oama@lists.imla.org

Oklahoma Association of Municipal Attorneys

View all threads

MAPS Issues

MB
Michael Beason
Wed, May 13, 2020 3:24 PM

My City had previously passed a MAPS tax (temporary) to fund certain improvement projects in the community.  The initial MAPS tax will soon expire.  A second MAPS tax is proposed.  The local public school system was included in the first tax and presumably will be included in the second.  Imposition of the second tax is, of course, subject to voter approval.  Prior arrangement was that the school receives 50% of the tax receipts.  I am aware of Title 11 O.S. section 22-159 and the Grimes case.  I am also aware of the Gaddis case as to "logrolling."  I have the following questions:

  1.  Must the City be informed of the anticipated or projected costs of proposed school projects?
    
  2.  Any case law or statute that mandates that the tax proceeds to the school be separate on the ballot from the tax proceeds to the City?  I.e. Must the issue be proposed as two (2) separate taxes, one for the school and one for the City?
    
  3.  A permanent tax will also be sought.  My opinion is the permanent tax must be a separate issue for the voter on the ballot.  Any opposing opinion?
    

Thank you.

Michael T. Beason, OBA #18535
City Attorney - Altus
509 S. Main St.
Altus, Oklahoma 73521

My City had previously passed a MAPS tax (temporary) to fund certain improvement projects in the community. The initial MAPS tax will soon expire. A second MAPS tax is proposed. The local public school system was included in the first tax and presumably will be included in the second. Imposition of the second tax is, of course, subject to voter approval. Prior arrangement was that the school receives 50% of the tax receipts. I am aware of Title 11 O.S. section 22-159 and the Grimes case. I am also aware of the Gaddis case as to "logrolling." I have the following questions: 1. Must the City be informed of the anticipated or projected costs of proposed school projects? 2. Any case law or statute that mandates that the tax proceeds to the school be separate on the ballot from the tax proceeds to the City? I.e. Must the issue be proposed as two (2) separate taxes, one for the school and one for the City? 3. A permanent tax will also be sought. My opinion is the permanent tax must be a separate issue for the voter on the ballot. Any opposing opinion? Thank you. Michael T. Beason, OBA #18535 City Attorney - Altus 509 S. Main St. Altus, Oklahoma 73521
MR
Michael R. Vanderburg
Thu, May 14, 2020 5:50 PM

I would need to see the ballot language to be sure.

However, if this is proposed to be a city tax, collected by the city entirely, and one of the purposes is then to give some of the funds to the public schools under applicable state statute, then you have the means to compel the disclosure of proposed costs. It seems to me that if the tax is proposed to be a school tax, collected by the school directly, then I doubt that you have a legal basis to compel disclosure (obviously political pressure is not the same as legal compulsion.)

Again, it seems to me that if the city is proposing a tax and the school is simultaneously proposing a separate tax, then you will need two propositions. If the city is proposing a single tax, to be used to fund a list of projects, then you may be safe with a single proposition (although the logrolling issue may make separate ballot issues desirable – particularly if the list of purposes seem too unrelated (e.g. expansion of a water treatment plant might be successfully combined with the construction of a raw water or treated water transmission line.) Obviously I cannot opine on the school. Are you proposing to build streets and utilities in the new development area where a new school is needed, or are the projects totally unrelated?

Yes, a permanent tax should be separate from a temporary tax.

Ultimately, can you in good faith make a compelling argument that these are aspects of a single, complex project, or are you simply assembling a wish list under the theory that it is good for the city in the long run?

Mike Vanderburg

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Michael Beason
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 10:25 AM
To: oama@lists.imla.org
Subject: [Oama] MAPS Issues

My City had previously passed a MAPS tax (temporary) to fund certain improvement projects in the community.  The initial MAPS tax will soon expire.  A second MAPS tax is proposed.  The local public school system was included in the first tax and presumably will be included in the second.  Imposition of the second tax is, of course, subject to voter approval.  Prior arrangement was that the school receives 50% of the tax receipts.  I am aware of Title 11 O.S. section 22-159 and the Grimes case.  I am also aware of the Gaddis case as to “logrolling.”  I have the following questions:

  1. Must the City be informed of the anticipated or projected costs of proposed school projects?

  2. Any case law or statute that mandates that the tax proceeds to the school be separate on the ballot from the tax proceeds to the City?  I.e. Must the issue be proposed as two (2) separate taxes, one for the school and one for the City?

  3. A permanent tax will also be sought.  My opinion is the permanent tax must be a separate issue for the voter on the ballot.  Any opposing opinion?

Thank you.

Michael T. Beason, OBA #18535
City Attorney – Altus
509 S. Main St.
Altus, Oklahoma 73521

I would need to see the ballot language to be sure. However, if this is proposed to be a city tax, collected by the city entirely, and one of the purposes is then to give some of the funds to the public schools under applicable state statute, then you have the means to compel the disclosure of proposed costs. It seems to me that if the tax is proposed to be a school tax, collected by the school directly, then I doubt that you have a legal basis to compel disclosure (obviously political pressure is not the same as legal compulsion.) Again, it seems to me that if the city is proposing a tax and the school is simultaneously proposing a separate tax, then you will need two propositions. If the city is proposing a single tax, to be used to fund a list of projects, then you may be safe with a single proposition (although the logrolling issue may make separate ballot issues desirable – particularly if the list of purposes seem too unrelated (e.g. expansion of a water treatment plant might be successfully combined with the construction of a raw water or treated water transmission line.) Obviously I cannot opine on the school. Are you proposing to build streets and utilities in the new development area where a new school is needed, or are the projects totally unrelated? Yes, a permanent tax should be separate from a temporary tax. Ultimately, can you in good faith make a compelling argument that these are aspects of a single, complex project, or are you simply assembling a wish list under the theory that it is good for the city in the long run? Mike Vanderburg Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Michael Beason Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 10:25 AM To: oama@lists.imla.org Subject: [Oama] MAPS Issues My City had previously passed a MAPS tax (temporary) to fund certain improvement projects in the community.  The initial MAPS tax will soon expire.  A second MAPS tax is proposed.  The local public school system was included in the first tax and presumably will be included in the second.  Imposition of the second tax is, of course, subject to voter approval.  Prior arrangement was that the school receives 50% of the tax receipts.  I am aware of Title 11 O.S. section 22-159 and the Grimes case.  I am also aware of the Gaddis case as to “logrolling.”  I have the following questions: 1. Must the City be informed of the anticipated or projected costs of proposed school projects? 2. Any case law or statute that mandates that the tax proceeds to the school be separate on the ballot from the tax proceeds to the City?  I.e. Must the issue be proposed as two (2) separate taxes, one for the school and one for the City? 3. A permanent tax will also be sought.  My opinion is the permanent tax must be a separate issue for the voter on the ballot.  Any opposing opinion? Thank you. Michael T. Beason, OBA #18535 City Attorney – Altus 509 S. Main St. Altus, Oklahoma 73521