Ideas 4 MAPS

[catch22]

I don't understand?

Aren't those points contradictory?

Just imagine northwest expressway with a bike lane on every street. It’s not “friendly” to it; but at least you can do it if you want to.

[Pete]

Just imagine northwest expressway with a bike lane on every street. It’s not “friendly” to it; but at least you can do it if you want to.

That's still way, way better than what we have now.

[catch22]

That's still way, way better than what we have now.

Exactly. That’s my point, even in an unwalkable city they are everywhere up here. Choice is not a bad thing.

[hfry]

I was trying to remember the exact number but weren't the number of sidewalk miles cut form the original proposal for maps 3? With how much extra it's pulled in and the other projects have been beefing up their budgets it would have been nice to add more miles back in. People are always on the roads biking in the northwest side of the city( just like other areas I'm sure) and they have been 4 laneing all the roads which would have been the perfect side to buy a few more feet of ROW and put in bike lanes now rather than having to tear everything back up in a few years.

[shawnw]

I thought most of what was cut early on was eventually added back in, but don't remember for certain.

[Zorba]

I was trying to remember the exact number but weren't the number of sidewalk miles cut form the original proposal for maps 3? With how much extra it's pulled in and the other projects have been beefing up their budgets it would have been nice to add more miles back in. People are always on the roads biking in the northwest side of the city( just like other areas I'm sure) and they have been 4 laneing all the roads which would have been the perfect side to buy a few more feet of ROW and put in bike lanes now rather than having to tear everything back up in a few years.

They should be putting in 8' bikepath/sidewalk along all those new 4-lane roads like they've been doing in Edmond. Or better yet, spend all that widening money on places that actually have cars on them.

[brian72]

If they use Maps 4 taxes for anything other than what we voted for I'm Done. They start pulling at your heart strings for the mental health problems at the County Jail, and moving Maps tax dollars to that area. Once they do this it will be a never-ending ordeal.

[Laramie]

If they use Maps 4 taxes for anything other than what we voted for I'm Done. They start pulling at your heart strings for the mental health problems at the County Jail, and moving Maps tax dollars to that area. Once they do this it will be a never-ending ordeal.

When Oklahoma AG Mike Hunter gets through with his lawsuits against the opioid drug pharmaceuticals; there should be money to fund mental health treatment & facilities in Oklahoma & Tulsa counties.

Oklahoma County needs to decide ASAP what they will do to build a new county jail facility before we commit any funds to the current facility.

Reported in 2015 - Tax plan to build new Oklahoma County jail takes shape: https://newsok.com/article/5409282/t...il-takes-shape

[d-usa]

I know that with the size of our city it’s a bit of a wash, but it’s also important to remember that the jail is a county problem and not a city problem.

[OKCRT]

I know that with the size of our city it’s a bit of a wash, but it’s also important to remember that the jail is a county problem and not a city problem.

Plus with Ok leading the way in incarcerations they will surely need many more cells.

[shawnw]

They won't need more cells if they reduce the population that is mentally ill and shouldn't be in a prison.

[Midtowner]

If they use Maps 4 taxes for anything other than what we voted for I'm Done. They start pulling at your heart strings for the mental health problems at the County Jail, and moving Maps tax dollars to that area. Once they do this it will be a never-ending ordeal.

They can't legally spend the money for anything not approved by the voters. This also won't happen because the County Commissioners who oversee the jail have no authority or access to dictate how municipal revenue should be spent. What likely needs to happen is an increase in taxes county-wide.

Good luck getting Commissioner Calvey to agree to any kind of tax increase while he's showboating as County Commissioner to try to get elected to CD5.

[Ed Shadid]

They can't legally spend the money for anything not approved by the voters. This also won't happen because the County Commissioners who oversee the jail have no authority or access to dictate how municipal revenue should be spent. What likely needs to happen is an increase in taxes county-wide.

Good luck getting Commissioner Calvey to agree to any kind of tax increase while he's showboating as County Commissioner to try to get elected to CD5.

The statement that in the MAPS program "They can't legally spend the money for anything not approved by the voters" is a point of confusion for many who opine about the MAPS program and needs to be clarified prior to any MAPS 4 vote.

In the first MAPS vote the MAPS projects were listed on the ballot and the statement "They can't legally spend the money for anything not approved by the voters" would have been a true statement (for MAPS1).

However, subsequent Supreme Court opinions convinced the City's Municipal Counselor that placing multiple, unrelated projects on the same ballot question (as was done in the first MAPS vote) would be considered logrolling by the courts (forcing voters to make an unpalatable choice for a project they don't want in order to tax themselves for a project(s) they do want). So with MAPS3, all the voters actually voted on was a 1 cent sales tax for 7+ years for "capital projects" along with a non-binding resolution at the time of the vote from the council stating that the intent of the present council was to spend the money on a list of projects with each project listed (but without a specified budget for each project). But councils turnover over time, and one council cannot legally bind future councils in terms of how the budget is spent and therefore, legally, a council can do whatever they saw fit with the MAPS funds as long as they were spending money on capital projects (as opposed to operations/maintenance spending). There is no legal obligation whatsoever to spend the money exclusively on the projects listed in the council resolution.

Councils have spent the money exclusively on the projects listed on the council resolutions because they felt that to do otherwise would break a bond with the voters and imperil the MAPS program. The question that raises, which to date has not been tested in the courts, is when you have a 20+year history of the council spending the tax exclusively on the projects listed, are the voters being subjected to logrolling due to the circumvention of the law by the City. The change in tactic (not listing the projects on the ballot as previously practiced, and which we do on GO Bond votes but having a non-binding resolution of the council state the projects) is clearly in response to the City knowing that it is practicing logrolling and could not legally place the different projects on the same ballot IMO. It is my experience that most people are under the same impression that you expressed ("they can't legally spend the money for anything not approved by the voters") and so the City is effectively, and deceptively, practicing what the Supreme Court has so strongly frowned upon (logrolling unrelated projects into one vote).

[OKC Guy]

The statement that in the MAPS program "They can't legally spend the money for anything not approved by the voters" is a point of confusion for many who opine about the MAPS program and needs to be clarified prior to any MAPS 4 vote.

In the first MAPS vote the MAPS projects were listed on the ballot and the statement "They can't legally spend the money for anything not approved by the voters" would have been a true statement (for MAPS1).

However, subsequent Supreme Court opinions convinced the City's Municipal Counselor that placing multiple, unrelated projects on the same ballot question (as was done in the first MAPS vote) would be considered logrolling by the courts (forcing voters to make an unpalatable choice for a project they don't want in order to tax themselves for a project(s) they do want). So with MAPS3, all the voters actually voted on was a 1 cent sales tax for 7+ years for "capital projects" along with a non-binding resolution at the time of the vote from the council stating that the intent of the present council was to spend the money on a list of projects with each project listed (but without a specified budget for each project). But councils turnover over time, and one council cannot legally bind future councils in terms of how the budget is spent and therefore, legally, a council can do whatever they saw fit with the MAPS funds as long as they were spending money on capital projects (as opposed to operations/maintenance spending). There is no legal obligation whatsoever to spend the money exclusively on the projects listed in the council resolution.

Councils have spent the money exclusively on the projects listed on the council resolutions because they felt that to do otherwise would break a bond with the voters and imperil the MAPS program. The question that raises, which to date has not been tested in the courts, is when you have a 20+year history of the council spending the tax exclusively on the projects listed, are the voters being subjected to logrolling due to the circumvention of the law by the City. The change in tactic (not listing the projects on the ballot as previously practiced, and which we do on GO Bond votes but having a non-binding resolution of the council state the projects) is clearly in response to the City knowing that it is practicing logrolling and could not legally place the different projects on the same ballot IMO. It is my experience that most people are under the same impression that you expressed ("they can't legally spend the money for anything not approved by the voters") and so the City is effectively, and deceptively, practicing what the Supreme Court has so strongly frowned upon (logrolling unrelated projects into one vote).

Thank you for a well written reply. My comments:

1. I am having a hard time getting my councilman to get in touch with me. He made one attempt and while driving I use bluetooth and answered but no one was there. I returned call and no answer. I will vote him out next election he does not respond and has all my info (so should see I vote every time as my priveledge of being an American.

2. In my opinion we have passed the point of bundling regardless if its legal or not. If a voter has to be tricked into voting things they don’t approve of this is not good for the city. I am 100% agaknst spending more money on streetcar until we see it for at least 2-3 years if not more. So, if they bundle a Maps4 and have streetcar in it my vote is a solid no regardless what good projects are in it.

We need to start letting major projects stand on their own merit. We have lots of needs in both city and county. Everyone wants a tax added and we cannot keep adding projects which add future upkeep costs too.

So for the sake of the city they need to add projects as singular line items on any future ballot. And I am not alone in this sentiment.

[dankrutka]

Thank you for the explanation, Ed. I really appreciate when people in the know share their knowledge and perspective on this board.

[RedDollar]

Voting yes for the original MAPS was easy. All Sports Stadium was a pit, was in terrible shape. The Myriad was aging. We had a " river " that had to be mowed twice a year and was an eyesore. The vision for Bricktown was worth the investment.

MAPS for Kids was needed. I'd prefer to see the property owners in that school district vote for those improvements and tax themselves through bond issues to pay for it. But realistically, that was never gonna happen. And this sales tax money would free OKCPS from a lot of maintenance and capital expense , and they could put that money into operations. I'm mostly happy with my yes vote, except I read an article last year on NPR, where an OKCPS teacher was complaining that she had no air conditioning in her classroom, and it made me wonder what happened to the $700 million we voted for them to fix those type of problems.

MAPS3 was an iffy vote for me, but I voted yes. In spite of not knowing anything about street cars. And I knew even less about the other major project , the whitewater course. In retrospect, knowing what I know now about both, I would've voted no.

And its gonna take a major " home run " project to get a yes vote from me on a MAPS4. And if they log roll projects together, then I'm really done. I will vote for none of it. MAPS has runs its course. Its reached the stage of people searching for ways to spend money, and that alone should set off red flags. The needs are not apparent, like the old All Sports Stadium, etc. And they're spending other people's money on other people. And that's a sure fire course to boondoggle and waste, if we've not already arrived.

I'm also concerned about the operating expense for each of these projects. At some point, if it hasn't already, MAPS projects operating expense will be eating a good chunk of General Fund revenue. Which will send the City back to the taxpayers asking for a permanent sales tax to fund core services, i.e police, fire , etc. ( but I really think already happened last fall ) .

Our economy is strong . OKC is a desirable place to live. That's been achieved. We can do more for our economy with a lower sales tax than more govt tax and spend.

[d-usa]

Ideally, the projects should promote enough growth in sales tax revenue and other funding sources to pay for their own upkeep.

Not sure about the reality of that though.

[Timshel]

At some point, if it hasn't already, MAPS projects operating expense will be eating a good chunk of General Fund revenue.

Do you have any sources/authority backing this statement up?

[Laramie]

You need to take into account that our city's growth rate is +10.97% (Census). OKC is very capable of handling the projects we build thru MAPS.

As a safety net; maybe an endowment fund in MAPS 4 (Plutonic Panda mentioned on an earlier post) would put many of you at ease.

Maybe we should just raise the 'sales tax' by a permanent one penny, do away with MAPS--allow the your Mayor, City Manager & City council representatives to determined what should & shouldn't be built. Follow Atlanta, Seattle & Minneapolis' paths; build billion dollar facilities where you don't have a 'say.'

Don't want to derail MAPS because there's one or two projects on there I don't want. Think about it, the beauty of MAPS has been about putting projects on the ballot that have variety appeal.

MAPS wasn't meant to satisfy or dissatisfy a few.

[RedDollar]

Do you have any sources/authority backing this statement up?

Do you have any sources/authority to disprove that statement ?

[RedDollar]

You need to take into account that our city's growth rate is +10.97%. OKC is very capable of handling the projects we build thru MAPS.

.

MAPS wasn't meant to satisfy a few.

And along with that growth, you must provide more service ......... more police , more fire, more streets, more costs of development .

We voted to increase the sales tax by 1/2 cent last year. It was supposedly dedicated to police , although it does not guarantee against supplanting of funds.

If we've had this huge growth, providing new revenue, then why did we need a sales tax increase ?

[jedicurt]

If we've had this huge growth, providing new revenue, then why did we need a sales tax increase ?

because the city neglected things for so long that it takes more to finally fix it... and they aren't the best with money

[RedDollar]

because the city neglected things for so long that it takes more to finally fix it... and they aren't the best with money

Well, they said the money was dedicated to hiring more policemen.

Why would that cost more to " finally fix " ?

If we had a great deal of new revenue from the 10.7% growth, then why was it necessary to extend MAPS3 another year, in order to pay for street repair ?

I mean hey, we voted for a tax increase to pay for police and streets, these are basic core services that the City should be paying for out of normal sales tax revenue.

[Laramie]

And along with that growth, you must provide more service ......... more police , more fire, more streets, more costs of development .

We voted to increase the sales tax by 1/2 cent last year. It was supposedly dedicated to police , although it does not guarantee against supplanting of funds.

If we've had this huge growth, providing new revenue, then why did we need a sales tax increase ?

Understand your concern:

City didn't dedicate any funds to provide for staffing of Safety (Police & Fire); for a city of our size, we have been operating on the bare bones minimum; therefore a permanent funding source was needed. We funded projects to build new fire stations; it does cost to operate & especially to staff these facilities.

[RedDollar]

Understand your concern:

City didn't dedicate any funds to provide for staffing of Safety (Police & Fire); for a city of our size, we have been operating on the bare bones minimum; therefore a permanent funding source was needed. We funded projects to build new fire stations; it does cost to operate & especially to staff these facilities.

Well, Laramie, man............the sales tax we voted on in the fall of 2017, was called a Public Safety Sales Tax and it was sold to us as allowing the City to hire a hundred someodd new policemen

https://newsok.com/article/5563872/v...s-tax-measures

Now it could be, they were lying to us , or they were being disingenuous , and this was actually just your garden variety sales tax increase, if so, then I feel deceived.

You can't plead poverty on one hand , and then on the other claim there's plenty of money to pay for opex costs of MAPS projects.

You can't butter both sides of your bread.