Would like to see a line-item vote with a yes-to-all option. So the people can nix individual projects.

I’m afraid that this will hurt the vote.

Steve, or anyone, is the reason that the 8 projects are not particularly identified in the ballot, but only in the resolution you mentioned, a work-around to the court ruling you mentioned … put differently, IF the 8 items WERE included in the ballot, would the ballot run contrary to the court ruling? Just looking for a better understanding of what’s going on here …

Thank you Steve!

I noticed that myself and not only are they not listed on the Ballot, but they aren’t mentioned or referenced in what we are actually voting on (City Ordinance #23,942)!

I was actually leaning in favor of voting for MAPS 3 and was hopeful by the initial announcement and was looking forward to more details. Instead of giving more detailed info, they have gone backwards by not mentioning a single one of the MAPS 3 projects.

To me this IS an example of log rolling (saying everything is a “Capital Improvement” and goes against what the Mayor said just days ago at the MAPS 3 press conference when he implied we would be voting on the items individually: “…each item must stand on it’s own” (may not be an exact quote, I don’t have it handy right now).

The City broke things down to Proposition 1, etc., on the most recent General Obligation Bond and School Bond. Also done on the County Tinker Bond. Why not here?

The ballot is misleading because it gives the false impression that there are safeguards in place to protect the taxpayer (definition of Capital Improvement, limitation on how the money can be spent, Citizen Board etc).

While those things are in the actual ordinance, the definition is so broad that just about any project could qualify as a “Capital Improvement”. There really isn’t any limitation on how the money is spent and the Citizen Board just makes recommendations to the Council. They can take them or leave them.

Having vast differences in what the Ballot language and the actual ordinance is not unique to the City. The State does it often. There have been many a Bill that has gone thru the Legislature where the what it says in the Title of the Bill (equivalent to Ballot language) is the exact opposite of what the Bill itself says.

Steve: do you have a link or can you post the original MAPS ballot and/or ordinance to compare? Thanks in advance!

Doug: it is my understanding that multiple items can be put on the same ballot, just not in an all-or-nothing manner. Each has to be a separate Proposition (like we had on the G.O.B, School Bond and Tinker Bond).

Doug: this is what I was talking about in my “no substance” post on your blog earlier…I’m sorry if I didn’t make myself clear (I was endeavoring to keep my posts short and went too far the other way…LOL)

I think this is a significant potential problem. First of all, it’s difficult to vote for something when you’re giving a group of people (Citizens Capital Improvements Advisory Tax Board) the ability to recommend improvements when you have no idea who’s being chosen for said board. If we knew in advance that it was going to be people like Larry Nichols, whom we know is extremely concerned about Oklahoma City and has shown great thoughtfulness regarding it, I would have virtually no concern. Has this board existed in the past, or is this a creation of the ordinance? A little history might be helpful.

I’m one of the people who is pro almost any improvement suggested, so what is going to be the reaction of those who are sure that MAPS is a ploy by the city to put money in the pocket of it’s favorite sons?

As much as I fear a line item vote, it might be the safest way to make sure something passes. The court ruling actually takes all the charm out of the whole MAPS concept, which was: something for everyone. You get things you’re not even sure you want, and with hindsight, you’re glad you did. Would the canal have passed in the original MAPS vote? I don’t have the knowledge to truly know whether a convention center would be a good thing, but it’s clear a majority of people oppose it. Might those people be wrong? When I walk through our convention center, it looks outdated and shabby. The building is ugly. Am I wrong to have trouble getting excited about building a new one? And then there’s the Central Park, the item I think is the most important thing on the ballot. That too seems to only have minority support. How do you convince people who’ve never visited cities with iconic parks, or who are too lazy to go drive around the proposed area to see what is already there, what a good thing this could be for the city?

I think the city needs to be very careful with education of the public, and very sure they can convince the public that this language means what the mayor has said it means, or we’d be better off voting on each project individually.

Larry, the files (there are several – it gets pretty technical, I guess) for the ballot and the council resolution are located (as this is written – it may change after 9/29) in the agenda are for the 9/29 council meeting. Scroll down (or use search) until you come to “23,942″ and you’ll find them grouped together. I’ll have them in the blog article later this morning, I hope.

Larry – the rules for a GO Bond election are defined differently due to its financing structure (being based on mills, not on sales tax). Each item in GO Bond may be separated out and voted on based on their status as a public utility (not utility in the water/sewer sense). The sales tax allows us citizens to vote on a wider range of projects, but it looks like the Courts will only let us vote on the tax, not the projects.

I find it hard to fault the Mayor and Council for this ambiguous language, even if it makes accountability seem
tougher, if we’re basing this on case law.

If passed, it will be up to the people to make Council accountable. It’s that way now. I watch City Council every week (when in session), and very rarely are people in the audience to make comments on City expenditures. We can kick and scream all we want, but until people actually start coming to Council on a regular basis, I don’t think most people have an validity in screaming about accountability.

I forgot to say: I couldn’t locate the original MAPS information – it may be there and I just don’t know how to find it.

Doug: Search works now? I had tried it before and it came up with nothing. I had to dig and prod the old fashioned way. LOL

Will check it out, I have downloaded the ballot, ordinance and the intent resolution (which does list the projects). As Steve pointed out, the Intent Resolution is essentially meaningless (and isn’t referenced in the ballot or the ordinance). Blair pointed out in another thread that the projects/spending of the money is at the discretion of the sitting Council.

Am hoping to find a text version of the files…the ones on the City’s site are scans in PDF format

I’m not a lawyer, but looking at the documents you reference, I’d like your comments, Doug (thanks for the link, by the way). I see language that seems less vague, and more reassuring:

“Whereas the City Council’s intent and resolve is for the MAPS 3 Program to include the implementation of all the City capital improvement projects listed on Exhibit A attached to the resolution….”

and

“the DETAILS (my capitalization) regarding the City Capital improvement projects included in the MAPS 3 Program shall, at appropriate times, be determined by the City Council…..”

So, do I understand it correctly? If MAPS 3 is passed, the projects outlined by the mayor and listed in Exhibit A will be funded. However, since there will be decisions that need to be made regarding details (such as who the architect will be, etc) will be determined by the City Council after recommendation from the Citizens Advisory Board? This language, if I do understand it correctly, is less worrisome to me.

Seems like a reasonable way to proceed to me.

Larry & All,

Larry, by “search” I didn’t mean the search feature of the website … I meant using your web browser’s search on-the-page feature.

I’ve made a text file by OCRing the proposed ordinance, resolution, its Exhibit A which lists the projects, and the proposed ballot. I may or may not have time this morning to add them to my blog but they are in a single html file which I’ve uploaded to my web server. I’ll link the html file here right now … should you see any OCR errors that I didn’t catch, please let me know.

Click here for the documents

The City won’t issue a text version of the document – that would allow changes to the wording…

Some answers to questions from this thread…
1. I will ask for a copy of the original MAPS ballot Monday and will post it when I get it. Will do the same with the MAPS for Kids ballot.
2. The original MAPS had an oversight board. I’ll post an archive story about the board’s work later today. MAPS for Kids has a MAPS for Kids Trust while the mayor and council have yet to discuss their plans for a citizens’ review group for MAPS 3. The ballot provides the first indication there will be such a group.

Jill is correct, polling right now does indeed show that most are against the Convention Center as it is seen as something that citizens won’t use. I am in favor of it just for that very reason. Even though the Myriad/Cox is under-utilized, if they solve the structural problems it has (ceiling heights etc) and IF it brings us into the next level of Conventions (bigger and better) that is all NEW, out of area and most likely out of State money that adds to the economy.

While the old Myriad definitely was outdated and shabby, the $60M we poured into it a few short years ago solved that problem. I haven’t been down there in a little while but I would hardly describe it as that way now. IF it has fallen into dis-repair already, that doesn’t bode well for future improvements (if they aren’t taking care of what we have now, they probably aren’t going to take care of future ones either).

My main concern on the Convention Center is it is coming in at the low range ($250M to $450M reported earlier. On the surface this sounds good as it is costing less, but earlier the Mayor described the range as being Phase 1 and Phase 2 (whatever that means). Doubt that they will be pointing that out during the campaign and as the largest “budgeted” item in MAPS 3, most voters will believe they are going to get a finished project. The Phase 1 & 2 comment indicates that (like the Ford Center) after a nearly 8 year tax, we are going to have a functional but incomplete building and they will be back in MAPS 4 to “finish it right” (as the 1st MAPS, 6 month extension was called and then we still “needed” another 15 months of the Ford Center/NBA tax to actually finish the job).

“I see language that seems less vague, and more reassuring”. I agree it certainly does but as Steve pointed out that language has meaningless and essentially has no legal effect (just because the current Council feels this way, doesn’t mean that future Councils/Mayors will). Plus, the Intent document and attachments are NOT mentioned or referenced in the Ballot/Ordinance.

“I think the city needs to be very careful with education of the public, and very sure they can convince the public that this language means what the mayor has said it means, or we’d be better off voting on each project individually”

Isn’t the best way to do that, eliminate the vagueness and actually put in clear, unambiguous language? That way you don’t have to have the time and expense of a campaign to have to “educate” and “explain” what you meant. They went to great verbiage defining a Capital Improvement but as I mentioned before, the definition is so broad that it can mean just about anything they later decide it to. I am all for flexibility, but this is extreme.

“Say what you mean and mean what you say”.

Doug, THANK YOU for taking the time to OCR the documents and posting the link (If you haven’t done it already, I hope you post on your own site as well).

Thanks, Larry. I’ve not had time to update my own blog article yet, probably this evening. I’m taking a “time out” … I’m not fond of getting involved in political matters … did a drive through on the new crosstown between Pennsylvania and Western yesterday, and will have a post up about that first. It’s called, “Psst … Wanna See Some Dirty Pictures?”

Here is the MAPS 1 ballot, from the Oklahoman archives: December 13, 1993, Sample Ballot

I like how everyone thinks they are experts in this field and then says “The City better be careful how they word this…”

Do you SERIOUSLY not think the City is the one who has thought this out behind scenes and with legal advice well before you all even heard of it? Not to mention The CITY HAS MUCH experience promoting MAPS and public enhancement projects? Get real if you don’t think they’ll have experts promoting this and wording it as best possible.

Interesting perspective Steven. Are you saying the folks at City Hall are incapable of making mistakes?

The renovations to the Cox Convention Center (Myriad) a few years back certainly did spruce up the place. The side that faces Sheridan and the Reannaisance Hotel is very nice. I’ve attended two conventions there in the past three months, and it is nice. However, walking south into the other half is like walking through a time portal. The side facing Reno and the Ford Center is trapped in the 1970s. Aside from its very industrial look, parts of it look downright dilapidated. I recently manned a booth for my organization at a convention for school administrators held at the Cox Center. Attendance was pretty good, but it felt like we were in a large converted garage instead of a convention hall. I travel quite a lot, and when I compare it to the convention centers in New Orleans, Dallas, Kansas City, San Diego, and Denver, there is no comparison.

As for the new convention center being something that most citizens won’t use, that’s probably true of many cities’ convention centers. Most of their business comes from out of town groups or at least out of town visitors. However, I attended several events at the Myriad in high school, including my graduation. There are several local groups that use the center and attract out of town guests. I attend Ford Center events maybe 5 times a year. So for 360 other days, I have no use for it. But that doesn’t mean I think it was a bad investment. Just my two cents.

@slackmeyer – Nope, not at all, but I’m saying give them a chance for goodness sakes. Our instant gratification society is demanding every answer to every question already, even questions that are ridiculous and irrelevant. That’s why they are throwing it out there now, to educate the public over the next 2+ months.

Doug: thanks for the MAPS 1 ballot

Damon: good info that I am sure most are not aware of unless they have been back in those areas. Another example where most thought they were getting completed projects under MAPS (then come to find out 5 years after opening the “state of the art”, “crown jewel of MAPS” Ford Center that it “needed” $120M in upgrades to bring it back up to NBA standards again…the MAPS 1 ballot says it would be built to those standards).

I’ve completed this post about the ballot, ordinance, and resolution: Maps 3 – The Actual Vote.

Larry, it’s time to leave your “state of the art” gripes about the Ford Center behind. Again, you clearly didn’t set foot in the Ford Center after completion. It might have been “state of the art” for a wanna be competitor for the NBA and/or NHL at the time of completion, but the money available via MAPS was not enough to bring it up to 2008 standards, regardless of whose standards it met when it was compelted.

Most cities keep improving, keep upgrading and updating, so what was “state of the art” at one point in time may easily have fallen behind other cities five years later.

The renovations of the Cox Center definitely improved it, but square footage is square footage, and it was improved as much as could be afforded at the time.

With any MAPS project, we can only do what we can afford, and like most of us, we might build or buy something hoping to add an extra room or a bathroom (in the figurative sense) later when we’ve got more money. Sometimes we outgrow the house and even if it seemed like it would be perfect forever at the time of purchase, time and change reveal that it’s gotten a bit shabby and/or small for our needs.

“It might have been “state of the art” for a wanna be competitor for the NBA and/or NHL at the time of completion”

Please go back and read the original MAPS ballot, it clearly states it wasn’t designed and built for a “wanna be competitor” of either league, but meeting the standards of those leagues. The phrase used on the ballot was: “An indoor sports/convention facility meeting not less than National Hockey League (NHL) or National Basketball Association (NBA) standards;”. (May be more info in the actual ordinance but can’t locate a copy of it right now)

Sorry, if you have trouble with that phrase, but that is what they said. They are also saying it will be that way again. Let’s take them at their word and presume that it will be that way. For how long? Another 5 years (after the renovations are complete)? Then how much is it going to cost to upgrade again (which the City is legally required to do according to the lease)? How many times is it going to have to be upgraded over the 15 to 30 year term of the lease? There is no significant funding mechanism for the improvements that we are required to make to “ensure that the arena continues to be a first-class NBA arena.”

As I have mentioned before, the 1st time I set foot in the Ford was at a Thunder game early on in the season. Did I consider it state of the art, no but then again it wasn’t a building that could even remotely be described as needing improvements costing more than the original building either. Especially when it was the City’s plan for the eventual tenant to pay for any “finishing out” costs.

Doug, your version of the MAPS 1 ballot is much better (actually readable) than the Oklahoman’s version they posted recently (and you got it from their archives, go figure). Thanks again!

Vote no, and lets get a better ballot next go ’round.

Steve Hunt, if it fails, it will not come back up in another form. It will be dead, and it will have severely hampered or killed our momentum.

[...] not as if this should have been a surprise to anybody. Let the butchering of the steer [...]