http://http://newsok.com/article/5553817

Filing of an Initiative Petition is imminent which would raise city funds through a temporary quarter percent income tax for a four year period in which the funds would be granted to the 24 school districts in which children of OKC attend school in order to assist schools with annual bonuses for teachers and support staff along with decreasing class sizes. Any increase in the income tax causes this measure to automatically sunset.

To be clear, the money raised through this would be much like MAPS 4, whereby OKC Public Schools would get the most, but other districts in Oklahoma City (Putnam City, others) would get a share in the same proportion as the MAPS formula.

Jenks has tried this before and it's illegal. No raising local taxes for operating funds.

https://freepressokc.com/income-taxes-proposed-support-schools/

At least OK isn't quite as bad as Florida...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/florida-death-to-public-education_us_594a8703e4b0c24d29f47917?section=us_c ontributor

Jenks has tried this before and it's illegal. No raising local taxes for operating funds.

Glad I'm not the only one who thought that. When I read the first post, I thought surely I had heard something in that vein before regarding this kind of notion - illegal. I believe its expressly against the state constitution, is it not?

Short answer: It is constitutional and allowable.
In 2003 State Senator Mark Snyder posed the question to then AG Drew Edmondson who concluded in his AG opinion:
As to your question of municipal funds paying teachers' salaries, under the Statute, there appear to be no statutory restrictions. See id. Within 70 O.S. Supp.2002, § 5-117 and other statutes setting out the powers, duties and limitations of school boards, we find no prohibitions against schools receiving money from municipalities and using the funds for any lawful purpose, (including payment of salaries), subject to any restrictions in the sales tax or other municipal funding legislation. However, any municipal ordinance levying a sales tax for a special purpose must specify the purpose for which the tax will be used, 68 O.S. 2001, § 2701(B); Okla. Const. art. X, § 19, and any municipal appropriations must be made as required by applicable municipal charter provisions, ordinances and State statutes.
¶6 It is, therefore, the official Opinion of the Attorney General that:
Monies raised by a municipality for the benefit of local schools may lawfully be expended for general revenue items of day-to-day school operation, including, but not limited to, teacher salaries, pursuant to 11 O.S. 2001, § 22-159.

In reading the article, I note that Shadid (which makes me immediately suspicious of the whole thing) points out it is legal only if the city gives the monies to the districts as "grants." That just screams of something someone can challenge.

Just can't support this idea. Realize school funding is a crisis issue, but imposing an income tax at the city level is surely not the answer. What happens after the four years are up?

My property taxes are among the highest in the area, and they primarily support Moore schools; an additional tax going to support 23 other districts (given that Moore would receive a portion) just smells like bad policy and, frankly, a bit of a cash grab. The funding issue should be solved at the state level.

Short answer: It is constitutional and allowable.
In 2003 State Senator Mark Snyder posed the question to then AG Drew Edmondson who concluded in his AG opinion:
As to your question of municipal funds paying teachers' salaries, under the Statute, there appear to be no statutory restrictions. See id. Within 70 O.S. Supp.2002, § 5-117 and other statutes setting out the powers, duties and limitations of school boards, we find no prohibitions against schools receiving money from municipalities and using the funds for any lawful purpose, (including payment of salaries), subject to any restrictions in the sales tax or other municipal funding legislation. However, any municipal ordinance levying a sales tax for a special purpose must specify the purpose for which the tax will be used, 68 O.S. 2001, § 2701(B); Okla. Const. art. X, § 19, and any municipal appropriations must be made as required by applicable municipal charter provisions, ordinances and State statutes.
¶6 It is, therefore, the official Opinion of the Attorney General that:
Monies raised by a municipality for the benefit of local schools may lawfully be expended for general revenue items of day-to-day school operation, including, but not limited to, teacher salaries, pursuant to 11 O.S. 2001, § 22-159.

I don't think people are questioning if giving money to schools is constitutional, I think they're questioning if the city imposing a sales tax in this manner is constitutional. Or am I misunderstanding entirely (quite likely)?

I don't think people are questioning if giving money to schools is constitutional, I think they're questioning if the city imposing a sales tax in this manner is constitutional. Or am I misunderstanding entirely (quite likely)?

Keep in mind - this is an **INCOME** tax, not a sales tax, unless I've had a complete brain failure and misread it.

I don't think people are questioning if giving money to schools is constitutional, I think they're questioning if the city imposing a sales tax in this manner is constitutional. Or am I misunderstanding entirely (quite likely)?

Yes people are questioning whether giving money to schools is constitutional (it is).

This is a temporary income tax as opposed to a sales tax. State statute gives municipalities the right to tax themselves (with a vote of the people) whether it be sales, property or income tax.

Seems to this writer that an income tax is preferable to raising the sales tax again. A income tax is progressive and not regressive meaning it does not disproportioally affect those in the lower strata. Another reason is that it is aimed at those who work in the city, not just those who just shop there. I would hazard a guess the pool is larger in the former. As I recall sales tax revenues in the city have been dropping for quite sometime. Thirdly, the state has been lowering the income tax on a regular basis for the last few years, not so the sales tax. Keep raising the sales tax and people will shop around it. Not so easy with an income tax. That being said a "wealth" tax would be even more preferable.

Another reason is that it is aimed at those who work in the city, not just those who just shop there.

i would think that any local income tax would be based on address of residency rather than address of employment.

Seems to this writer that an income tax is preferable to raising the sales tax again.

And OKC is seriously considering trying to do *both*!?


A income tax is progressive and not regressive meaning it does not disproportionately affect those in the lower strata. Another reason is that it is aimed at those who work in the city, not just those who just shop there

This makes no sense. You don't target an income tax based on where someone works. In fact, this would be better for me, because I don't even *work* in OKC, technically. Neither do many of the folks you're trying to snag here (Edmond, TInker AFB, Norman, etc)



. I would hazard a guess the pool is larger in the former. As I recall sales tax revenues in the city have been dropping for quite sometime. Thirdly, the state has been lowering the income tax on a regular basis for the last few years, not so the sales tax. Keep raising the sales tax and people will shop around it. Not so easy with an income tax. That being said a "wealth" tax would be even more preferable.

Do you not even notice (or care) how predatory the tone of this is? Just seems like its the mode of a hunter looking for prey..."people will shop around it...Not so easy with an income tax..."

By all means, lets tell the world whose jobs we're trying to attract that, if they come here, part of the brochure the Chamber of Commerce will hand you is a list of the taxes we're going to put on you - especially if you're one of those higher-paying jobs that some nameless, faceless bureaucracy deems "wealthy."

And if you don't think people are starting to exit the city, you might take a look at the new construction going on in the Yukon, Mustang, Tuttle, Newcastle and similar areas. There doesn't need to be additional incentive for them to leave the city.

Bottom line: a city-based income tax at this time is a horrendous idea for a growing OKC, particularly when we're trying to attract people to come here.

i would think that any local income tax would be based on address of residency rather than address of employment.

Spot on.

The state income tax is based on both residency of the earner and the location where the income is earned. Income earned in Oklahoma is taxed regardless of where the earner lives. Oklahoma residents are taxed regardless of where their income is earned. I would expect that any city income tax would function in a similar manner. I am not endorsing a city income tax but merely speculating how it might be applied..

The state income tax is based on both residency of the earner and the location where the income is earned. Income earned in Oklahoma is taxed regardless of where the earner lives. Oklahoma residents are taxed regardless of where their income is earned. I would expect that any city income tax would function in a similar manner. I am not endorsing a city income tax but merely speculating how it might be applied..

most of the local income tax implementations i've seen assess residents only but i do admit that there are a few that assess non-residents at a lower rate... however, i'd have to wonder if a local income tax levied specifically to help fund school districts within a city's boundaries would be levied in such a way.

In some cities, such as Philadelphia, the city wage (income) tax is owed whether you live there OR just work there.


The City Wage Tax is a tax on salaries, wages, commissions, and other compensation. The tax applies to payments that a person receives from an employer in return for work or services. All Philadelphia residents owe the City Wage Tax, regardless of where they work. Non-residents who work in Philadelphia must also pay the Wage Tax.

https://beta.phila.gov/services/payments-assistance-taxes/business-taxes/wage-tax-employers/

This seems like a horrible idea. So if you are required to pay the tax just for working in OKC, even if you live elsewhere you could be taxed but not be allowed to vote on the measure?

I live in OKC limits but my children go to Mustang schools... Will the money raised in my area go to the schools in my area?

Also is this something that employers are going to be taking out of checks each month? Or will I now be required to send my W2 and a check to city hall each April? If its the latter this has no chance in hell in ever passing.

I do not believe that is what is proposed for the OKC income tax, I was just adding to the context of the discussion about the methods that exist.

Correct. Oklahoma State Statutes go out of their way to specifically restrict municipalities from implementing an income tax on "non-residents" (those who work in the city but do not reside there).

In some cities, such as Philadelphia, the city wage (income) tax is owed whether you live there OR just work there.



https://beta.phila.gov/services/payments-assistance-taxes/business-taxes/wage-tax-employers/

KCMO is the same way. I lived in Overland Park, worked in Missouri(By all of literally 3 feet). Paid KCMO income tax. It wasn't huge, though. Maybe a couple hundred bucks a year total.

This seems like a horrible idea. So if you are required to pay the tax just for working in OKC, even if you live elsewhere you could be taxed but not be allowed to vote on the measure?


If this is a work-location-based tax effort, then you are correct. Live in Mustang, but work in OKC, you'd be levied a tax for which you had exactly zero representation.



I live in OKC limits but my children go to Mustang schools... Will the money raised in my area go to the schools in my area?

Yes. My understanding is they would cook up some redistribution/reallocation formula ala MAPS for Kids from a few years ago to provide funds to the outlying 22 school districts within the OKC city limits.

Also is this something that employers are going to be taking out of checks each month? Or will I now be required to send my W2 and a check to city hall each April? If its the latter this has no chance in hell in ever passing.

If you take a closer look at your W-2, you'll likely notice an additional copy for "local or municipal taxes" (exact wording escapes me). So yup...you'll be filing an OKC tax return along with the state and federal. Now whether OKC would go to the steps to mandate withholding for it is another story.

Went to the meeting last night. Here are the scanned hand-outs.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/saveschools1.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/saveschools2.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/saveschools3.jpg

Good article by Free Press OKC:

https://freepressokc.com/save-okc-schools-income-tax/

What is the tax rate? How much will it raise? How will the bonuses be paid? Will they be across the board or prorated? Will each district determine how the funds will be used? Can restrictions be placed on how the funds can be used? Who decides these and the many other issues if the tax is approved?

As much as I realize our schools need funding, there is absolutely no way I can support an OKC-based income tax. I will be actively opposing this. Monies allocated from my income taxes via state appropriations combined with my local property tax tell me its time for someone *else* to step up to the plate and start pitching in, not punish me for living in OKC -- especially as I'm not even living in the OKC school district.

As much as I realize our schools need funding, there is absolutely no way I can support an OKC-based income tax. I will be actively opposing this. Monies allocated from my income taxes via state appropriations combined with my local property tax tell me its time for someone *else* to step up to the plate and start pitching in, not punish me for living in OKC yet not even living in an OKC district.

The money would go to all school districts within OKC, just like MAPS for Kids.

The money would go to all school districts within OKC, just like MAPS for Kids.

Appreciate that, Pete, but for me that's not the issue. If we have potential sources such as regional average wellhead taxation, broader and/or disproportionate corporate breaks, then we need to fix those issues - not put more tax burden on the citizens - especially on an income tax. As I said, it's time for other parties to come to the table. I just cannot support a city-based income tax.

Appreciate that, Pete, but for me that's not the issue. If we have potential sources such as regional average wellhead taxation, broader and/or disproportionate corporate breaks, then we need to fix those issues - not put more tax burden on the citizens - especially on an income tax. As I said, it's time for other parties to come to the table. I just cannot support a city-based income tax.

Did you also vote against MAPS for Kids?

You almost certainly paid more in sales tax with that increase than you would here.

Appreciate that, Pete, but for me that's not the issue. If we have potential sources such as regional average wellhead taxation, broader and/or disproportionate corporate breaks, then we need to fix those issues - not put more tax burden on the citizens - especially on an income tax. As I said, it's time for other parties to come to the table. I just cannot support a city-based income tax.

I'm 100% with you on this Dave.

Did you also vote against MAPS for Kids?

You almost certainly paid more in sales tax with that increase than you would here.

Yes, I opposed M4K on principle, because in all frankness as a Moore district resident it isn't my responsibility to subsidize OKC schools. And I pay a premium in property taxes to support those Moore schools, so it surely isn't like I'm shirking my responsibility (and I haven't had kids in the system for a few years now).

And, again, the amount isn't honestly relevant to me. The point is these monies need to come from someone else's pocket, be it the oil and gas industry or any other industry who has arguably received the most benefit from recent tax policy decisions at the state capitol. And the funding issue needs to be *solved* at the state level.

I suppose that makes me a cruel city hater; meh, so be it. No one else is going to help me fight to keep what I can of what I earn - no choice but to do that myself. And when I realize the cutoff shown above won't even protect my 81-year-old mother on her fixed income from paying even more in taxes, it just makes me double down on the issue. People are not an infinite source of money.

^

I'm not saying I'm for or against this initiative but where is this "put more tax burden on the citizens" argument for all the MAPS programs?

Tax is tax and this would be generating less tax than a $.01 MAPS tax.

And just to be clear any 'premium' you pay in property tax is due to bond issues that must also be approved by voters.

Otherwise your property tax rate is the same regardless of school district.

And of course, Moore schools would get their proportionate share of any money raised here.


I don't even have children and I pay for schools for everyone else. This 'doesn't benefit me personally argument' doesn't wash for virtually anything funded by tax dollars.

Also applies to all the MAPS stuff as most people will never use the convention center, etc. But there is the greater good of investing in your communities that benefits everyone in a larger sense.

And just to be clear any 'premium' you pay in property tax is due to bond issues that must also be approved by voters.

Otherwise your property tax rate is the same regardless of school district.

And of course, Moore schools would get their proportionate share of any money raised here.


I don't even have children and I pay for schools for everyone else. This 'doesn't benefit me personally argument' doesn't wash for virtually anything funded by tax dollars.

Also applies to all the MAPS stuff as most people will never use the convention center, etc. But there is the greater good of investing in your communities that benefits everyone in a larger sense.

And those property tax bond issues are easy to pass for the number of people that aren't property owners yet get to vote to pull money out of the pockets of those who do.

No disrespect, Pete, but if my "doesn't benefit me personally" argument doesn't work, then the "greater good of investing" can't work the other direction, because that could be used to rationalize any tax for any "public benefit." And the former argument has to be a fundamental assessment for anyone as they judge whether to support a tax that gets even a whiff of public input - am I willing to support this even though it probably doesn't help me? For me, the answer is an emphatic no, because there are other avenues available.

Certainly appreciate the discussion, Pete, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one :) I've put my $0.02 out there, for what it's worth, and will be opposing this tax as best I can. Just have to see how it goes.

I"m just saying you have to be consistent if you are going to take the very simplistic approach you are describing.

It also means you should have voted (and continue to vote) against all the MAPS programs and even the general obligations bonds as well.

The proposal is unclear as to whether teachers in OKC Charter schools would receive these bonuses. These schools are essentially in their own independent districts, so I'm guessing no?

I"m just saying you have to be consistent if you are going to take the very simplistic approach you are describing.

It also means you should have voted (and continue to vote) against all the MAPS programs and even the general obligations bonds as well.

Not at all - the value proposition you reference for the *original* MAPS was more than adequate to receive my support, and there was no reasonable expectation anyone else would or even should pay for a ballpark, or a convention center, or improvements to its fairgrounds. Schools are a different matter. They're a state and federally funded entity. There are state resources available to bring to bear on them as I've previously outlined, despite our current legislature's impotence in doing so.

What is the tax rate? How much will it raise? How will the bonuses be paid? Will they be across the board or prorated? Will each district determine how the funds will be used? Can restrictions be placed on how the funds can be used? Who decides these and the many other issues if the tax is approved?

The tax rate would be 0.5% and would raise roughly$50 million/year for 4 years. It would be paid as an annual bonus to teachers, nurses and support staff. How the money was divided between those groups and whether incentives would be given to teachers working in struggling schools etc.. would all be negotiated between each school district and the unions. The funds could only be used for these annual bonuses and cannot be diverted for any other purpose. The money would be divided among the school districts according to the proportion of okc children attending school in that district (identical to the MAPS for KIDS formula). The tax is temporary because the coalition organizers agree that the legislature needs to assume responsibility and properly fund schools. But no such effort has been forthcoming and it will be 2019 before there is any legitimate chance of a raise in teacher pay given that next year is an election year. Meanwhile teachers are leaving the state/profession and college students are abandoning education as a career.

The proposal is unclear as to whether teachers in OKC Charter schools would receive these bonuses. These schools are essentially in their own independent districts, so I'm guessing no?

Teachers in OKC Charter Schools would also receive the annual bonuses.

Not at all - the value proposition you reference for the *original* MAPS was more than adequate to receive my support, and there was no reasonable expectation anyone else would or even should pay for a ballpark, or a convention center, or improvements to its fairgrounds. Schools are a different matter. They're a state and federally funded entity. There are state resources available to bring to bear on them as I've previously outlined, despite our current legislature's impotence in doing so.

Absolutely not true.

Lots of different ways to build big projects like ballparks and convention centers, which is how most other communities do it instead of raising sales tax.

Also, if you refer to the information I uploaded regarding the meeting last night, you'll see 40% of school funding in OK comes from local sources.


If you are against this because you don't want to pay for 'someone else's schools', that's fine but the arguments you are trying to make instead are illogical.

I point this out for other people reading this thread so they don't follow the same flawed logic.

Are federal and state dollars for education "free"? Would more federal or state funding for education result in a larger tax burden on citizens, whether through increased income taxes or increased corporate taxes and correspondingly higher consumer prices?

If we have to pay more to properly fund our schools, would we rather pay that money to Washington, where people far away have way more say in how it's allocated, or would we rather pay it locally where we (presumably) have more say over how it's used?

Are property taxes borne only by property owners? When property taxes increase, do landlords eat the cost?

What is a better use of tax dollars? A stadium? A convention center? Or our public schools?

Absolutely not true.

Lots of different ways to build big projects like ballparks and convention centers, which is how most other communities do it instead of raising sales tax.


I think you're misunderstanding my point. I was driving at the notion that there was no expectation that the state or certainly anyone at the federal level should pay for a Bricktown Ballpark, regardless of the mechanism (be it sales tax, property tax, income tax, whatever). There is *absolutely* the expectation that the state should be dealing with school funding.



Also, if you refer to the information I uploaded regarding the meeting last night, you'll see 40% of school funding in OK comes from local sources.


If you are against this because you don't want to pay for 'someone else's schools', that's fine but the arguments you are trying to make instead are illogical.

I point this out for other people reading this thread so they don't follow the same flawed logic.

Well, I've tried to outline as best I can why I will be actively opposing this initiative; that it should be the state's responsibility to fix the overarching problem (primarily) and those actually in the district (secondarily), and I would of course disagree with the unilateral assertion that the "logic is flawed" merely because you disagree with it, which is absolutely your prerogative. I suspect those who follow the thread will likely not be influenced by my opinion at all, flawed logic notwithstanding.

As I tried to say before, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. I'm the only one fighting to keep my own paycheck. It's always easy to support a reach into someone else's, as this initiative clearly demonstrates.

^

Even if you want to put this on the state, the whole point is to bridge the gap and quell the emergency until they do so.

Hence, the 4-year term.

Waiting for the state to do something is how we got into this mess and merely waiting further is not going to resolve anything in the next few years, especially because they can't even find the money to cover current obligations.


So by the same standard you are invoking, there is absolutely no expectation the state is going to do anything about this for the next several years.

^

Even if you want to put this on the state, the whole point is to bridge the gap and quell the emergency until they do so.

Hence, the 4-year term.


And I have absolutely no confidence that this wouldn't become permanent. Once the infrastructure is set up to collect the tax, it will become perpetual, and there will be another raison d'etre to support it.



Waiting for the state to do something is how we got into this mess and merely waiting further is not going to resolve anything in the next few years, especially because they can't even find the money to cover current obligations.

So by the same standard you are invoking, there is absolutely no expectation the state is going to do anything about this for the next several years.

I would respectfully submit that the natural response to the legislature's inability to function does not immediately rationalize a new income tax on OKC citizens.

I did not mean to start a flamewar or argument on this; I speciously avoid political commentary here and on most social media for this very reason and I guess this is treading too close to that line. I'm sorry if it's perceived I started one. I've made my case, I'll oppose the income tax, and obviously everyone else will make their own decisions on it. I'm sure my input has not one shred of influence on the eventual outcome.

Have a great day everyone.

This is all tough. It's unfortunate we have to even worry about fixing a problem that should have never happened, but here we are.

I share a lot of the same sentiment Dave expressed. And I'd further add that my fear with fixing someone else's problem (cause that's what it is, we all pay our taxes for the government to handle this), is that politicians revert to this in the future. It's a bailout plain and simple. When was the last time funding for education hasn't been a problem in this state? I honestly can't think of a time where it wasn't some sort of headline. Part of that is the nature of the territory, but still if I went to my job for 20 years and failed to fix an issue, well I mean we all know I wouldn't have ever made it 20 years.

I'm tired of paying taxes to an incompetent system. I'm tired of paying taxes for someone else to mismanage. I'm tired of fixing other's problems. There is no accountability anymore. It's finger pointing galore and it's of course never anyone's problem.

And yet here we are again being asked to pony up more money.

But Oklahoman's pay a really low income tax as it is. It is a more stable way to pay for education than sales tax, as we see with it having been in the tubes. Just my opinion. We have to do something, since we won't vote out those who don't care, or we will keep losing teachers to other states. I know most don't care, but that means great friends of mine will leave to surrounding states.

Nothing could become permanent without a completely separate vote, so if you don't want it to extend beyond four years, worry about the next vote not this one.

This is not a fix. It's a bridge until the state legislature does something. And it's only for OKC and only a partial, temporary gap-filler. The idea this would dissuade the legislature from actually doing something is a bit silly.

In the meantime, doing nothing sacrifices the future of kids.


Everybody wants something done, so here is your chance.

Education has to be paid for in some way and taxation is the only revenue generator, regardless of the form it takes.

Wonder what the outcome would have been if there was a vote of the people of on every TIF request?

Pete, could you explain to me how the convoluted system of a school district associated with one town, say Moore, serves the citizens of another town, OKC? Where I came from schools were located in the towns that served where the populace lived. Seems cra cra to me.

Pete, could you explain to me how the convoluted system of a school district associated with one town, say Moore, serves the citizens of another town, OKC? Where I came from schools were located in the towns that served where the populace lived. Seems cra cra to me.

it seems like you're making the assumption that school district boundaries match the boundaries of the cities for which they're named... that's not the case. there are oklahoma city residents who live within the boundaries of the moore school district.

it seems like you're making the assumption that school district boundaries match the boundaries of the cities for which they're named... that's not the case. there are oklahoma city residents who live within the boundaries of the moore school district.

Sorry you did not understand my question. My question put another way is why are school districts not the same as municipal boundaries?

Sorry you did not understand my question. My question put another way is why are school districts not the same as municipal boundaries?

Part of that Moore-OKC district history goes back to the annexation binge OKC went on several decades ago...Moore wanted to stay independent and succeeded. OKC grew south less rapidly than north, but Moore crept north along with their schools; eventually, the Moore district boundary was set as far north in some areas as SW 82nd in OKC. That ultimately put residents in north Cleveland County just south of the 89th border under the influence of two potential propety taxing entities. And its why you may hear of outrageously different property tax bills for otherwise very similar houses for no other reason than one is *north* of SW 89th, the other *south*.

Sorry you did not understand my question. My question put another way is why are school districts not the same as municipal boundaries?

There is no such place as Putnam City or Western Heights or Milwood or Oakdale or Crooked Oak or even Deer Creek.

They exist only as school districts of what were once rural areas eventually engulfed by OKC.

Sorry you did not understand my question. My question put another way is why are school districts not the same as municipal boundaries?

ahh... i see. soonerdave pretty much answered it. the moore school district expanded to serve people in adjacent, yet unincorporated areas that were (at the time) closer to it than to the okc school district. these areas were eventually annexed by the city of okc (yet remained moore schools) as they changed from largely rural, agricultural use into suburbia.

if your username is any indication of where you are from, the geography was probably well-established long before public education existed in its current form. that probably allowed the boundaries of school districts to more closely match those of municipal government. for relatively young central oklahoma, these educational services sometimes expanded to rural populations before city services did.

Pete,
Oakdale? Wow, I'm surprised you even knew about that place. My boys attended Oakdale which was originally a dependent district in Wicher, Oklahoma. Schools are part of the system of the county that they are physically located in. Somebody mentioned S. W. 82nd and that is true. Cleveland does go that far North. Fairview on S. W. 89th is in Cleveland County and part of the Moore school system (another place my older son attended for two years). We learned that when our boys finished 8th grade, that we could send our boys to any school system in Oklahoma County as long as we were willing to take care of transportation. Most of our kids went to Edmond and they did have an agreement to pick up our kids and bring them home. The ability of children in dependent schools (those that don't have grades k through 12) to choose any school in Oklahoma County is an Oklahoma county law. We chose Jones schools for our boys. And I'm sorry, I'm not sure if this helps anybody or not and I'm not sure it has anything to do with the thread. Oh well, it's not the first time I ran my mouth too much.
C. T.

Tip O' the hat to Dave, Pete, and Martin for the info and insight.

Tip O' the hat to Dave, Pete, and Martin for the info and insight.

Yes, thanks. As a fellow Jersey guy, I find it crazy (regardless of how it happened) that school districts seem almost completely separate from municipal boundaries. And to have 3 (+?) districts (OKC, PC, Western Heights) all well within OKC city limits, nevermind all the other examples? Yeesh.