Im anti-nimby and I too agree that they shouldnt be voting down projects but this is a bit hyperbolic. The focus needs to be on bringing in new retail. Any retail category where the town sees leakage to OKC, they need to focus on bringing that to Edmond to retain and grow the sales taxes.

I disagree that Edmond is always NIMBY. They just don't like multifamily housing or dense residential development.

Will be interesting to see what goes in on that corner (SE Covell and Kelly). Was told that out of the entire state, that is the most "desired" location for a Chick Fil A (within the company) but that is not to say they will. Just "desired".

If that is the case, I would think they would have plenty of choices to pick from as there is the space behind pepperori grill and behind the bank. or behind lowes or the south of lowes. Although, none of these spots would be preferable as they would be off the main streets, I would contend that their customers would know exactly where they are located and would find them regardless of where they are.

As for across the street, I believe this area has huge growth opportunities and I am curious to see what will become of the area. I have seen in the past that it would be apartments and senior living center but it could have changed.

Do you guys think these bonds are still going to pass? Seeing a lot of no signs around town and no messaging on social media.

Do you guys think these bonds are still going to pass? Seeing a lot of no signs around town and no messaging on social media.

This is generally how things look. There is a very loud and obnoxious portion of the Edmond electorate who are extreme NIMBY and support folks like Brian Shellem (or however you spell it) for office. By their social media presence and the yard sign count, you'd think they were firmly in control of the city's political future. They tend to lose almost every election though as the quiet and reasonable people show up in force pretty dependably. If they hadn't scheduled this on 11/5, I'd be more confident though.

Do you guys think these bonds are still going to pass? Seeing a lot of no signs around town and no messaging on social media.

Edmond outsider here....So, I asked my circle of friends that live in Edmond City limits their thoughts on GO, and ALL are voting no. These are individuals that have lived in Edmond anywhere between 10 to almost 30 years in Edmond and include young married couples, families, single individuals, and DINK's. The reasoning is collectively they don't want to see their monthly mortgage/property taxes go up anymore.

My guess is with the raised property values, it created essentially a domino effect on raising homeowner's premiums (congrats your 250k home you bought in 2010 is now 400k to insure), along with bad weather claims raising everyone's costs, along with just general inflation. This is yet another thing to tack on to a monthly number that seems to be jumping higher and higher. $600 dollars or so on average a year for the foreseeable future.

Edmond residents did pass, overwhelmingly around 80%, the school bond for EPS back in February. So if there are a large number that see this as the best way for progress in a community, and view the increased property taxes as the best way to do it, then maybe it will pass with a similar margin.

The yes campaign is extremely amateur. This should have been an easy sell and they have been completely MIA except for a flyer they sent out full of misspellings.

They got $70K for that campaign? I've been waiting all month for them to do some sort of last minute blitz or something, but crickets.

The Council should all resign if they're okay with that.

If Edmond votes no, none of those c@cksuckers better ever complain about traffic again.

If Edmond votes no, none of those c@cksuckers better ever complain about traffic again.

Oh they'll complain. They'll complain about how the city would replace its 50 year old offices and build a YMCA before building roads.

Do you guys think these bonds are still going to pass? Seeing a lot of no signs around town and no messaging on social media.

I get this 3rd hand so take with a grain of salt. Many no's are not voting "no" because of NIMBY sentiment but because the wording of the bond issue is such that it will allow bond issue proceeds to be used for anything, not for intended purposes. I was told the issue guidelines were written in haste to get this issue in now so it will not interfere with an upcoming school bond issue and a renewal vote of a sales tax that expires off soon.

The yes campaign is extremely amateur. This should have been an easy sell and they have been completely MIA except for a flyer they sent out full of misspellings.

They got $70K for that campaign? I've been waiting all month for them to do some sort of last minute blitz or something, but crickets.

The Council should all resign if they're okay with that.

1,000,000% agree at the min the road portion of this should have been a very easy sell ..

most of my neighbors are going to vote yes to at least that portion ... but i worry about it passing

I’m conflicted. I voted yes on all but I didn’t want to. The city should have handled most if not all of these things in the past 15 to 20 years but it is what it is. I viewed my yea votes as an investment in catching up with the understanding we just have to hold the city to the fire more so in the future.

I live half the week outside of Bentonville and seeing how a city with half the population and a third of the land mass is serviced really highlights the lack of foresight by COE. Examples: Bentonville has two more fire stations than Edmond and their police department staffing is the same as Edmond’s, again for half the population and a third of the mileage. Those are just two of the more visible ones.

Will be interesting to see what goes in on that corner (SE Covell and Kelly). Was told that out of the entire state, that is the most "desired" location for a Chick Fil A (within the company) but that is not to say they will. Just "desired".

That's some hard hitting growth for the city.

This is generally how things look. There is a very loud and obnoxious portion of the Edmond electorate who are extreme NIMBY and support folks like Brian Shellem (or however you spell it) for office. By their social media presence and the yard sign count, you'd think they were firmly in control of the city's political future. They tend to lose almost every election though as the quiet and reasonable people show up in force pretty dependably. If they hadn't scheduled this on 11/5, I'd be more confident though.

How exactly is voting against the city taking on a ton of debt to poorly build out more stroads that will massively burden the city with forever maintenance costs NIMBY? Most YIMBY proponents aren't exactly in the "Let's expand roads all to encourage "growth" while ignoring currently underutilized land" camp.

Edmond has massively screwed up every road expansion they've done since I've moved here 11 years ago. Put in a 15 million dollar road expansion to end at the same crappy 2 lane intersection with no pedestrian provisions, so you get half a mile back ups. The intersections are the bottles necks, but we keep expanding roads at great expense to end at an intersection built in the 1960s. Then add numerous new lights, to really make sure that 15 million dollars provides no real capacity increase. There are 4 lane roads all over the city that are un/underdeveloped, why will adding more all of sudden create massive growth as opposed to just more sprawl and underdeveloped, low tax base land?

Let's spend some of that money to develop all the un/underdeveloped land already serviced by oversized stroads that don't pay for themselves. Let's actually approve some density where we already have the infrastructure for it. Let's stop destroying our current road investments by promising traffic lights and numerous driveways to every developer that is going to put in a fast food restaurant. Let's redevelop Broadway through downtown in a way that will attract more people and encourage more development (and hopefully higher density housing).

Driving up housing costs to pay for needless road projects is not YIMBY, and will not fix Edmond's problems.

For the record, I voted No on the roads, Yes on the Parks. Parks will actually improve the quality of life in Edmond.

The yes campaign is extremely amateur. This should have been an easy sell and they have been completely MIA except for a flyer they sent out full of misspellings.

They got $70K for that campaign? I've been waiting all month for them to do some sort of last minute blitz or something, but crickets.

The Council should all resign if they're okay with that.

The yes campaign is literally advertising for it with a stop light. "Hey Edmond, would you like your property taxes to go up 15% so you can stop at 50% more red lights as we follow the urban design playbook from 1962?"

How exactly is voting against the city taking on a ton of debt to poorly build out more stroads that will massively burden the city with forever maintenance costs NIMBY? Most YIMBY proponents aren't exactly in the "Let's expand roads all to encourage "growth" while ignoring currently underutilized land" camp.

Edmond has massively screwed up every road expansion they've done since I've moved here 11 years ago. Put in a 15 million dollar road expansion to end at the same crappy 2 lane intersection with no pedestrian provisions, so you get half a mile back ups. The intersections are the bottles necks, but we keep expanding roads at great expense to end at an intersection built in the 1960s. Then add numerous new lights, to really make sure that 15 million dollars provides no real capacity increase. There are 4 lane roads all over the city that are un/underdeveloped, why will adding more all of sudden create massive growth as opposed to just more sprawl and underdeveloped, low tax base land?

Let's spend some of that money to develop all the un/underdeveloped land already serviced by oversized stroads that don't pay for themselves. Let's actually approve some density where we already have the infrastructure for it. Let's stop destroying our current road investments by promising traffic lights and numerous driveways to every developer that is going to put in a fast food restaurant. Let's redevelop Broadway through downtown in a way that will attract more people and encourage more development (and hopefully higher density housing).

Driving up housing costs to pay for needless road projects is not YIMBY, and will not fix Edmond's problems.

For the record, I voted No on the roads, Yes on the Parks. Parks will actually improve the quality of life in Edmond.

Interesting strawman.

Where have you reviewed the plans for any of the proposed projects which are proposing things as you are describing them?

Originally Posted by Zorba

Put in a 15 million dollar road expansion to end at the same crappy 2 lane intersection with no pedestrian provisions, so you get half a mile back ups. The intersections are the bottles necks, but we keep expanding roads at great expense to end at an intersection built in the 1960s.


I don't know which improvement Zorba was referring, but I've often wondered why the improvements to Covell ended west of Kelly just past Mitch Park. The intersection of Covell and Santa Fe is a nightmare because of that.

How exactly is voting against the city taking on a ton of debt to poorly build out more stroads that will massively burden the city with forever maintenance costs NIMBY? Most YIMBY proponents aren't exactly in the "Let's expand roads all to encourage "growth" while ignoring currently underutilized land" camp.

Edmond has massively screwed up every road expansion they've done since I've moved here 11 years ago. Put in a 15 million dollar road expansion to end at the same crappy 2 lane intersection with no pedestrian provisions, so you get half a mile back ups. The intersections are the bottles necks, but we keep expanding roads at great expense to end at an intersection built in the 1960s. Then add numerous new lights, to really make sure that 15 million dollars provides no real capacity increase. There are 4 lane roads all over the city that are un/underdeveloped, why will adding more all of sudden create massive growth as opposed to just more sprawl and underdeveloped, low tax base land?

Let's spend some of that money to develop all the un/underdeveloped land already serviced by oversized stroads that don't pay for themselves. Let's actually approve some density where we already have the infrastructure for it. Let's stop destroying our current road investments by promising traffic lights and numerous driveways to every developer that is going to put in a fast food restaurant. Let's redevelop Broadway through downtown in a way that will attract more people and encourage more development (and hopefully higher density housing).

Driving up housing costs to pay for needless road projects is not YIMBY, and will not fix Edmond's problems.

For the record, I voted No on the roads, Yes on the Parks. Parks will actually improve the quality of life in Edmond.

First thing, I still dont think these will pass. Lot of opposition and a fairly large tax increase tells me it wont pass. Back to this post, Wow, a lot to unpack here, and a ton of conflicting opinions.

This isnt that much debt for Edmond, but who cares anyways as it will have dedicated funding and wont force edmond to take money from something else.
You say this is for growth. Im not sure anyone has claimed that as this appears to improve roads for current residents and businesses. Roads are the number 1 complaint and this addresses that.
You know when you do a $15 mil road improvement it has to end somewhere, right? Sure it sucks to have a nice new intersection and in one direction it goes to 2 lanes but thats kind of why you need to keep investing in roads so you dont have the half mile back ups you mention.
The road part of the GO Bond improves 6 intersections plus it adds more money to the smart light system. On top of that, it has 5 road widenings and capacity improvements. It does exactly what you are complaining about.
Then you suggest spend some of this money on some on the undeveloped land. What money, the GO Bond money? And it should be spent by the city on developing projects? Cities dont do that, private companies do, and you cant force them to develop anything. Same for density, a developer has to decide to do that.
Broadway has and is getting redeveloped with lots of projects, ones that are adding density that you speak of.

Sorry for the rant but you were all over the place and frankly, very wrong on your reasoning.

First thing, I still dont think these will pass. Lot of opposition and a fairly large tax increase tells me it wont pass. Back to this post, Wow, a lot to unpack here, and a ton of conflicting opinions.

This isnt that much debt for Edmond, but who cares anyways as it will have dedicated funding and wont force edmond to take money from something else.
You say this is for growth. Im not sure anyone has claimed that as this appears to improve roads for current residents and businesses. Roads are the number 1 complaint and this addresses that.
You know when you do a $15 mil road improvement it has to end somewhere, right? Sure it sucks to have a nice new intersection and in one direction it goes to 2 lanes but thats kind of why you need to keep investing in roads so you dont have the half mile back ups you mention.
The road part of the GO Bond improves 6 intersections plus it adds more money to the smart light system. On top of that, it has 5 road widenings and capacity improvements. It does exactly what you are complaining about.
Then you suggest spend some of this money on some on the undeveloped land. What money, the GO Bond money? And it should be spent by the city on developing projects? Cities don't do that, private companies do, and you cant force them to develop anything. Same for density, a developer has to decide to do that.
Broadway has and is getting redeveloped with lots of projects, ones that are adding density that you speak of.

Sorry for the rant but you were all over the place and frankly, very wrong on your reasoning.

my biggest issue is that the parks money almost 50% of the road money .... I fell like it should be close to 10-15% ... instead of 150 and 70 it should have been more like 200 - 20 ... or 190 - 30 .. in road / parks ..

Anyone know why they tried to do this with a property tax and not a sales tax?

I don't know which improvement Zorba was referring, but I've often wondered why the improvements to Covell ended west of Kelly just past Mitch Park. The intersection of Covell and Santa Fe is a nightmare because of that.

Yes, there are numerous occasions across Edmond where main roads appear and disappear, Covell in particular when it goes from 4 or 6 lanes back to 2 lanes abruptly. I know there is a master plan to eventually widen Covell completely, but the area you mentioned was improved around 10 years ago, and the area west of Santa Fe and east of Broadway have made little progress towards expansion.

Anyone know why they tried to do this with a property tax and not a sales tax?

Because it's how every other large-ish city in Oklahoma pays for roads and capital improvements.

For a sales tax to raise the same amount of revenue over a 10-year period ($23M per year), it would need to be roughly $0.02 on top of the existing sales tax rate. That wouldn't go over well, either.

I'm thinking that fire might pass but the other two are DOA.

The fire one might have a little better chance of passing after today.

Edmond has one of, if not the lowest, city sales tax rate in OKC? If there is a need for better fire and police protection as the city grows or infrastructure changes with the growth of neighborhoods and businesses, why not propose a permanent sales tax to benefit public safety and bring Edmond up from 8.25% to 8.5%.

1/8th cent would double the police budget, and 1/8th cent would increase the fire department budget by 50%.

Edmond, along with the other suburbs, does not pay for MAPS, so I feel like there is room here, versus property taxes.

https://www.edmondok.gov/1385/Shop-Edmond#:~:text=The%20sales%20tax%20rate%20in,%2C%2 0parks%2C%20and%20capital%20improvements.

Edmond's sales tax is 8.275. OKC is 8.375.

So not much room there to add on. There is already a CIP fund I think in effect to about 2027. Last I looked it brought in about $17mm a year.

Anyone know why they tried to do this with a property tax and not a sales tax?

bond issues for road improvements is pretty much how serious cities in Oklahoma operate ..

Quite the turn out for early voting at the Y today.

A feel the timing of this on the nov ballot will be what stops this from passing. You have both parties passionate about their candidates for voting so you have a lot more people who will be checking no on this them normally would, that’s my guess.

If Edmond votes no, none of those c@cksuckers better ever complain about traffic again.

This is so reductive. Someone can be supportive of the city, of bonds, and road construction, and still be fed up by some of the decision making and spending by the current administration, and loathe to support this bond, especially the way it was presented, sold, and is being implemented (not the least is the trick that the amount is the same if even one passes - this is so it's easier to just extend at that rate later for the projects that failed). I've been a HUGE supporter of our current mayor, and a big fighter against the Shellums and Old Rangers in regard to the council and their policies. But I'm not supporting this at all, until we have a more responsive city administration who can handle their spending better, be less wasteful, and who can demand accountability from the vendors such as the ones who've bilked the city for millions on that so called "intelligent traffic system" with no metrics or evidence of effectiveness or way to evaluate if more phases are even warranted. Don't even get me started on that darn statue park and the millions the city is absorbing for that "gift".

(not the least is the trick that the amount is the same if even one passes - this is so it's easier to just extend at that rate later for the projects that failed).

how is this a "trick" ... and an extention would take another vote ..

I am a yes vote for the roads and fire ... I think this is too much for the parks in the overall bond program ..

and we should want an ongoing Bond program for roads .. basically forever .. and this could be the start of that ..

how is this a "trick" ... and an extention would take another vote ..

I am a yes vote for the roads and fire ... I think this is too much for the parks in the overall bond program ..

and we should want an ongoing Bond program for roads .. basically forever .. and this could be the start of that ..

"Trick" may be a strong word, but it's a specific strategic choice - by having the mill rate be the same no matter which packages pass, it's easier to argue "let's keep that rate" in the future, and get any failed measures passed. This was a strategy suggested to them by the consulting group. I'd have been more supportive if each project represented a percentage of the millage, so that if just one passed, we'd have maybe a 5% property tax.

If we want an ongoing bond program for roads, it should come AFTER the CIP stuff is paid for and off of our utilities (and we quit incurring new debts and bonds through that), and also come with development impact fees.

I'm really hoping all 3 issues fail, so it makes the current leadership take a step back and rethink how they've been doing things these past few years.

"Trick" may be a strong word, but it's a specific strategic choice - by having the mill rate be the same no matter which packages pass, it's easier to argue "let's keep that rate" in the future, and get any failed measures passed. This was a strategy suggested to them by the consulting group. I'd have been more supportive if each project represented a percentage of the millage, so that if just one passed, we'd have maybe a 5% property tax.

If we want an ongoing bond program for roads, it should come AFTER the CIP stuff is paid for and off of our utilities (and we quit incurring new debts and bonds through that), and also come with development impact fees.

I'm really hoping all 3 issues fail, so it makes the current leadership take a step back and rethink how they've been doing things these past few years.

hypothetically, if fire is the only measure that passes, property taxes would increase by 15 mils for roughly 5 months and then revert to 104 mils? is that accurate?

hypothetically, if fire is the only measure that passes, property taxes would increase by 15 mils for roughly 5 months and then revert to 104 mils? is that accurate?

not sure on the exact time frame .. but basically yes ..

not sure on the exact time frame .. but basically yes ..

The mil rate is set for the year so I’m wondering how that works. Does the city just get lucky and get essentially double funds of only that one passes??

Oh they'll complain. They'll complain about how the city would replace its 50 year old offices and build a YMCA before building roads.
You are absolutely correct and I needed that chuckle today. Thank you.

I know it's more than just Edmond, with Oklahoma county as a whole, but early voting has seem to be off the charts compared to years past. The Mitch Park YMCA/MAC has been packed since early voting began and the amount of cars on Covell turning in and out is somewhat encouraging that at least there is some excitement and engagement for however you choose to vote.

I know it's more than just Edmond, with Oklahoma county as a whole, but early voting has seem to be off the charts compared to years past. The Mitch Park YMCA/MAC has been packed since early voting began and the amount of cars on Covell turning in and out is somewhat encouraging that at least there is some excitement and engagement for however you choose to vote.

Yes the Mitch park voting has maintained about a 4 hour wait all 4 days. The Lincoln location fluctuates 1-2 hours on average. So there is def an increase in voting in Edmond which I assume is driven by the go bond.
I’m voting Tuesday so hoping my fellow voters at precinct closed early so that I have small lines.

Yes the Mitch park voting has maintained about a 4 hour wait all 4 days. The Lincoln location fluctuates 1-2 hours on average. So there is def an increase in voting in Edmond which I assume is driven by the go bond.
I’m voting Tuesday so hoping my fellow voters at precinct closed early so that I have small lines.

you also have, what, 800,000 people in the county and only two early voting locations. i bet you had people driving in from all over the northside and Fake Edmond, too.

65% voted no in early voting

all 3 failed

Well, Edmond will get what’s coming to it. Lower property taxes for the win. Under investment in infrastructure for the win. How do these people think these projects are gonna get paid for? And how much longer are people gonna start complaining about? Lack of road projects

The Bond issue guidelines were written poorly where bond proceeds were not going to be required to be spent for their intended purposes by future councils.

The Bond issue guidelines were written poorly where bond proceeds were not going to be required to be spent for their intended purposes by future councils.

Don’t disagree. But outside of say us on here who follow this stuff, I don’t think that was the issue. It was simply not wanting to pay.

Edmond is at a tipping point and without an investment to catch up, it’ll no longer be what it has been.

The Bond issue guidelines were written poorly where bond proceeds were not going to be required to be spent for their intended purposes by future councils.
I can’t tell you I was not the biggest fan of some of the projects, but my proposal probably would not have won either because it would’ve been bigger and scope. I was very shocked to see projects like the Covell Parkway not included on the ballot.

I think the biggest part is just the conservative nature of Edmond and people not wanting to pay a little bit higher property taxes, regardless of if it’s needed. Edmond had so many great projects planned and it seemed like they were moving forward on it but a lot of good stuff has been canceled or pushed back and definitely. I mean most of the Covell Parkway projects were already supposed to have been completed by now. Walmart neighborhood market by Ashford Oaks was essentially going to fund a major portion of the intersection improvements at Coltrane And they denied it.

People turned down the shops spring creek expansion, which would’ve been a smaller version of OAK and would’ve brought great living options a cool movie theater and really good shopping options boosting Edmond’s tax revenue.

They shot down 18 on Fink, which would’ve been a really unique neighborhood offer some cookie cutter townhouses. 18 on Fink was great. It was near UCO and could’ve been a great option for college students who don’t want a car.

I’m pretty sure the RTA was already supposed to be up and running by now back and when it was proposed over a decade ago. Now that part isn’t exactly Edmonds fault.

I’m not trying to be negative Nancy because there are some good projects happening in Edmond. I think the city can still turn itself around and come back with another proposal at a later date. But the citizens are gonna have to wake up.

I personally know people who voted no on this measure, but they have bitched the entire time I’ve known them about how bad traffic is the roads etc. Can’t have your cake and eat it too.

When they end up not getting a Trader Joe’s or a R-E-U Taquito, they can look back to this election as a big reason why. CRE devs will continue to take their capital to Yukon, Fake Edmond and other exurbs who are actually interested in pursuing growth.

When they end up not getting a Trader Joe’s or a R-E-U Taquito, they can look back to this election as a big reason why. CRE devs will continue to take their capital to Yukon, Fake Edmond and other exurbs who are actually interested in pursuing growth.

I35 and Covell is set up as well or better for new retail then any location in the metro ..

The city leadership needs to spend some soul-searching and maybe some time observing how OKC has sold Maps to voters and those projects. A good case was never made for this laundry list of projects, and there was an almost invisible "yes" campaign. The bonds were poorly written, contained unnecessary projects, and the revenue sources shouldn't be put solely on the shoulders of homeowners. I know I'm working on a letter I started yesterday (anticipating these results) to the mayor and council laying out my thoughts and why I couldn't support this issue and a better way forward.

I think there's a place for a bond, especially for infrastructure/roads. And it will probably be one that will exist moving forward. Probably won't need to be 10 mill and should be up front sold with the reality that it will probably be extended so folks are aware of what they're voting for. A vision should be shown and sold to the public of what the end result will be and what they're truly getting for their money (rather than just a list of intersections and stretches of road being updated - show the final end product). Talk about traffic flows, future growth plans, and show how this will help mobility in this town.

There's a path forward to getting some of these projects done, but the council can't just take the vote for granted, and they need to earn back the public's faith in their fiscal responsibility and accountability after the monument park fiasco, and the stuff the with downtown festival market place and the brewery and tasting room planned for there, and some of the other spending decisions in recent years. It may be that it will only be possible under new leadership as well.

The city leadership needs to spend some soul-searching and maybe some time observing how OKC has sold Maps to voters and those projects. A good case was never made for this laundry list of projects, and there was an almost invisible "yes" campaign. The bonds were poorly written, contained unnecessary projects,

how in the world were they poorly written ??

OKC has GO bonds for these same kind of things they pass the over and over .. the last GO bond was in 2017 and 967 Million dollars (13 different ballot items) .. they are currently planning the next one ..

edmond ballot language

Shall The City of Edmond, State of Oklahoma, incur an indebtedness by issuing its general obligation bonds in the sum of One Hundred Fifty One Million Dollars ($151,000,000) to provide funds for the purpose of constructing, reconstructing, repairing, improving, and rehabilitating streets, roads, bridges, and intersections in the City (including lighting, sidewalks/bikepaths, landscaping, related drainage improvements, driveway reconstruction, utility relocation, and other related improvements), 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 be competitively sold and bear interest at the lowest rate not to exceed ten percentum (10%) per annum, payable semi-annually and to become due within ten (10) years from their date?

okc ballot language

Shall The City of Oklahoma City, State of Oklahoma, incur an indebtedness by issuing registered bonds in the sum of Four Hundred Ninety Million Five Hundred Sixty Thousand Dollars ($490,560,000) to provide funds for the purpose of constructing, reconstructing, improving, rehabilitating, resurfacing, and repairing streets, including sidewalks and street enhancement improvements, along with street maintenance and construction equipment and materials, 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?


now maybe edmond should look at what OKC did and make the term of the bonds 25 years in stead of 10 ... so that property tax yearly increase would be smaller ..

Can we please get the politics thread back. I need to vent.

Can we please get the politics thread back. I need to vent.

We lost a lot of good men in that forum. A lot of good men.

I absolutely agree. The politics form should be brought back. I know it’s a bitch for the moderators, but it was fun.

Regarding Edmond, I just think Oklahoma City has more civic pride and more drive in that with it voters to get things done because they want to turn the city around. I’m not saying Edmond doesn’t have any civic pride, but the voters made it clear. They don’t really feel like any more money needs to come out of their pockets to make the city much better. I mean this thing fell by a pretty big margin.

They don’t really feel like any more money needs to come out of their pockets to make the city much better. I mean this thing fell by a pretty big margin.

The problem with that is that Edmond voters have never, as far as I know, failed to vote in a tax increase on themselves. Every bond has traditionally passed. Sales tax issues typically or always have passed. This is an aberration. It's lazy and it excuses city management and how they sold this to say this is just folks who are greedy and don't want to pay. Maybe folks should look at why THIS ONE suddenly failed. Maybe the voters in Edmond are tired of blank checks without accountability. Most folks I've talked to about this opposed this in its current form, with the current list of projects, and the size of it. They're also extremely wary of the spending decisions lately. The city commits millions in forgivable loans to the "free" park, millions in road improvements, and commits to ongoing costs, then comes to the citizens saying we need new taxes to handle our current needs. That's a bad look. I support the new library and YMCA in theory, but should those things have been prioritized over roads? Let's get the important stuff done before the QOL stuff.

I did see in the nondoc article about this post election that they're now looking at a more hybrid funding model, with a smaller go bond, developer impact fees, and sales taxes combined, and pruning and being more select on the list of projects so it seems like they heard the voters loud and clear.

I absolutely agree. The politics form should be brought back. I know it’s a bitch for the moderators, but it was fun.


i agree too... it was always so great how Boulder and i were always on opposite sides on those threads, but usually on the same side off those threads. lol

i agree too... it was always so great how Boulder and i were always on opposite sides on those threads, but usually on the same side off those threads. lol

Political discussions were a lot more fun pre 2016 though, tbh.

i agree too... it was always so great how Boulder and i were always on opposite sides on those threads, but usually on the same side off those threads. lol

true ... and i think we need many more people like you and I that can be civil and completely fine with that .. (and then maybe we would not have lost that thread) ..

Nah let the politics people argue on Facebook in the comment section. I like a clean feed with some actual respect around here.

^^^^^^^^
Agreed. The biggest issue I had with the politics thread was that partisan squabbles there bled into every other thread on the forum. Screw that.

Better watch out, even using the word "politics" might get you banned. :)

Its more funny watching people beat around the bush when talking about why certain city or state projects don't happen or why an employer decided not to move to OKC. Really the ban is on 'national' politics.

I support the new library and YMCA in theory, but should those things have been prioritized over roads? Let's get the important stuff done before the QOL stuff.

I did see in the nondoc article about this post election that they're now looking at a more hybrid funding model, with a smaller go bond, developer impact fees, and sales taxes combined, and pruning and being more select on the list of projects so it seems like they heard the voters loud and clear.

edmond needs GO bonds for roads ... other wise they will never catch up with what needs to be expanded and repaired ..

it is how real cities operate ..

edmond needs GO bonds for roads ... other wise they will never catch up with what needs to be expanded and repaired ..

it is how real cities operate ..

I haven't seen anyone say otherwise. But that doesn't mean THESE packages had to pass, and they included non road projects. And someone can support the concept of Go bonds for roads but not for the amount or millage they proposed, or not absent other revenue sources contributing as well.

Like I said, the nondoc article mentioned them looking at a more hybrid funding model, and I like that idea and I think it will have a better chance of succeeding.