I highly encourage you to go to the actual article on Newsok. They have links to old ballots of previous MAPS and other important details worth educating yourself about.

Oklahoma City Council to vote on MAPS ballot
Specific plans for $777M proposal won’t be included because of a change in state law

BY JOHN ESTUS

Published: September 29, 2009

Oklahoma City Council members are expected to approve a MAPS 3 ballot today that is unlike previous MAPS ballots because it doesn’t identify specific projects.


Projects to be funded by proposed MAPS 3 sales tax revenue are only identified as city "capital improvements” in the ballot. Specifics of the $777 million MAPS 3 proposal aren’t listed on the ballot.

The description differs from what voters saw on the original MAPS ballot in 1993, which listed each individual project that was to be funded.

A resolution of intent council members are also expected to approve today states that funds from the proposed penny sales tax extension would be used only for projects in the MAPS 3 proposal.

The MAPS For Kids ballot in 2001 didn’t list individual projects, but specified that money raised from the penny sales tax was only for "public school or public school facilities expenditures.”

One reason the proposed MAPS 3 ballot lacks specifics is a change in state law that requires a separate vote for each project listed on a ballot.

That means if each individual MAPS 3 project were listed on the ballot, voters would vote for each project rather than all projects at once.

As they did with MAPS and MAPS For Kids, city leaders decided to make the MAPS 3 ballot an all-or-nothing question; voters will not vote on individual projects.

Mayor Mick Cornett, who has spearheaded the MAPS 3 initiative, said an all-or-nothing approach for MAPS 3 was chosen because it has worked with voters in the past.

"This is the process they are going to be comfortable with,” Cornett said.

Projects in the MAPS 3 proposal include a large downtown park, new convention center, a downtown streetcar and commuter rail system, Oklahoma River improvements, fairgrounds improvements, sidewalks and senior wellness centers.

Cornett said he doesn’t think the catch-all category of city "capital improvements” is too vague for voters.

"I think the expectation is they’re voting on them all at once,” Cornett said.

The mayor noted that each improvement project wasn’t listed on the MAPS For Kids ballot.

The MAPS 3 ballot asks for a vote for or against extending the penny sales tax that expires next April for another seven years and nine months in order to pay for city "capital improvements.”

In addition, the MAPS 3 ballot calls for the creation of an advisory board similar to the boards that oversaw the implementation of previous MAPS initiatives. The MAPS 3 advisory board would be guided by the resolution of intent when making recommendations on MAPS 3 projects to the city council.

Resolutions of intent are nonbinding.

They can be overturned by a city council vote. Council members voted 7-1 last week to have a final vote today on the ordinances needed to set a Dec. 8 election for MAPS 3.

Read more: NewsOK

Dec. 1993 Ballot
http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.news...s29ballot1.pdf

March 2008 Ballot
http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.news...9fcballot2.pdf

MAPS 3 Project List
http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.news...s3projects.pdf

MAPS 3 Program Resolution
http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.news...resolution.pdf

So if some well-connected individual were to petition the city council after the MAPS tax passes, they could arguably get public financing for their private-use project so long as it's arguably a 'capital improvement'?

That's a lot of arguing

Strictly speaking, yes. However, some safeguards are present, as discussed here: Doug Dawgz Blog: MAPS III — The Actual Vote

But, yes, the bottom line is that MAPS 3 is pretty much a handshake deal. I'm willing to take that risk but have lots of tar and feathers available should there be such a need.

__________________
Doug
http://www.dougloudenback.com/downtownOKC.htm
http://www.dougloudenback.com/oklahomacity.htm
http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/

Doug, they could have accomplished something more than a 'handshake deal' if they'd simply have proposed the creation of a public trust with a specific and enforceable mandate to oversee these projects *and only* these projects.

I'd like to see the Council try and avoid another Bass Pro debacle if at all possible. If eight politically ambitious individuals are given carte blanche to spend this $777 million as they see fit, they might instead choose to spend the money in other ways not included in MAPS III.

I have a low trust threshold for Oklahoma politicians and an even lower trust threshold for those who would ask for such unprecedented unfettered control over taxpayer money. If this deal does pass and if our politicians do as politicians do and spend the money in their own best interests rather than the public's, then I think MAPS projects of the future will be DOA.

I'm not very learned on city governmental functions, admittedly, but can't we have a public trust or somethign similar? I don't like this handshake BS.

Yes. It would take a one vote majority (5-4 with a full quorum, less if some members are absent) to change course from the resolution of intent. Midtowner, do you believe there are reasons not to take the council's word on how they intend to spend this money?

I think there's a lot to be said about never taking any government's "word" on how to spend such a large amount of money.

Doubtless true.

__________________
Doug
http://www.dougloudenback.com/downtownOKC.htm
http://www.dougloudenback.com/oklahomacity.htm
http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/

It can be argued that government isn't to be trusted. But we, essentially, do that everyday of our lives: fire and police protection, traffic control, public utilities-power, water, garbage collection, public education.

The list can go on.

With the undeniable success of MAPS 1 and 2, what is the reason to not trust the City of Oklahoma City in not building what they say they are going to build? Their track record with both of the previous MAPS projects is intact - they delivered on what was told to the voters.

Yeah, this ballot initative is different from those of the past. But the Council is smart enough to know that should they change, by resolution, the seven announced projects, it will likely kill all momentum the City has enjoyed this last 15 years.

Until they commit such an obvious error and deliberately choose to not come through on what they've said they will do, I've no reason to doubt their integrity.

DelCamino, do you believe today's news stations and newspapers have the same staffing and resources needed to act as a watchdog over city spending? Does this matter?

I don't know Steve. They should (a completely new topic, huh).

I'm not one the think the media watchdogs were the reason the past MAPS projects were successful. Being close to the previous projects, I saw nothing to indicate there was inpropriaties, where the watchdogs were needed. Of course, that begs the obvious question................

Do you know, Steve, if with this round of MAPS, Mayor Cornett has proposed a citizens oversight panel, as was the case with Mayor Norick and MAPS 1?

Very few politicians care much about what happens beyond their own terms (at least as what does not pertain directly to them).

It is well-established that MAPS money has in the past been spent for things the money was not allocated for originally (e.g., Bass Pro).

The big difference here is that in the past, the city council was tied down to at least do the enumerated projects, but not necessarily tied down as to how to spend excess monies. Here, technically ALL monies are excess as there are no enumerated projects.

It's an appreciable difference and as I said before, if the City Council actually wanted to be tied down as to how this money would be spent, they could have done that by allocating it to a public trust with a specific and enforceable mission. Since they didn't do that, I think it's very reasonable to inquire as to their motives.

This panel is a joke.

They have no power to compel anyone to do (or not do) anything.

Their members are appointed, i.e. selected, most likely for possessing desirable qualities such as not being too inquisitive.

Remember that all of these bodies are appointed, not elected. Those who appoint these people appoint these people to look after the appointor's best interest, not the public's.

The catch here is though, that if MAPS III doesn't pass on the ballot, MAPS is probably dead anyhow.

This statement is completely false and a total fabrication. If you have information supporting it, please state it or provide a link.

Not being Steve, perhaps I shouldn't be answering your question, but, yes, it was part of the 1993 MAPS ballot ...

Click on the graphic for a larger view; the relevant text is in the last long paragraph.

__________________
Doug
http://www.dougloudenback.com/downtownOKC.htm
http://www.dougloudenback.com/oklahomacity.htm
http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/

Actually, DelCamino, MidTowner is somewhat correct. With each MAPS tax the city council is empowered to pass on their own an accompanying use tax charged on out-of-state goods. The campaign for the original MAPS included promises the use tax money would be spent on maintanance of the MAPS projects. The council later decided to use money from the use tax to build Bass Pro.

This statements isn't reflective of how the panel operated with regards to MAPS 1. A check of the Oklahoman's files would provide you with information of how much a pain in the a** the panel was during the construction period.

Appointees - yeah, they can be lapdogs, but actions of MAPS oversight panels do not reflect that to be the case.

City funding for Bass Pro ruled legal, valid by judge

By Steve Lackmeyer
Staff Writer


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, July 17, 2003
Edition: City, Section: NEWS, Page 9-A

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last year's decision by the Oklahoma City Council to borrow $17.1 million from use tax reserves to build a Bricktown store for Bass Pro Shops was ruled legal and valid Wednesday by Oklahoma County District Judge Noma Gurich.

The Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority sought the declaratory judgment in response to a written demand from a group led by Bricktown property owner Moshe Tal.


Tal, who has failed in a handful of previous lawsuits against the city, claimed city council members violated state law by borrowing money from the use tax funds to build the store, which is under construction southeast of the SBC Bricktown Ballpark.


Tal appeared with attorney Chad Richardson, but it was Tal who led most of the arguments in Wednesday's hearing.


Leslie Batchelor, an attorney for the Urban Renewal Authority, argued the city was within its rights to appropriate money to the agency to promote a redevelopment project.


Use taxes are charged on out-of-state purchases for in-state use, and can be established by the city council to accompany sales taxes passed by voters.


Tal unsuccessfully argued that a resolution by the city council after the 1993 passage of the MAPS penny sales tax committed the accompanying use tax to project maintenance and replacement.


He also cited state statutes that he said prohibit taxes from being passed by ordinance for one purpose and being used for another.


Batchelor said the use tax, however, was passed by resolution, not an ordinance, that stated the city intended to use the proceeds for maintenance.


"It's a mere declaration of intent," Batchelor countered. "The city is free to change its intent at any time."


Tal tried to convince Gurich the city was deceptive, but she responded she was more interested in "legalities," and not personal attacks.


"Tell what factual issue we need to go to trial on," Gurich told Tal before issuing her ruling. "I don't see any facts in dispute here."


In a second dispute, Gurich declined the Urban Renewal Authority's request to strike Tal's effort to sue more than 90 city and civic leaders for what he claims was a conspiracy to rob him of the chance to develop south Bricktown.


Gurich noted the authority itself wasn't a party to the pending action.


Tal has yet to issue subpoenas for the suit, adding he hopes the people he is accusing will appear voluntarily to spare him the expense of paying for serving the subpoenas.


In the past five years, Tal's claims against the city over the Bricktown development have twice gone to the State Supreme Court and were rejected each time.

Okay, a portion of the Use Tax was used for that deal. It could be considered a stretch, but those dollars (not monies dedicated to actual projects) stayed within the same geographic area of the MAPS projects and were utilized toward a project that, if not constructed, would have left a major MAPS project, the Canal, without promise of timely development and utilization.

Thanks Doug. I remember that being on the ballot in '93. I'm wondering, though, if the same provision is going to be on this December's - MAPS 3 - ballot.

Answered my own question. The ballot includes the language: 'Providing for a Citizen's Capital Improvement Sales Tax Advisory Board.'

I think the above speaks for itself.

I am extremely concerned there isnt a listing of the projects.
It seems a little vague.
As far as news media watching over the MAPS 3, I dont trust those a** kissers anymore then I trust Mayor Mickey.
I agree with OKCMALLEN.