very against the second as our sales tax is high enough

I tend to be leaning this way as well. The .25% tax for police and fire will become permanent and this is on top of the other dedicated amount of sales tax they receive. Sales taxes are beginning to rebound plus the natural growth we get over time in sales taxes should soon allow for more police and fireman hiring, without having to add a permant .25%.

I will be voting for the bond issue thats going to police/fire equipment and buildings, so I am at least giving them some support.

As for the rest of the bond issues, the economic development fund is one that I will likely say no to, maybe the only one. Im just not a fan of my money going to the biggest and most profitable companies out there, just because they are naturally expanding their operations here. No little guy or small business will get anything. Plus, if we keep doing the rest of the things that the maps money and bond issues are addressing, maybe more companies will expand here because we are actually making the quality of life better here.

My understanding from attending one of the bond meetings is that your taxes would not go down if everyone votes no. The county collects the same amount of property tax in this scenario no matter what, however the city cannot access that property tax unless the people vote that they can via bond issues.

I guess I'm dense (and perhaps some posters here would swear to that in court :) ), but I don't see how this can be completely accurate. If you are authorizing new taxes, how could the amount collected not change? How would the County know what to collect but for what the relevant cities tell them to collect? It's not like the County assesses a magic number and the city can just write a demand letter for whatever amount they want. There has to be a mechanism in place that ties the property taxes in the propositions into what is collected by the county, and I thought it was a given that mechanism is the millage rate.

There's a battery-not-included notice missing here.

I don't claim complete understanding. I'm just trying to recall the way it was explained. I welcome someone with a better understanding to elaborate. The bottom line is that the city doesn't collect property tax, it only collects sales tax. The county collects property tax. The city has to get an allocation of the collected property tax from the county. If the bond measure fails, I don't think the city gets that allocation. If the city doesn't get that allocation from the county, I don't believe it means that the money isn't collected. The meeting I went to was like six months ago at this point, apologies for being fuzzy on this.

Back in the early 1990's, OKC 'rebuilt' the Northwest Expressway from Penn avenue all the way to Rockwell, or there about.

I worked along that stretch and they literally dug down almost 2 feet and filled it with asphalt, and added some kind of moisture barrier between layers of the asphalt. That road to my knowledge was not touched at least through 2008, and still may not have been as of today. It was in great shape when I left the area in 2008. I feel like they did this one right when putting asphalt down.

I may be wrong, but I think NW Expressway is a state highway. ODOT would've rebuilt that road. Different pool of money. Don't flame me if I'm wrong in advance!

I don't claim complete understanding. I'm just trying to recall the way it was explained. I welcome someone with a better understanding to elaborate. The bottom line is that the city doesn't collect property tax, it only collects sales tax. The county collects property tax. The city has to get an allocation of the collected property tax from the county. If the bond measure fails, I don't think the city gets that allocation. If the city doesn't get that allocation from the county, I don't believe it means that the money isn't collected. The meeting I went to was like six months ago at this point, apologies for being fuzzy on this.

Hey no criticism here - I appreciate the effort to get the right info out there!

The city obviously has some sort of authority to levy a property tax. That's in the ballot proposals. What the above explanation implies is that a given county collects a tax amount, X, and from that amount is drawn all the relevant County obligations, and then allocations from relevant cities. Let's call those numbers Y and Z. I'd think X had better equal Y + Z. If X > Y + Z, then the County runs a surplus? or if X < Y + Z, the county goes into debt??

Someone in the know, please help. Surely it can't be this complicated. Then again, it is government...

Hey no criticism here - I appreciate the effort to get the right info out there!

The city obviously has some sort of authority to levy a property tax. That's in the ballot proposals. What the above explanation implies is that a given county collects a tax amount, X, and from that amount is drawn all the relevant County obligations, and then allocations from relevant cities. Let's call those numbers Y and Z. I'd think X had better equal Y + Z. If X > Y + Z, then the County runs a surplus? or if X < Y + Z, the county goes into debt??

Someone in the know, please help. Surely it can't be this complicated. Then again, it is government...

I did some searching and I think (but I am not certain) that I understand. Municipalities in Oklahoma can only levy a property tax to repay a GO bond or a court judgment levied against the municipality. There is some maximum millage level set for each taxing district (school, Career Tech, county, city, etc.), but the actual taxes levied (and thus paid) can be at a rate less than the maximum millage. So, for example, I think the actual levy for the City of OKC was 14.81 mills last year, even though the city is authorized to go up to 16 mills. The reason they don't is presumably that 14.81 mills provides the right amount of revenue to pay back the principal and interest on the 2007 GO bonds. Increasing the maximum millage can be done with a vote of the Council, up to some level (not sure what that level is, but it is at least 20 mills since that was being discussed by certain City Councillors earlier this year). Increasing it beyond that level requires either a vote of the people or a change to the Oklahoma Constitution. So, if the GO bond were to fail, the County Board of Equalization would work with the City and determine what, if any, property tax would need to be levied by the City to continue to retire the 2007 GO bonds on schedule. The County doesn't just keep the extra revenue. In fact, I think the County Board of Equalization acts a lot like the State Board of Equalization, which meets every year to determine "how much money" the Legislature has to appropriate for the following year. The County Board meets to determine how much of the authorized millage for each taxing district needs to actually be assessed to meet anticipated obligations.

Again, not sure that the above is 100% right, but that's what I gleaned from reading a handful of articles here and there.

On a related note, I asked at a meeting last week what would happen if part of the GO bond proposals failed. I was told that the City would turn around and get another bond proposal on the ballot basically as soon as possible to make up the difference, funding-wise. This makes sense to me given the framework above - if you can only collect property taxes to repay outstanding bonds, you need to make sure you have outstanding bonds to continue to fund capital projects, so that you can continue to collect the property taxes. In fact, "hundreds" (not sure exactly how many) of Oklahoma municipalities levy no property tax at all, because they have no bonds or court judgments to repay. These are probably small ones - if you only have a 100 citizens you couldn't possibly tax them at a high enough rate to collect enough money to build anything worthwhile. Probably why small town infrastructure is so poorly maintained, in general.

I guess I'm dense (and perhaps some posters here would swear to that in court :) ), but I don't see how this can be completely accurate. If you are authorizing new taxes, how could the amount collected not change? How would the County know what to collect but for what the relevant cities tell them to collect? It's not like the County assesses a magic number and the city can just write a demand letter for whatever amount they want. There has to be a mechanism in place that ties the property taxes in the propositions into what is collected by the county, and I thought it was a given that mechanism is the millage rate.

There's a battery-not-included notice missing here.

My understanding is that since they are bonds, they are basically a self-funded loan for the city. We are not voting on a new tax, we are simply voting to allow the city to spend all this money that is borrowed from future property tax income. Either way, the city will collect the same amount each year, and can either spend it a little bit at a time each year or spend it all at once and then pay it back a little bit at a time each year.

My understanding is that since they are bonds, they are basically a self-funded loan for the city. We are not voting on a new tax, we are simply voting to allow the city to spend all this money that is borrowed from future property tax income. Either way, the city will collect the same amount each year, and can either spend it a little bit at a time each year or spend it all at once and then pay it back a little bit at a time each year.

I finally got my head wrapped around it with a tweet from the City of OKC. Current millage rate is .16, and the maximum bond package they could pay off in 10 years with no increase in that millage was $968M. So now it makes sense to this old concrete knoggin'.

Thanks for the explanations all. Makes sense now, and in that vein I can't fathom a reason to oppose any of them, although I will admit there's some vagueness about the economic incentive package that makes me wary.

It appears that all bond measures, as well as both tax questions have passed with 233/234 precincts reporting.

I may be wrong, but I think NW Expressway is a state highway. ODOT would've rebuilt that road. Different pool of money. Don't flame me if I'm wrong in advance!

You're correct, it's part of State Highway 3.

I'm glad to see it all passed (most with overwhelming margins), though I was a bit surprised to see the downtown arena and (to a lesser extent) Civic Center improvements come so close to not passing. Is this a (near) rejection of what voters see as big, downtown projects? Or do voters simply not feel they'll need updating in the next ten years? Other than the economic development one, all of the other projects that would be spread throughout the rest of the city seemed to pass easily.

I'm glad to see it all passed (most with overwhelming margins), though I was a bit surprised to see the downtown arena and (to a lesser extent) Civic Center improvements come so close to not passing. Is this a (near) rejection of what voters see as big, downtown projects? Or do voters simply not feel they'll need updating in the next ten years? Other than the economic development one, all of the other projects that would be spread throughout the rest of the city seemed to pass easily.

I hope the arena was so close as the public is changing their view of rich NBA/NFL/MLB owners getting tax payers to pay for their improvements.

This was VERY low turnout. What was demonstrated here is that the local larger businesses can get their employees to the polls and win low turnout elections. I would imagine if you actually polled all Oklahoma City residents, they would be 70-30 against that $60 million slush fund for "job creation."

I hope the arena was so close as the public is changing their view of rich NBA/NFL/MLB owners getting tax payers to pay for their improvements.

The city owns the arena. I think this bond was about maintenance to the structure not improvements that necessarily make money for the Thunder. I could wrong though.

I hope the arena was so close as the public is changing their view of rich NBA/NFL/MLB owners getting tax payers to pay for their improvements.

My guess is that there are lots of uneducated voters who saw the proposition state Chesapeake Energy Arena improvements and think that Chesapeake owns the arena so why should we give Chesapeake 8 million.

Just my guess as it seems from people posting on Facebook and nextdoor that people really had no clue what they were voting for on any of this and they all think the city has something to do with the education funding cuts.

Not sure much can be done to better educate voters but that seems to be an issue

My guess is that there are lots of uneducated voters who saw the proposition state Chesapeake Energy Arena improvements and think that Chesapeake owns the arena so why should we give Chesapeake 8 million.

Just my guess as it seems from people posting on Facebook and nextdoor that people really had no clue what they were voting for on any of this and they all think the city has something to do with the education funding cuts.

Not sure much can be done to better educate voters but that seems to be an issue

I agree. They see the CHK Arena and associated it with CHK or the Thunder.

We have the NBA Thunder as an anchor tenant. We need to be making continuous upgrades (technological advances) to keep the Peake competitive.

The Chesapeake Energy Arena is used for other things besides pro basketball. Could this have anything to do with tying the Peake in with the new convention center via a sky bridge or some covered corridor?


PROPOSITION NO. 7
(DOWNTOWN CITY ARENA)


Shall The City of Oklahoma City, State of Oklahoma, incur an indebtedness by issuing registered bonds in the sum of Eight Million Eight Hundred Sixty-five Thousand Dollars ($8,865,000) to provide funds for the purpose of repairing, renovating, remodeling, improving, equipping and furnishing the City’s Downtown Arena located at 100 W. Reno, now called the Chesapeake Energy Arena, to be owned exclusively by said City, to be completed with or without the use of other funds, and levy and collect an annual tax, in addition to all other taxes, upon all the taxable property in said City sufficient to pay the interest on said bonds as it falls due, and also to constitute a sinking fund for the payment of the principal thereof when due, said bonds to bear interest at a rate not to exceed ten percent (10%) per annum, payable semi-annually, and to become due serially within twenty-five years from their date?

This was VERY low turnout. What was demonstrated here is that the local larger businesses can get their employees to the polls and win low turnout elections. I would imagine if you actually polled all Oklahoma City residents, they would be 70-30 against that $60 million slush fund for "job creation."

That's the one I had the most trouble with. The way I understand it is that this money will be helpful in luring businesses here to our city. That in turn will create jobs and inject prosperity into our city and that money then will be reinvested into our community. Sometimes this works: project 180, for example, wouldn't have been possible with out Devon and no doubt the employees that move here because their corporation moves here injects $$$ into the economy, but is it really worth it? What would happen if we used all the money that we've given to corporations to locate here through the various channels and invested it directly in to quality of life improvements? Couldn't we eventually create a place great enough that companies want to locate here on their own without bribes? What is the goal of a city anyway? to grow? or to provide a clean, safe, and nice place to live for it's citizens? Just some ramblings as I'm no where near an expert on this topic. But it seems absurd to me that We are willing to spend $60 mil on this compared to, say, $20 mil for public transit...

That's my issue with the complaint against rich sports teams.

The Thunder is simply a renter, nothing more and nothing less, and they have no obligation to rent our fancy arena. In the grand scheme of things, the Thunder is no different than a small business renting a retail space in a strip mall, or even a family renting an apartment somewhere. The city owns the building, the city is responsible for the upkeep of the building, and the city is responsible for making sure the building stays updated and competitive. Imagine having an AC that doesn't cool the house anymore, or a water break, or a leaking roof, and you call your landlord and he tells you "you're the one living there, you fix it". People would be pissed off, and rightfully so, yet those are some of the same people who think the Thunder who rent the place should be responsible for making capital improvements and pay for the upkeep of the place they are renting.

It's our arena, we own the bills. And if/when the Thunder pack up and leave, it will still be our arena. Improvements to the arena also benefit us with remaining competitive when it comes to attracting other national shows and events as well.

That's my issue with the complaint against rich sports teams.

The Thunder is simply a renter, nothing more and nothing less, and they have no obligation to rent our fancy arena. In the grand scheme of things, the Thunder is no different than a small business renting a retail space in a strip mall, or even a family renting an apartment somewhere. The city owns the building, the city is responsible for the upkeep of the building, and the city is responsible for making sure the building stays updated and competitive. Imagine having an AC that doesn't cool the house anymore, or a water break, or a leaking roof, and you call your landlord and he tells you "you're the one living there, you fix it". People would be pissed off, and rightfully so, yet those are some of the same people who think the Thunder who rent the place should be responsible for making capital improvements and pay for the upkeep of the place they are renting.

It's our arena, we own the bills. And if/when the Thunder pack up and leave, it will still be our arena. Improvements to the arena also benefit us with remaining competitive when it comes to attracting other national shows and events as well.

Rent


The Thunder pay$1,640,000 in annual Arena Rent ($40,000 per game) for fortyone (41) regular season NBA home games. Additional Rent of $40,000 is to be paid for each preseason and postseason home game. Rent is subject to periodic CPI adjustments, capped at 3% annually.

The Thunder also pay an annual Practice Facility Rent of $100,000. –Sect. 2(a)(i) & (iii), pg. 2The Thunder pay game expenses to the amount of $28,000 per home game no later than fifteen (15) days after the end of the calendar month. The Thunder also remit naming rights revenues to SMG in the amount of $409,000 in quarterly installments. –Sect. 4.1, pg. 29–30

City of Oklahoma City owns this arena; it continues to serve the purpose (anchor tenant for NBA major league sports). Oklahoma City joins some elite company since there are only 30 NBA franchises in North America.

That's the one I had the most trouble with. The way I understand it is that this money will be helpful in luring businesses here to our city. That in turn will create jobs and inject prosperity into our city and that money then will be reinvested into our community. Sometimes this works: project 180, for example, wouldn't have been possible with out Devon and no doubt the employees that move here because their corporation moves here injects $$$ into the economy, but is it really worth it? What would happen if we used all the money that we've given to corporations to locate here through the various channels and invested it directly in to quality of life improvements? Couldn't we eventually create a place great enough that companies want to locate here on their own without bribes? What is the goal of a city anyway? to grow? or to provide a clean, safe, and nice place to live for it's citizens? Just some ramblings as I'm no where near an expert on this topic. But it seems absurd to me that We are willing to spend $60 mil on this compared to, say, $20 mil for public transit...

Not too sure about creating mountains and a nearby ocean. Quality of life yes, but not sure if that would be enough to do it. Everyone knows Dallas has a large slush fund they use to lure companies to the metroplex.

This was VERY low turnout. What was demonstrated here is that the local larger businesses can get their employees to the polls and win low turnout elections. I would imagine if you actually polled all Oklahoma City residents, they would be 70-30 against that $60 million slush fund for "job creation."
Then they need to vote, plain and simple

If mountains and oceans were what drew companies to headquarter in a city, then Dallas, Omaha, and Lincoln wouldn't be developing the way they are. Yeah, they offer some appeal, but there's things cities can do to improve quality of life. I like to think the Boathouse District, Bricktown, the future park, our improving of the parks, and other amenities around the city will improve quality of life.

Rent



City of Oklahoma City owns this arena; it continues to serve the purpose (anchor tenant for NBA major league sports). Oklahoma City joins some elite company since there are only 30 NBA franchises in North America.

Does the Thunder get a cut of the gate revenue and/or concession sales? Don't know - just asking.

Does the Thunder get a cut of the gate revenue and/or concession sales? Don't know - just asking.

I know the thunder keeps all of the gate. Not sure how concession works

If mountains and oceans were what drew companies to headquarter in a city, then Dallas, Omaha, and Lincoln wouldn't be developing the way they are. Yeah, they offer some appeal, but there's things cities can do to improve quality of life. I like to think the Boathouse District, Bricktown, the future park, our improving of the parks, and other amenities around the city will improve quality of life.

Dallas = slush fund as incentives. I remember when Grapevine gave Fleming 9 million dollars to relocate their HQ from OKC. Fleming took the money and within a year they closed shop. It backfired on them that time.

It would really be interesting to see how other communities and states structure their economic incentives.

They all pretty much work the same in that they take tax dollars and gift them to companies.

It really doesn't matter if it's TIF or job creation funds or sales tax rebates... It's all tax money that gets redirected to businesses.

It would really be interesting to see how other communities and states structure their economic incentives.

They all pretty much work the same in that they take tax dollars and gift them to companies.

It really doesn't matter if it's TIF or job creation funds or sales tax rebates... It's all tax money that gets redirected to businesses.

Its a catch 23 though. Don't do it and lose out on jobs, do it and lose out on tax dollars. We'd all love to live in perfect world where we could grow organically and didn't have to incentivize. Boeing threw a temper tantrum when the legislature even threatened their tax incentives. And we all agree we need those Boeing jobs. Only way to solve it is a national ban, which isn't happening. We either play and win or don't and lose.

Wouldn't be surprised if the Amazon HQ2 incentives pushed 5-10 billion.

Wouldn't be surprised if the Amazon HQ2 incentives pushed 5-10 billion.

lol... that's prolly why they even started this 'competition' in the first place. They probably already have a preferred city in mind but by announcing they are looking for the right city, everybody will be competing by throwing out huge incentives packages. Every city wants to show you it's huge package (thank you, thank you.......) but seriously, they will likely get way more from whatever city they'd like to move to because that city too will have to whip out their biggest package in order to compete.

Have been reading where Boston may be their 'preferred' location. Now let's see how much Amazon can milk them for.

Its a catch 23 though. Don't do it and lose out on jobs, do it and lose out on tax dollars. We'd all love to live in perfect world where we could grow organically and didn't have to incentivize. Boeing threw a temper tantrum when the legislature even threatened their tax incentives. And we all agree we need those Boeing jobs. Only way to solve it is a national ban, which isn't happening. We either play and win or don't and lose.

Wouldn't be surprised if the Amazon HQ2 incentives pushed 5-10 billion.

Would be great if it could happen. Let the mix of local tax policy, quality of life, access to talent and other market forces determine where a company operates. The taxpayers would all win.

This doesn't belong here but not sure where else to put it. Feel free to move it accordingly:

Voting today in the Village for a first-ever bond package. Mostly street repairs, but also lots of new sidewalks, a multi-use path all along Britton to Hefner Parkway, park upgrades, and other capital improvement projects

https://villageyes.com/

This doesn't belong here but not sure where else to put it. Feel free to move it accordingly:

Voting today in the Village for a first-ever bond package. Mostly street repairs, but also lots of new sidewalks, a multi-use path all along Britton to Hefner Parkway, park upgrades, and other capital improvement projects

https://villageyes.com/

Good to see and I think this is much needed.

Passed overwhelmingly.

I honestly had no idea if it would or not but glad that it did. Facebook is a fickle mistress and extremely unscientific, but the impression I got was folks were pretty up in the air in terms of support. Will be good to see what comes next!

Hopefully it's an extension of the sidewalk over Hefner Parkway to actually tie into the lake trails (not the Village, I know). Or a pedestrian bridge from Wayne Schooley Park over the highway ;)