Court upholds MAPS 4 ballot

The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Monday rejected former Ward 2 Councilman Ed Shadid's bid to scuttle MAPS 4. In a unanimous 10- page ruling, the high court said Oklahoma City' s MAPS 4 ordinance is constitutional.

“We commend the Supreme Court for moving swift ly and for upholding the rule of law,” said Mayor David Holt. “Now we look toward Dec. 10 and the opportunity to continue our city's remarkable renaissance.”

Voters are to decide Dec. 10 whether to adopt the MAPS 4 ordinance, which would extend the 1- cent Metropolitan Area Projects sales tax for eight years starting April 1. S had id' s attorney, Jay Barnett, said he was discussing with Shadid whether to petition the court for a rehearing. The court gave Shadid until Friday to decide.

Justice Douglas Combs wrote the MAPS 4 ordinance “does not violate the single- subject rule found in the Oklahoma Constitution,” nor does it violate state statute or the city's charter. MAPS 4 comprises 16 projects heavily weighted toward addressing social ills such as untreated mental illness, entanglements in the criminal justice system for low-level offenders living in poverty, and homelessness.

NBA arena renovations and expansion are included, as are rehabbing neighborhood parks, a stadium for the Energy FC professional soccer team, and money for a new coliseum at the Fairgrounds.

MAPS began in 1993 and has been renewed or extended several times, most recently in 2009 for MAPS 3.

Projects are financed on a pay-as-you-go basis and open debt-free. MAPS 4 will raise an estimated $ 978 million. Shadid argued the city was subverting the constitutional

requirement that laws deal with a single subject and forcing voters to accept projects they oppose to get projects they favor. In the December election, voters will cast ballots only on an ordinance to levy a general sales tax.

Back in August, the city council adopted an on binding“resolution of intent” listing the 16 projects and promising proceeds from the tax would be spent on MAPS 4.

Attorneys for the city argued that meets single-subject guidelines. Barnett argued the court should look broadly at MAPS 4, including the resolution of intent, a city “marketing campaign,” and public comments by the mayor. The city's attorneys argued the court should confine its review to the ordinance.

In his opinion, Combs noted the ordinance provides for an advisory board to review and make recommendations on projects as assigned to it by the city council.

While those projects were promised to residents in the resolution of intent, the advisory board will only be formed and projects will only be assigned to it if the ordinance passes.

“The ordinance does not specify what projects will be assigned by the city council nor does it require the advisory board to make a recommendation to adopt any specific project,” Combs wrote.

The justice said Shadid's argument “relies upon the contents of the resolution of intent and not upon the contents of the ordinance itself.”

And to overturn the ordinance and block the vote, Shadid needed to demonstrate its “constitutional infirmity … beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Combs said Shadid “failed to carry this heavy burden of proof.”

Attorneys for the city had advised the court an adverse ruling could “significantly affect municipal finance statewide.”