Vote Yes on December 14

Help Oklahoma City keep its title of "Horse Show Capital of the World" and protect $181.9 million in revenue and 3,600 jobs.

On December 14, Oklahoma City residents will have the opportunity to approve a measure that will provide a dedicated funding source to renovate the city-owned horse show facilities located at State Fair Park. Better, modern facilities will help keep horse shows and events in Oklahoma City.

A "YES" vote on December 14 gives Oklahoma City the ability to raise the current hotel/motel occupancy tax from 2% to 5.5%, the first increase in the hotel/motel occupancy tax in 30 years. The revenue generated by the increase will be dedicated to fund approximately $55 million in much-needed improvements to horse show venues at State Fair Park.

Renovating our city-owned horse show venues will help us keep the national horse shows that generate $181.9 million for our city economy and provide 3,600 jobs with a total payroll of $66.5 million.

Since the hotel/motel occupancy tax is paid by visitors staying in the city's hotels and motels, Oklahoma City residents won't feel the burden from this increase - only the benefit of keeping and growing our city's horse show industry.



This is something we really need if we want to keep the horse industry to keep growing in OKC. Remember, the tax will not affect us, unless you stay in an Oklahoma City hotel/motel.

Yes, we should all support this!! The state fairgrounds need it. I even wish we would campaign for more extensive beautification and renovation of the grounds to make them a place we can spend time in -- whether there's an event there or not.

I'm voting against it. The tax is being raised for a specific purpose. However, there is no provision for it to sunset when the project is paid for. I don't like that kind of tax raise. I'd be supportive of a temporary tax though.

That being said, I think it'll pass.

I will support it, however, we could easily afford to go to 10-12%. 12 is the national average. I use that to estimate hotel costs.

I don't feel that's a good reason to justify a tax. We can only justify it if there's a need. When the need for the money goes away so should the tax. Am I against a hotel tax to improve our fairgrounds? No.

Am I against a permanent tax for a project that will only take x amount of time? Yes.

Midtowner,

Several things. One, the tax does not have a sunset as you have noticed, however the additional revenue will continue the necessary maintenance to keep our (newly updated) facilities once they are built. Also the tax mainly affects travelers, not residents therefore you will probably not be paying for it. Two, as Mr. Anderson has noted our rate is about 75% lower than the national average, one reason why alot of other cities have nicer things. Come and show your support for the city, if you don't like the sunset law, push for a amendment in a few years.

In fact, to go a bit farther than metro went. Oklahoma City's hotel/motel tax is the lowest in the nation of all major cities.

Our vehicle rental tax, however, is close to the highest at over 14%.

The thing is, we CAN justify the tax. Sure, it is a permanent tax, but it won't affect you unless you stay in one of the hotels in OKC. If we want to spruce up our city so that visitors will want to stay, then this is the tax we need. Most of the tourists won't even notice, because many people pay for their rooms with credit cards. Not that we are trying to hide something, but if they need a place to stay, they will pay.

Midtowner,

Several things. One, the tax does not have a sunset as you have noticed, however the additional revenue will continue the necessary maintenance to keep our (newly updated) facilities once they are built. Also the tax mainly affects travelers, not residents therefore you will probably not be paying for it. Two, as Mr. Anderson has noted our rate is about 75% lower than the national average, one reason why alot of other cities have nicer things. Come and show your support for the city, if you don't like the sunset law, push for a amendment in a few years.

metro, if you have paid attention to OKC politics over the last few years, you might have noticed that short of sunset clauses that were already built into legislation, there has never been something on the ballot to eliminate a tax. It'd never happen.

As for needing the same money to finance the bonds as to maintain rennovations, that sounds very neat in proposal, but in practice I just don't see how you can continue to need expanded funding over time to maintain something even after the bond had been retired. It sounds like they'd just find more to spend the money on, thus eventually necessitating further tax hikes.

The national average on a tax in my mind does not necessitate us raising ours to match it. Low taxes are something that if marketed correctly can add to the image of a town. In a few years, who knows, I may be done with law school, I may run for City Council, etc. However, politicians (and I guess that'd make me one), do not make cutting spending their major issues (unless they want to lose) -- especially in municipal elections. They focus on what cool new stuff you can bring to the city.

I do rent hotel rooms in the OKC area at least once for my college fraternity's annual formal (I'm an alum advisor), so yes, this tax effects me. In principal, I think hotel taxes are pure BS -- it's 100% taxation without representation.

I know this will in all likelihood pass. And just to turn the tables on you a bit, I'm going to support my city and what I think is best for my city by voting against it. If the stars align and I win, if you'd like, you can come back to the table and bring a tax with a sunset clause in it.

In short, these hotel/motel people are willing to pay that 12%. Myself included. So, why not let them? We can reap the reward.

You, of course, have the right to deny the fairgrounds the opportunity to renovate and replace obsolete buildings, thus causing our events to move, however, I wish you would think about WHO is paying the bill this time.

Are they willing? Sure, they're forced to. Not really a fair assumption.

I have the right to make a principled vote against a tax to finance a single project when that tax has not sunset clause.

It does not matter if I end up being "WHO is paying the bill this time". I just want taxes in my city to be done the right way -- and in such a way that opportunities for future hikes are lessened. A permenant tax definitely sets the stage for us to eventually need even more money to dump into that place.

Also, I especially don't trust anyone in the fairgrounds management group to responsibly and efficiently disburse the monies they'd receive because of such a tax.

The next thing you know, they'll want to build an NFL stadium there with the money, then what? Of course, eventually we'll end up with a lot of overhead from the projects already completed and 20 years down the line be pushing for an additional tax.

"The next thing you know, they'll want to build an NFL stadium there with the money, then what? Of course, eventually we'll end up with a lot of overhead from the projects already completed and 20 years down the line be pushing for an additional tax."

I can live with that. And I HATE football. Plus. A government body is a business. Non profit, but a business. On occasion, your facilities become obsolete and need replacing. The citizens are the stockholders, the city council (in this case) are the board of directors. If we use it, we should pay for it. In this case, it just happens to be the visitors can pay. If we need another tax in 20 years, so be it. At least we will not have facilities that make the slums look like Bel Aire.

Oh by the way. This is directed to EVERYONE who opposes tax increases. How would YOU pay for the needed improvements?

Like I said, hotel taxes are fine. They just need to sunset once their intended goals are reached. In this state, the way politics and backroom deals go, I don't want any 'unclaimed' money floating around. I guarantee you, they'll find a home for it in someone's pocket whether the people need it or not.

Let the people decide on the merit of each project. As stakeholders in this city, I think we're qualified to say where our taxes go in the future. By not demanding a sunset clause in this tax, you are saying that we have no right to vote on the next project the city decides to do.

Like I said, hotel taxes are fine. They just need to sunset once their intended goals are reached. In this state, the way politics and backroom deals go, I don't want any 'unclaimed' money floating around. I guarantee you, they'll find a home for it in someone's pocket whether the people need it or not.

Let the people decide on the merit of each project. As stakeholders in this city, I think we're qualified to say where our taxes go in the future. By not demanding a sunset clause in this tax, you are saying that we have no right to vote on the next project the city decides to do.

The tables are turned, Mid. How would YOU get the funding for the state fair improvements? Obviosuly you do not want tax dollars of ANY kind to pay for it.

You ask me all the time to "justify" my remarks. It is your turn.

I've said it 3 or 4 times. If they proposed a hotel tax with a sunset, I'd vote for it.

I didn't say I was against the project or against raising taxes to help pay for it. What I did say was I was against a tax for a one-time project that didn't sunset -- that means that after the fairground's bond is retired, there will be excess money.

Excess money = new project from our tax money without consulting the voters. That translates into backroom deals and corruption. The simple way to do that is to sunset the hotel tax when the bond is retired. Maybe provisions could also be made to set up a fund to pay for the maintenance of the upgrades, but seeing as we're already paying for that with current revenues, I don't see how that much extra would be needed.

So in short, I'm okay with a hotel tax that sunsets when the bonds get paid off.

OK. You said you would not vote for this tax. Then tell me how you would get funding for the improvements this tax is to bring.

Well, your question ignores the fact that I've said several times that I would vote for the tax if it had a sunset clause.

Also, your question assumes that I think the city can't live without these investments. I don't think the horse shows are vital to our success as a city. They'd be nice, but I'm not willing to finance public corruption to achieve our ends.

It's not for me to decide where the money comes from. All I'm concerned with is that the project, if the voters approved it would be paid for however the voters saw fit. Once the project is complete, we will no longer need the tax. I won't support any new tax ever if I don't know where the money is going to go. To do so, in my eyes is irresponsible.

No I am not ignoring what you said. You simpally said you would not vote for this particular referindum and I asked a very simple and logical question.

You obvioulsly do not have an answer, which does not surprise me since I have posed a similar question and no one bothers to answer it.

I think I did answer your question unless you're asking how I specifically thought I could fund this project. Maybe buy lottery tickets?

And as I said, if this thing had a sunset clause in it, I'd be more inclined to vote for it.

What is specifically insufficient in my answer for you? I really haven't seen the data that shows that this is as serious a problem that needs to be fixed immediately. I really don't know that these new facilities will 'save' the horse show business here in OKC. I'm not sure what the return on investment is for our city.

The fact that proponents of this measure aren't out there speaking about things like that, just that we could lose some shows really has me more concerned than convinced (and the concern is primarily over the credibility of these claims that our position in the horse show business is in any danger).

What I do know is that this tax will eventually raise more money than is required to fund the current projects -- a LOT more. I'm very curious as to why they didn't put a sunset clause in there. Nothing like that is done by accident.

"What is specifically insufficient in my answer for you?"

It is simple. What means of funding would you use? It was phrased in a clear manner. Lottery tickets? That would create a city lottery which I doubt any city has. Try again.

The lottery ticket idea was in jest -- you misunderstood anyway, I suggested that the city played the state lottery ;)

I'm not going to repeat myself. Simply read any one of my several replies in this thread to see what means of funding I would use.

Or perhaps I should spell it out since you seem to have difficulty understanding:

I would approve a tax only if several criteria could be met:

#1: The tax goes away once the bond is retired.
#2: The benefits/costs are *CLEARLY* explained and I can see that the tax would bring in enough money/prestige to the city to make the tax worth it.
#3: The fact that the facilities are currently enduring some sort of crisis is clearly established.

I have seen none of those things. All I've heard is the typical "If we don't pass this, armegaddon is not far off". Sorry, but that isn't good enough for me. I'm all for improving this city, but one man's improvement is another man's waste. I want to know which this is -- improvement or waste? I don't think that's been spelled out well enough.

So what specific means? I suppose I'd want to know if it's needed before I voted in favor of it being funded. Assuming that test was satisfied, I'd vote for just about any tax including a hotel tax that sunsets after the project is complete and the bond is retired (sunsets means it goes away).

It is obvious. You do not know HOW to fund these improvements. Otherwise you would have an answer. Just like everyone else. You scream "NO MORE TAXES" but will not support your agenda.

Yes. I know what you said. Same theory.

How did you get that out of what I said? How to fund these improvements? Specifically? Something I would approve? Simple.

Step #1: You get a bond approved to pay for the project.
Step #2: You hold a vote for some sort of tax (possibly a hotel tax) that sunsets after the bond is paid for.
Step #3: Build the project.

I didn't ever say "no more taxes". Don't put words in my mouth. I said that when I pay for something, I want to know what I'm paying for. In this case, we clearly do not know what we're paying for since the tax will continue to be assessed even after the project it was intended for is long paid for. That is my objection here.

I also have concerns that there are some ulterior motives for passing this tax. As is done in Oklahoma City, often a tax is approved for one purpose and then diverted to another -- see Bass Pro Shops and MAPS for a recent example. It shouldn't suprise anyone that Gaylord had a 1/3 stake in MAPS. Nothing has changed in the way the good 'ol boy network works here in OKC. If you can't see what's up here, you're blind.

From the numbers I've seen, the cost is probably justified (although the sources of those numbers were VERY questionable).

I'm not anti-tax. I just demand/require integrity and responsibility with the people in charge of spending my tax money. It hasn't happened in the past, therefore unless we put this money in a "lockbox" and make sure it doesn't exist after the project is completed and paid for, we, the taxpayers are going to get screwed.

Midtowner, there is sufficient information out about this issue. You can go to the city website www.okc.gov for one example. There are several other websites out there. This is the city's #1 focus right now, even Mayor Cornett has been speaking out about this. This is one of our most viable sources of revenue to the city. Alone, the shows bring $180 million in revenue. You can find the figures in the paper, online, and on the city public access channels as well as commercials running now. All you have to do is drive by the fairgrounds and see the dilapidated shape they are in. I never use them and probably never will but realize what a huge loss this would be for our city, it would have an almost big impact as the oil bust if we lost this industry. Look at Ft. Worth, Houston, Denver, and Albuquerque, they are our serious competitors with new facilities stealing away our business. We are currently the worlds largest equine industry and as you can easily see our facilities are not even close to par, much yet this century.

Here is one excerpt I found:

Mayor Mick Cornett wrote the following article for a local newspaper to provide citizens his observations and views related to “State of the City” in the summer of 2004.

One of our biggest opportunities for economic development is State Fair Park.

Location, location, location. State Fair Park is located in the middle of Oklahoma City, the middle of the state… and the middle of the country. With immediate access to I-44 and I-40, it has outstanding interstate access. The site is already home to one of the largest annual state fairs in the country. And if you’ve driven down I-44 during one of our horse shows and glanced at the fairgrounds, you have seen for yourself the tremendous number of horse trailers filling the parking lots.

The State Fair Park is indirectly responsible for an influx of more than $100 million a year into our city’s economy. Unfortunately, after 40 years of use, our State Fair Park facilities are no longer up to the standards that we (or the horse-show industry) demand. We have reached a level of urgency regarding the horse show business and will need to invest in capital improvements if we hope to maintain, let alone build on , our horse show tourism business. We should really envision State Fair Park not for what it is, but what it could be. With that location, it could become a leading exposition center, not only for horse shows, but much, much more.

http://www.okcchamber.com/page.asp?atomid=1019

Frequently asked questions about improving OKC's horse show facilities:


What is the "Improve OKC's Horse Show Facilities" Campaign all about?
On December 14, Oklahoma City residents will have the opportunity to approve a measure that will provide a dedicated funding source to renovate the city's horse show facilities located at State Fair Park. Better, modern facilities will help keep horse shows and events in Oklahoma City.

Why are horse shows important to Oklahoma City?
Oklahoma City has been proclaimed "Horse Show Capital of the World" because it hosts more national equine events than any other city. The 15 major horse shows held annually in Oklahoma City at State Fair Park positively impact our economy by generating $181.9 million dollars a year and supporting more than 3,600 jobs with a payroll of $66.5 million. In addition to this economic impact, horse shows provide family entertainment and reflect the heritage and traditions of our city.

What does a "YES" vote mean?
A "YES" vote on December 14 gives Oklahoma City the ability to raise the current hotel/motel occupancy tax from 2% to 5.5%, the first increase in the hotel/motel occupancy tax in 30 years. The revenue generated by the increase will be dedicated to fund approximately $55 million in much-needed improvements to horse show venues at State Fair Park.

How will this increase affect Oklahoma City residents?
Since the hotel/motel occupancy tax is paid by visitors staying in the city's hotels and motels, the vast majority of Oklahoma City residents will not feel any financial burden from this increase. Instead, they will only see the economic benefit from growing an equine event industry that annually generates $181.9 million for the economy and supports 3,600 jobs. On the contrary, Oklahoma City residents will feel a negative impact if the measure fails and horse shows leave Oklahoma City for newer, improved venues in competing cities.

What happens if the measure doesn't pass?
If we don't take this opportunity to invest in our city's horse show facilities, we stand to lose the horse show business we have worked so hard to build. Our businesses and citizens also stand to lose the jobs and revenue the horse shows generate. We must improve our horse show venues to stay ahead of competitors such as Dallas/Ft. Worth and Tulsa. Both, as well as other cities across the country have significantly improved their facilities and are aggressively going after the same shows we are trying to keep or attract here in Oklahoma City.

What are OKC's Horse Show Facilities?
The 15 major horse shows in Oklahoma City are held at State Fair Park. The current facilities, which are owned by the city of Oklahoma City, were built starting in the 1950s. Although they have undergone minor repairs and maintenance over the years, they are in dire need of renovation and updating. Structures slated for remodeling or construction include stalls, practice and sales arenas, barns and a new concession area. These improvements provide the safest, most convenient environment for animals while giving show participants and spectators the amenities they want and need.

Didn't we renovate all of the horse barns as part of MAPS?
The projects at the State Fair Park funded through MAPS only included a small amount for horse-related facilities, specifically extensive renovations to Show Barn 6 and upgrades (exhaust fans, electrical, and fire suppression systems) to the remaining barns (approximately $4 million). The remaining MAPS dollars were spent on the arena, also a very important part of the horse show facilities, as well as key upgrades (new HVAC, electrical, ADA compliance and fire suppression systems) of the exhibit buildings.

These improvements were necessary and allowed us to keep the shows we currently host, but further enhancements are critical if we are going to retain these events and attract others.

How will measure impact Oklahoma City's travel and tourism industry?
Because this is such a modest increase and the first one in 30 years for the city's hotel/motel occupancy tax, Oklahoma City will remain very competitive with Tulsa, Dallas/Ft. Worth and other cities across the country. Even with the proposed increase, Oklahoma City will still have one of the lowest hotel/motel occupancy tax rates in the nation. However, not passing the measure could be devastating for the hospitality industry if horse shows begin to move to better facilities in other cities.

Who supports a YES vote on this measure?
The Oklahoma City Metro Hotel Association supports the increase because it recognizes the value of horse shows for generating revenue and business for the city's lodging industry. Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett, Oklahoma City Council, Former Mayor Ron Norick, the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber, the State Fair Board and State Fair Park actively support the issue because of the economic value it holds for the city. The equine breed associations that hold events in the city and horse enthusiasts who utilize the facilities also support the effort.

Midtowner, while I hear your concern about taxation - I encourage you to support the tax.

OKC has the lowest tax of any major city in the nation, and it is time that OKC begins to realize returns on its wonderful investments. What is the use of fiscal infrastructure if you only collect a marginal return on your investment. That is what has been happening.

Yes, OKC has two new downtown hotels but the tax revenue has grown by less than 5% per year. Yes, OKC has all nine MAPS projects complete and an almost completely redesigned downtown that has become a destination for the state, if not the region. But is there really any return to show for it? Not really.

This increase will allow OKC to earn a return on its investment. And to be rather honest about this, OKC will REINVEST the return on one of the top draws for the state - the OKC Fairgrounds.

You should be proud that this is the objective - that the city will use its marginal revenue to reinvest in itself - to make it more competitive so that we not only keep what we have, but we can go after other cities like that have taken from us. Can anyone say National Finals Rodeo?

OKC has a competitive advantage in location, facilities, and a favourable convention climate but what is lacking are contemporary features, modern facilities, and an active marketing unit. OKC has ensured us that the tax will address the aformentioned issues. This will make OKC very tough to beat and will ensure we keep what we have - if not capture additional shows, conventions, and business.

For these reasons, please reconsider your vote. it is only a 3.5% increase (I think). That is a marginal increase and OKC would still be one of the lowest major cities in the nation in hotel sales taxes.

I personally think OKC should have gone a bit higher, to at least 4% increase so that some of it could be earmarked for continued downtown improvements, inner city entertainment districts - Asia District, Capitol Hill, Paseo, Stockyard City, Eastside, so on, and OKC beautification "TREEEEEEES".

But 3.5% is a start, i just think they should have addressed the real problem with a higher increase because it will be tough to increase the hotel tax again!

Its only $3.50 per $100.00 more than you pay now. As a tourist, I wouldnt even notice that.

It sounds like a worthy cause. However, I still do not approve of the fact that the tax doesn't sunset. That's an extremely important sticking point for me. I won't vote for such a measure unless they can demonstrate that even after the project is done they will continue to need these funds.

As for the numbers, I find those numbers to be questionable at best. Anytime someone lobbying for a vote presents me a number without telling me where they got it I am skeptical. As high as these numbers are I really have to question their validity -- or at least I'd like to see how they came up with them.

From the way it sounds, it seems like it could be a good deal for the city. I just want them to do it the right way. If the voters decline the issue this go-round, I think that you could find more support if you add a sunset clause (although, I'm not positive that our voters are that sophisticated).

Midtowner, while I hear your concern about taxation - I encourage you to support the tax.

OKC has the lowest tax of any major city in the nation, and it is time that OKC begins to realize returns on its wonderful investments. What is the use of fiscal infrastructure if you only collect a marginal return on your investment. That is what has been happening.

Yes, OKC has two new downtown hotels but the tax revenue has grown by less than 5% per year. Yes, OKC has all nine MAPS projects complete and an almost completely redesigned downtown that has become a destination for the state, if not the region. But is there really any return to show for it? Not really.

This increase will allow OKC to earn a return on its investment. And to be rather honest about this, OKC will REINVEST the return on one of the top draws for the state - the OKC Fairgrounds.

You should be proud that this is the objective - that the city will use its marginal revenue to reinvest in itself - to make it more competitive so that we not only keep what we have, but we can go after other cities like that have taken from us. Can anyone say National Finals Rodeo?

OKC has a competitive advantage in location, facilities, and a favourable convention climate but what is lacking are contemporary features, modern facilities, and an active marketing unit. OKC has ensured us that the tax will address the aformentioned issues. This will make OKC very tough to beat and will ensure we keep what we have - if not capture additional shows, conventions, and business.

For these reasons, please reconsider your vote. it is only a 3.5% increase (I think). That is a marginal increase and OKC would still be one of the lowest major cities in the nation in hotel sales taxes.

I personally think OKC should have gone a bit higher, to at least 4% increase so that some of it could be earmarked for continued downtown improvements, inner city entertainment districts - Asia District, Capitol Hill, Paseo, Stockyard City, Eastside, so on, and OKC beautification "TREEEEEEES".

But 3.5% is a start, i just think they should have addressed the real problem with a higher increase because it will be tough to increase the hotel tax again!

Its only $3.50 per $100.00 more than you pay now. As a tourist, I wouldnt even notice that.


Again, my major issue is not with the tax itself. It's the fact that the tax proposes to pay for a project and then continue to exist. There will be a continuous source of revenue -- who gets to decide where it should be invested? Not the voters.

If you leave money like that, politicians are going to figure out ways to get it for their own businesses or their friends' businesses. You don't have to look far back in Oklahoma City's history to see that. MAPS, OIA, etc. Often, things were done without taxpayer input and with the interests of certain business leaders being the only thing considered. Do you think it's any huge coincidence that the metro concourse only has entrances and exits in the buildings that belonged to the old OIA back in the 70's? Trust me, not a thing has changed. Just look at the Bass Pro deal -- something that I wouldn't have opposed, but the way it was done was just plain shady.

Just to ensure that you understand what I'm saying, I think this is a worthy project. Unfortunately, the tax was written in a very shortsighted or else with an ulterior long-range agenda that the taxpayers would probably not go for. I want accountability from our city leaders. The tax without a sunset clause does not provide for that.

Here is another idea.

There seems to be concern raised by some opposed to the tax due to nonrepresentation and the marginal effects (however trivial) of the increase. I have a great idea that could solve everyone's issue.

1st, pass the tax. See my earlier post for the reasons or drive in OKC [if you like the synergy that exists, pass the tax - otherwise that traffic, optimism downtown, and enthusiasm may just dwindle away]

2nd, realize that most OKC citizens will not be impacted by the tax. Even if you would be, it is only a $3.50 increase for every $100.00 hotel bill. Take one less trip to McDonalds and you've got it covered.

3rd, if city residents are still having heartburn and want to their trip to McDonalds - to make it worse? Then, get signatures for an initiative that would allow RESIDENTS of OKLAHOMA CITY to be entitled to an annual rebate on the increase in the sales tax. OKC residents with rebates could either cash the rebate, apply it to city services (water, sewage, recycle, so on), or designate your rebate to go to a specific community project - downtown renovation/renaissance, inner city entertainment district rebuilding, OKC beautiful or a TREE-Planting foundation, Airline/Airport initiative, a downtown symbol - like the Oil Tower, Urban Art, business seeding Grants, .... Unclaimed rebates would go to the OKC general fund or perhaps Downtown OKC - for the downtown (July, December) events.

I am not sure what Oklahoma State Law mandates for a citizen initiative, but draft up something like I mention in 3) and get signatures. Get the issue on the ballot and be heard.

That way, tourists like myself - who have no problem with the increase - can pay it. But the increase would not effect citizens of OKC. They can even pick and chose where they want their money to go.

I hope that helps.

Here is another idea.

There seems to be concern raised by some opposed to the tax due to nonrepresentation and the marginal effects (however trivial) of the increase. I have a great idea that could solve everyone's issue.

1st, pass the tax. See my earlier post for the reasons or drive in OKC [if you like the synergy that exists, pass the tax - otherwise that traffic, optimism downtown, and enthusiasm may just dwindle away]

2nd, realize that most OKC citizens will not be impacted by the tax. Even if you would be, it is only a $3.50 increase for every $100.00 hotel bill. Take one less trip to McDonalds and you've got it covered.

3rd, if city residents are still having heartburn and want to their trip to McDonalds - to make it worse? Then, get signatures for an initiative that would allow RESIDENTS of OKLAHOMA CITY to be entitled to an annual rebate on the increase in the sales tax. OKC residents with rebates could either cash the rebate, apply it to city services (water, sewage, recycle, so on), or designate your rebate to go to a specific community project - downtown renovation/renaissance, inner city entertainment district rebuilding, OKC beautiful or a TREE-Planting foundation, Airline/Airport initiative, a downtown symbol - like the Oil Tower, Urban Art, business seeding Grants, .... Unclaimed rebates would go to the OKC general fund or perhaps Downtown OKC - for the downtown (July, December) events.

I am not sure what Oklahoma State Law mandates for a citizen initiative, but draft up something like I mention in 3) and get signatures. Get the issue on the ballot and be heard.

That way, tourists like myself - who have no problem with the increase - can pay it. But the increase would not effect citizens of OKC. They can even pick and chose where they want their money to go.

I hope that helps.


Or we can demand that it be done right the first time.

I know my position is essentially standing on principle and that this thing will pass. If it doesn't pass, I hope it sends a message to city leaders that we won't stand for new taxes for unspecified purposes (but, like I said, I think that wouldn't be something that would cross the minds of most voters).

Sometimes, you just have to stand on principle on things like this. It's not like the city doesn't understand how to sunset a tax -- they did it with MAPS. It really makes you question their intentions when there is no sunset clause.

Or maybe I'm just paranoid?

-- history says I'm probably right though.

Midtowner, I dont disagree with what you are saying.

I wish the tax was better written and/or had a citizens oversite committee assigned to it.

If the tax would not have a sunset for a specific purpose, then at least a citizen committee could oversee the funds. But also consider my most recent post (although you may have, due to the delay in my reading yours and posting mine).

I agree with you but trust that you guys elected great officials who are looking out for your best interests. I also agree with you, if the tax does not make it - lets do it right. It may not need a sunset, just demand that the funds from remaining years go toward general OKC beautification projects, marketing, and so on. And/or get a citizens' committee to oversee it.

But this can also be accomplished without the tax goind down - through initiative. I am sure such an initiative like I stated previously, would have no trouble getting signatures from OKC residents.

That way, OKC citizens can enjoy a night out in a brand new hotel without feeling any negative effects. Then, maybe OKC citizens would stop badmouthing OKC and instead realize what they have!

Do we really want a sunset clause to be included in this tax increase? I mean, why would we want our hotel/motel tax to go back down to 3.5% anyways?

Midtowner maybe I can address your concerns. There is a reason no sunset clause was included in this proposal. We need a "permanent" State Fair tax. The reason we're dealing with the current disrepair problems at state fair park is because the state fair is not making enough revenue to provide adequate funding for maintenance. If we jsut provide a temporary tax, it will pay to renovate the buildings, but no funding will be available for maitaining those buildings once they're renovated. There's no point in making the renovations and expansions if we can't keep them up by providing proper maintenance. The "permanent" tax increase will limit similar problems from occurring in the future. Maybe 20 years from now, with proper maintenance, we won't have to shell out a lot of money to completely refurbish our state fair park.

I'm actually with mranderson on this one. Personally, I think we should be pushing for an even larger increase in the hotel/motel tax. Even with the increase, we'll still have one of the lowest hotel/motel taxes in the nation. This increase will only pay to improve and maintain the livestock facilities at state fair park. In all reality, the entire state fair park needs a major overhaul.

In addition why not throw in the convention and visitor's bureau.....the conventino center could still use some improvements. MAPS only refurbished the north side of the center. The rest of the center needs renovating. And from the looks of the Cox Center, it's obvious that maintenance could be improved.

I'd actually vote for an increase in the hotel/motel tax to a range more siilar to surrounding cities...maybe 8 to 10%. People from out of town use those facilities...let them pay for it via an increase in the hotel/motel tax.

Actually, a few years back, we passed another tax without a sunset clause. We raised city sales tax by 1/4 a cent to pay for new projects and maintenance at the OKC Zoo. It hasn't been mismanaged, and the permanent tax has allowed the zoo to continue to update its exhibits and maintain existing exhibits. The Great EscApe, Cat Forest/Lion Overlook, Canopy Restaurant, the new entrance, renovations to the "Island Life" exhibit, etc. have all been funded through that tax, as well as other new exhibits like the Butterfly Garden, re-design of the old bear exhibits to accomodate new animals, re-design of the lake, complete re-development of the Aquaticus following the death of many dolphins, etc.

This tax is funding the current Oklahoma Trails exhibit, set to open in a few years.

This is one of the better tax increases the city ever made.

Voting NO on this tax increase would bring the "Renaissance" in our city to a screeching hault. We'll be playing the same game Tulsa was prior to passing Vision 2025. Voting NO will send a statement to the horse shows that we don't want their money here. Midtowner, if you believe in the "Renaissance" occurring in our city, you'll vote yes on this tax increase. Otherwise, you'll just be one of the naysayers, that have let politics get in the way of progress for so many years.

I disagree with your assertions that voting 'no' on this tax will have any negative effects on the city. As I said, I wouldn't even oppose them allowing for the tax to set up a fund from which maintenance can be provided for. I disagree that maintenance has been poor. The current facilities are actually in great shape considering their age.

It is just as you said though, there are other things that the tax will go to provide for after the state far bond is paid for (maybe even before). It could be something the taxpayers would be on board with, like the zoo. On the other hand, it could be something that we'd not want -- like a new office tower for OG&E.

I believe that the taxpayers deserve to have a say in these things. I think we should demand they be done right the first time. I can appreciate your arguments as to why we don't need a sunset clause. However, I'm very familiar with what happens when we let elected and non-elected officials have control over tax money. It ends up lining the pockets of the good 'ol boys. If something like Bass Pro had not happened in recent history, I might think otherwise. I might say that the good 'ol boys were a thing of the past.

Until they are, I'll urge my fellow taxpayers to make them accountable for every penny we give them.

I will use a scenerio that could be true.

You are a visitor to a city. Your city has one of the premier fairgrounds buildings in the country. Modern, clean, roomy and attractive. You walk into a building on the State fairgrounds. Namely the oldest buildings. You need to go to the restroom so bad it is like you have not gone for days. You walk into the restroom and find old broken toilets and those long multiman urinals that reek to high heaven and are stained from decades of use. Then you go into the main part of the building to look around. You find outdated air or heating systems, cracks, doors that are in disrepair and other problems. You are in a city that has completed nearly a billion dollars in civic improvements. You have not been downtown and seen any of the new venues. What do you think? What do you tell people in your city? Oh. I fogot to mention. You are the mayor of your city or town and you are the chairperson of a committee for a major event that is not held in your city due to the size of the event.

Think about that.

By the way. If OG&E built a building, they would pay for it themselves.

I will use a scenerio that could be true.

You are a visitor to a city. Your city has one of the premier fairgrounds buildings in the country. Modern, clean, roomy and attractive. You walk into a building on the State fairgrounds. Namely the oldest buildings. You need to go to the restroom so bad it is like you have not gone for days. You walk into the restroom and find old broken toilets and those long multiman urinals that reek to high heaven and are stained from decades of use. Then you go into the main part of the building to look around. You find outdated air or heating systems, cracks, doors that are in disrepair and other problems. You are in a city that has completed nearly a billion dollars in civic improvements. You have not been downtown and seen any of the new venues. What do you think? What do you tell people in your city? Oh. I fogot to mention. You are the mayor of your city or town and you are the chairperson of a committee for a major event that is not held in your city due to the size of the event.

Think about that.

By the way. If OG&E built a building, they would pay for it themselves.

Anderson, your arguments are outside the scope of what I'm arguing. You're confusing my call to keep the politicians accountable with a call for no new taxes. Please try to pay attention.

Perhaps OG&E is a bad example. Let's try Devon. If Devon told us (the city) that if we did not build them a building, they'd head to Houston, what would the city leaders do? They would scream gloom and doom until the voters approved something to give Devon a new building. Or perhaps in this scenario, they'd simply float a bond on future hotel tax revenue. Hey, Devon might even buy the bond! That would mean that not only would they get a new building, they'd make a profit on the bond!

Sound unrealistic? It's happened several times in this city's history. You'd think that we'd learn our lessons by now.

I'm fine with the tax as long as I know what it's going for. I'm fine with it as long as they can't divert the money to purposes other than the fair park. Without a sunset clause, not only is it propable, it's certain.

No. My example is well within the scope of your comments. You said you would vote no for this tax because of a "sunset" clause not being included. The fact you will vote no makes the example within the scope. NO MATTER YOR EXCUSE FOR SAYING NO! Oklahoma City has used taxes for the intended purpose as long as I can remember regarless of safety nets.

I do not care what it is for. If it is civic improvements and helps change the look of this city, I vote yes. I bet this passes with over 60%.

By the way. No matter the company, your building example is lame.

Really? Bass Pro Shops was in the original MAPS proposal?

Mtowner, I want to address some of your statements here.

1. You can't compare Bass Pro to this tax. Bass Pro funds came out of MAPS use tax money, which isn't ear-marked for any particular use. All of the funds from this tax will be earmarked for the State Fair Grounds and Convention and Visitor's Bureau ONLY, each under a specified percent. It's more similar to the zoo tax, NOT MAPS.
Giving the example of using funds from this tax to help build a tower for Devon or OG&E would never happen, since it will be set in stone what the money has to go to.....improvements to facilities at State Fair Park.

2. Old age is no excuse for the current state of many of the buildings at State Fair Park. Many old buildings around town are well maintained and preserved. Take the old Central High School, for instance. SBC has maintained that building exceptionally well over the years. Ask any out of towner....our state fair grounds are not maintained well. mranderson mentioned only a handful of the many problems we currently face at state fair park. Obviously, the state fair HAS NOT had the funds to make necessary improvements to maintain the exhibit and livestock buildings at state fair park.

3. If this tax fails, it WILL have a negative impact on our city. Just ask Mick Cornett. He'll tell you that if this tax fails, many horse whows will leave Oklahoma City. You think that wouldn't have a huge impact on our city's economy? You're sadly mistaken.

4. Your Devon example is completely false and not applicable to this tax. Money from this tax HAS to be used for improvements at state Fair park and projects undertaken by the CVB,each receiving a designated percent of the tax. It CAN NOT be used for other uses, like floating Devon some money to keep them here! That's stated clearly in the proposition.

5.


I'm fine with it as long as they can't divert the money to purposes other than the fair park. Without a sunset clause, not only is it propable, it's certain.

They CAN NOT divert money to other uses than state fair park and the CVB. The writing of the proposition states that all money raised will be earmarked for these two uses, each divided by a percent (I can't remember eactly what the percentage was). It's just like the zoo tax, which also didn't have a sunset clause. The 1/4 cent that we currently pay in zoo sales tax CAN only go to the zoo. It was earmarked for that when we approved the permanent tax increase.