Edmond GO Bond Task Force and Projects

[rte66man]

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.

[onthestrip]

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.

[BoulderSooner]

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 ..

[Elrenogolf]

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

[scottk]

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.

[April in the Plaza]

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.

[Elrenogolf]

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

[scottk]

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-E...20improvements.

[Midtowner]

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.

[BoulderSooner]

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 ..

[DowntownMan]

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.

[jerrywall]

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".

[BoulderSooner]

(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 ..

[jerrywall]

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.

[April in the Plaza]

"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?

[BoulderSooner]

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 ..

[DowntownMan]

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??

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[scottk]

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.

[DowntownMan]

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.

[April in the Plaza]

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.

[DowntownMan]

65% voted no in early voting

[Richard at Remax]

all 3 failed

[Plutonic Panda]

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

[mugofbeer]

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.