Edmond GO Bond Task Force and Projects

[Hollywood]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[April in the Plaza]

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.

[BoulderSooner]

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 ..

[jerrywall]

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.

[BoulderSooner]

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 ..

[Dustin]

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

[April in the Plaza]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[jerrywall]

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.

[jedicurt]

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

[jerrywall]

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.

[BoulderSooner]

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) ..

[FighttheGoodFight]

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

[Urbanized]

^^^^^^^^
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.

[mugofbeer]

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

[jn1780]

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.

[BoulderSooner]

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 ..

[jerrywall]

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.