The impact of impact fees
Journal Record
October 16, 2008

OKLAHOMA CITY – City officials plan to reveal preliminary proposals for the assessment of new impact fees for city development at public meetings in the next several weeks.

“As the city grows, so does the need for wider streets, better water treatment plants, parks and trails,” City Hall spokeswoman Kristy Yager said. “Impact fees are a way to accommodate that expansion without raising taxes.”

Yager said developers have already expressed concerns at the possibility of new costs for their projects. But at least a few said they realize the necessity. “I think it’s a great idea,” said Grant Humphreys, chief executive of the Humphreys Co. “This is something the city really needs to look at on edge development, anything that expands the city’s infrastructure. Because the model of growth that we’ve been operating under for the last 50 years is not sustainable for the long term.”
(Sidenote: Good for you Grant, it's about time someone steps up!)

A recent forecast of the city’s 10-year growth trend suggests the cost of maintaining service levels will outpace projected revenues by about $54 million.

City Council members and city staff for months have been exploring the possibility of making up that shortfall by adopting new impact fees. Impact fees are common in municipalities nationwide, according to Texas-based Duncan Associates, an impact fee consulting firm. The fees are used in about 60 percent of all cities with more than 25,000 residents and almost 40 percent of all metropolitan counties.

An impact fee is a charge on new development to pay for the construction or expansion of capital improvements necessary because of that development. Such infrastructure ranges from school districts to emergency services to wastewater utility systems. They are charged to developers according to standardized rates based on the expected effect of development.

Developers generally pass those additional costs on to their customers. The most recent nationwide study of impact fees by Duncan Bros. reveals they are used primarily in the South and West, and are rare in the Northeast and Midwest.

Total impact fees charged nationwide in 2008 average $11,276 for the development of a single-family housing unit, but the study doesn’t clarify whether that figure takes regional cost-of-living differences into consideration.

Other land uses such as retail and office space have different fee ranges. Mayor Mick Cornett and several City Council members have said they will likely support impact fee adoption depending on the specific details.

Yager said Wednesday she was unable to provide information about initially proposed fee structures because of the wide range of variables such as development size and land use. However, new impact fees are expected to be limited to streets, treatment plants, and parks and trails, she said.

Developer Bert Belanger with Urban Works said adding impact fees “would be unfortunate.” Developers already pay several building fees, inspection fees and utility tie-in fees. He has served on several committees to work with city staff to help them streamline the permitting process. “The problem with impact fees is that it basically becomes another tax,” he said. “We need less impediments to development, not more. The city already has several funding resources, like TIFs (tax increment finance districts). I’m not sure that adding costs to development is the answer.”

Humphreys said efficiency generally increases with population density as opposed to sprawling development. “Taking a long-term financial look at it, you need to have efficiency in your infrastructure usage,” he said. “We just finished an office building downtown. We don’t cause the fire department to change its coverage; we don’t require a new water main or city streets. We’re building on existing infrastructure.” But he’s not opposed to impact fees for inner-city development as well – if a new mixed-use project increases population in a previously dilapidated area, for example, Humphreys said additional funding might be necessary.“The question is, what’s the most efficient manner of handling growth and what works best long-term?” he said. “I support smart growth.”

Developer Cathy Jo See with See Cos. was pragmatic: “When you’re growing or you have older areas where the sewer and water is a problem … the simple fact is that the city cannot remedy certain things without impact fees,” she said. “From a developer’s point of view, we realize there’s so much money that goes into infrastructure – the cost to repair roads, bridges, water lines that break, new lines – it is incredible the money it takes,” she said. “So I look at it this way: Sometimes you have to give to your community to receive the things you need.” However, she’s not willing to just give her money away. “There has to be a lot of justification and evidence to support any new fee,” she said. Yager said the public meetings have not yet been scheduled.

Wow. I have a newfound respect for Humphries. I wonder whether he thinks those fees should be exempt from TIF?

The fees need to be much higher for developers that are extending the sprawl. Humphreys is exactly right.

it sounds like every single surronding city would have to have them as well or all of the developers would flock to yukon, moore, deer creek, etc more than they already have

it sounds like every single surronding city would have to have them as well or all of the developers would flock to yukon, moore, deer creek, etc more than they already have

If they don't want to pay for it, then let them go and let's stop building roads that we have to maintain and constantly widen to get people to and from there unless they pay for it. And if a developer wants a piece of Oklahoma City, maybe faced with a fee they'll choose to improve areas that have infrastructure instead of building in outer areas that need completely new infrastructure.

it sounds like every single surronding city would have to have them as well or all of the developers would flock to yukon, moore, deer creek, etc more than they already have

Fine with me.

Perhaps "Pay As You Go" will catch on even in Oklahoma City.

I live in Florida where this is common practice - it doesn't help. All that happens is the price of widening the roads or adding new water lines goes up to match the amount of money now available. The real answer, and the only one that will solve the problem, is to shrink the size of the city to the current urbanized area. If people want to live in the country then let them live on a dirt road and have a septic tank.

If you in any way think this will stop urban sprawl you are dillusional. You only have to look at Tampa, Florida for the evidence.

As a developer in the metro, I can understand where the City is coming from. However, often lost in this debate is the extra tax generating revenue each household represents to a City. This includes the obvious property tax, but also should include extra commercial developments that move in because of an increased amount of roof-tops. A single house hold has an economic foot print that reaches far beyond the obvious revenue generated for the City.

The rush to place the burden on developers (and ultimately the paying customer) should be balanced with a holistic approach. Otherwise, the City risks cutting (potentially) off a source of revenue growth for the long term.

As a developer in the metro, I can understand where the City is coming from. However, often lost in this debate is the extra tax generating revenue each household represents to a City. This includes the obvious property tax, but also should include extra commercial developments that move in because of an increased amount of roof-tops. A single house hold has an economic foot print that reaches far beyond the obvious revenue generated for the City.

The rush to place the burden on developers (and ultimately the paying customer) should be balanced with a holistic approach. Otherwise, the City risks cutting (potentially) off a source of revenue growth for the long term.

Yes, but what about decreasing sprawl and increasing sustainability? We MUST work on becoming a more sustainable city. We've got sections of our city of subdivisions that were the best 20 years ago and now have fallen in decay. With this mentality, It will continue to spread past Memorial in another 20 years. Obviously your method doesn't work either or we wouldn't be in this dilemma of having our resources stretched beyond capacity providing utilities, roads, etc. to the outskirts of town (which do have added retail, etc.). With all the additional retail and development, it still isn't generating enough income to provide the services from the city without the city taking a hit.

Oh, and if you want to talk footprints, what about the carbon footprint and ecological footprint from all these new home developments? I guarantee you they have a carbon and ecological footprint FAR larger than their actual property.

'Bout time.

Yes, but what about decreasing sprawl and increasing sustainability? We MUST work on becoming a more sustainable city. We've got sections of our city of subdivisions that were the best 20 years ago and now have fallen in decay. With this mentality, It will continue to spread past Memorial in another 20 years. Obviously your method doesn't work either or we wouldn't be in this dilemma of having our resources stretched beyond capacity providing utilities, roads, etc. to the outskirts of town (which do have added retail, etc.). With all the additional retail and development, it still isn't generating enough income to provide the services from the city without the city taking a hit.

Oh, and if you want to talk footprints, what about the carbon footprint and ecological footprint from all these new home developments? I guarantee you they have a carbon and ecological footprint FAR larger than their actual property.


You've crossed over into an argument about changing consumer habits which falls beyond the scope of the issue at hand. If the City wishes to penalize fringe development via higher impact fees that is a choice that they can make.

I can, however, point to cities in the country where higher impact fees on the fringes of a city only hastened sprawl to suburbs due to developers seeking lower fees and better profits.

That said, impact fees are definitely necessary part of growth. The balance between impact fees and long term revenue growth for the city (via a larger tax base) is the hard part to figure out.

Based on the above discussions you guys (and maybe the city) needs to decide what problem you are trying to solve - urban sprawl or the financial exposure of the city. They are not the same problem. As near as I can tell the city only wants to limit the financial exposure rural development brings. Many on this site want to limit urban sprawl. I can tell you that impact fees will only cause more urban sprawl. For crying out loud, just look at where this has been tried in Florida. It is a total 100% failure on the urban sprawl front and only had a minimal success on reducing financial exposure.

The best option that solves both issues is to reduce the city limits. If people want to live in the country then let them live on a dirt road and have a septic tank. Most people don't want to live on a dirt road so people won't move to the country. If you pave a road to the middle of nowhere don't be surprise if some one wants to drive there.

The best option that solves both issues is to reduce the city limits.

Well said. I think this is the best bet.

Kerry, I agree. I'm a big fan of deannexing some of our 660 sq. miles of city land, but I don't think our current leaders have the guts to tackle it. Hopefully if I ever get in office, I will try to address it.

How did it get to be such a big sprawling mess in the first place?

It is time the city takes a little responsibility for the financial exposure they have created and stop trying to pass the cost of having such a spread out city on to the people that want to move to OKC. Nothing says "welcome to OKC" like a bill for $10,000. The only responsible thing to do is start de-annexing rural parts of the city. The city created the financial risk by annexing huge tracts of rural land. It is time to undo past mistakes.

How did it get to be such a big sprawling mess in the first place?

Answer = Watershed

Oklahoma City needed to protect it's watershed, and since the city owns the water district, the city needed to keep out others from encroaching and diverting it's water rights.

That said, I think the state should step in and grant OKC's water district trust status or put it under ACOG regional government (instead of city) so that the city can focus on CITY issues and let the regional government focus on water, transit, and other REGIONAL issues. That is how we do it in Seattle, we have King County METRO as our regional authority who do water, sewer, and transit; the city does city ONLY - and it works.

Oh, metro; OKC has 608 sq miles (not 660); still a lot.

My answer would be to make the water a trust or under ACOG and trim OKC's city limits down to LA's roughly 450 sq miles. Trimming it to the urbanized area (roughly 250 sq miles) doesn't give OKC access to much of it's outer revenue infrastructure that has been established.

Where to trim? All of NE OKC past Bryant and N of just North of Memorial. All of N. OKC 1 mile N or Memorial. All of OKC W of Sarah Road (except where industrial parks exist), All of SE OKC W and S of 1 mile of Lake Stanley Draper. This trimming of the fat would make OKC roughly 450 sq miles and would make the city's' density increase overnight by 35% and the city would still have it's near 555,000 residents of today!

But like I said, the city is keeping those areas to keep OUT anyone who would encroach on the water district, is what I understand was the original idea - old news in my opinion!

As for the impact fee.

Another thing that could be done, considering Kerry's valid argument; is the city hsould establish growth zones where they want to add density. Anywhere outside of that would be assessed. Anywhere inside would be held to dense building zoning and most likely be eligble for city assistance.

With this idea, you kill two birds with one stone. You encourage development in the inner city that is dense and pedestrian friendly while also give a reason for doing so in defining how you want the city to grow. Portland did this very thing, and now have a pretty dense urban city (they did it on the metro level too).

Honestly though, I still think the city should trim off the watershed and waste areas AND implement impact fees outside of growth areas (that the also should establish).

Developers would still build in OKC because people do still want to live in the city regardless if they are in the inner city or in the suburban part. So, in reality, we wnat to get rid of the rural portion - if the suburbs win that, so be it; it's still OKC metro and OKC would still see the revenue from retail. ...

One more thing, I think OKC should trim it's inner city school district too. That way, you focus on OKC kids. Let Jones and such form their own suburban district of go to MWC. Keep the dollars in the inner city schools where they belong.

Oh, one final thing. Once (or should I say IF) the city starts demanding growth in the inner city and demands quality urban building and amenities - people will live in the inner city. Long gone are the days when people are afraid to live near someone because of their race or economic status (within reason, I suppose). Most often, people look for the intangables of where they live and the more tangibles you have - people will most likely live there.

So the city needs to improve the intangables of the inner city (by getting rid of them); they are making a great run in the downtown to Asia district to crown heights corridor (though they need to do much more in the older areas); but they need to spread it to more of the inner city in the eastside, the southside, westside, and the rest of the near north (past crown). And trimming the city school district thereby increasing available dollars to their inner schools, would be a great tangible (thereby hiring more/better teachers and programs) that could immediately turn things around in the 'hoods.

Answer = Watershed

Oklahoma City needed to protect it's watershed, and since the city owns the water district, the city needed to keep out others from encroaching and diverting it's water rights.

That said, I think the state should step in and grant OKC's water district trust status or put it under ACOG regional government (instead of city) so that the city can focus on CITY issues and let the regional government focus on water, transit, and other REGIONAL issues. That is how we do it in Seattle, we have King County METRO as our regional authority who do water, sewer, and transit; the city does city ONLY - and it works.

Oh, metro; OKC has 608 sq miles (not 660); still a lot.

My answer would be to make the water a trust or under ACOG and trim OKC's city limits down to LA's roughly 450 sq miles. Trimming it to the urbanized area (roughly 250 sq miles) doesn't give OKC access to much of it's outer revenue infrastructure that has been established.

Where to trim? All of NE OKC past Bryant and N of just North of Memorial. All of N. OKC 1 mile N or Memorial. All of OKC W of Sarah Road (except where industrial parks exist), All of SE OKC W and S of 1 mile of Lake Stanley Draper. This trimming of the fat would make OKC roughly 450 sq miles and would make the city's' density increase overnight by 35% and the city would still have it's near 555,000 residents of today!

But like I said, the city is keeping those areas to keep OUT anyone who would encroach on the water district, is what I understand was the original idea - old news in my opinion!Not trying to nit-pic here, but, according to the City, as stated in it's budget document for FY/ 08-09, the City covers 620 sq. miles. Still a lot.

Answer = Watershed

Oklahoma City needed to protect it's watershed, and since the city owns the water district, the city needed to keep out others from encroaching and diverting it's water rights.

That said, I think the state should step in and grant OKC's water district trust status or put it under ACOG regional government (instead of city) so that the city can focus on CITY issues and let the regional government focus on water, transit, and other REGIONAL issues. That is how we do it in Seattle, we have King County METRO as our regional authority who do water, sewer, and transit; the city does city ONLY - and it works




Thank you for the explanation. Just out of curiousity, how long have you lived in Seattle and do you get back to OKC often ?

lived in Seattle/area since 1991 (with a brief stint in Denver 95-97). Born and raised in OKC (PC North); get back to OKC annually, was just back in May.

The 620 includes the water, by the way. Nobody lives on water, so it's usually excluded from density calculations.

lived in Seattle/area since 1991 (with a brief stint in Denver 95-97). Born and raised in OKC (PC North); get back to OKC annually, was just back in May.

The 620 includes the water, by the way. Nobody lives on water, so it's usually excluded from density calculations.Thanks for clearing that up. Thats good to know. By the way, don't you think they (the city) should have included that little tid-bit of information in the report, could have saved us all a lot of worry and confusion.

Based on what you have said, is it safe to assume that the 620 will fluctuate depending on a lakes rise and fall in elevation. For instance go back a couple of years ago, remember when Hefner was so low due to the drought, it almost dried up for gosh sakes. Until we got some rain I bet we were pushing 621, maybe 622. Again, not trying to nit-pic, but there is a guy who actually lives in his boat house, at Draper lake, on the water. I wonder how they calculate for him?

As for the impact fee.



Oh, one final thing. Once (or should I say IF) the city starts demanding growth in the inner city and demands quality urban building and amenities - people will live in the inner city. Long gone are the days when people are afraid to live near someone because of their race or economic status (within reason, I suppose). Most often, people look for the intangables of where they live and the more tangibles you have - people will most likely live there.




The only problem with the oft cited market demand to live downtown is the market itself. The urban core market tends to be a mix of the 20 something crowd and the empty-nest market. As long as schools in OKC leave something to be desired, you will never see the young families moving in to the urban core with the same numbers you seem them moving to the fringes.

This leaves areas on the fringes as the driving area for new roof-tops and, ultimately, retail growth. This, in turn, creates a tax revenue growth model problem for the core market because the engine for growth is inherently inhibited by a lack of of a primary desire for the "creative class"; good schools for children. Prohibitive or structured impact fees as a mechanism to engineer a desired outcome can never work until the quality school issue is addressed.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see development for young families on core development. Additionally, I too can point to both exceptions where a particular school or family has bucked the trend in the core and made a push. But the numbers don't lie; the fringes will continue to be a large part of a healthy budget for the City of OKC in the years to come.

As a side note, an interesting new trend I have seen around the country has been the beginnings of "micro" cores that have begun to spring up in the fringes, replicating (on a smaller scale) the office parks, density, and attractions that can be seen in traditional cores. These new micro core areas are based on the desire to have access to work/attractions but within a closer proximity to home. I will be very interested to see how this plays out in the future.

/two cents

> there is a guy who actually lives in his boat house, at Draper lake, on the
> water. I wonder how they calculate for him?

They have achap who remeasures the shorline for a 1/4 mile in each direction, every day and sends in a new calculation from his HP pocketpro3004. He longs for a promotion to code enforcement, so he can again enjoy the better things in life. :)

> there is a guy who actually lives in his boat house, at Draper lake, on the
> water. I wonder how they calculate for him?

They have achap who remeasures the shorline for a 1/4 mile in each direction, every day and sends in a new calculation from his HP pocketpro3004. He longs for a promotion to code enforcement, so he can again enjoy the better things in life. :)

Hey, I started out mopping the floor just like you guys. But now... now I'm washing lettuce. Soon I'll be on fries; then the grill. And pretty soon, I'll make assistant manager, and that's when the big bucks start rolling in.

> there is a guy who actually lives in his boat house, at Draper lake, on the
> water. I wonder how they calculate for him?

They have achap who remeasures the shorline for a 1/4 mile in each direction, every day and sends in a new calculation from his HP pocketpro3004. He longs for a promotion to code enforcement, so he can again enjoy the better things in life. :)Come to think of it, I've seen that guy. I never could figure out why he walked around the lake pushing a measuring wheel. Now I know. Thanks.

Hey, I started out mopping the floor just like you guys. But now... now I'm washing lettuce. Soon I'll be on fries; then the grill. And pretty soon, I'll make assistant manager, and that's when the big bucks start rolling in.I hope you washed your hands, before you washed the lettuce, after you mopped the floor.

very funny guys.

But I think you all get my point - we have water as part of our city limits which is a little unusual and because we want to protect it as city land, we encompass the surrounding watershed areas; giving a larger than needed (from the residential urban zone pov) city limit.

We have people living on water here in Seattle too, in houseboats (and regular boats), but their utilities and mail is along the shore (land); so that is where they are counted. I would assume the same for OKC - the density would exclude water.

Nevertheless, we need to urge OKC to deannex the watershed and create a water trust authority with state power (administered by ACOG or Oklahoma County). We need OKC to focus resources on the built up urban/suburban core. And surely, that little 'tweak' would result in OKC instantly being more attractive to developers on paper!

Two quotes from Wikipedia that says it all...


The population density normally reported for the city using area of its city limits can be a bit misleading, as its urbanized zone covers roughly 244 sq mi (630 km2), compared with the rural areas incorporated by the city, which cover the remaining 377 sq mi (980 km2) of the city limits.[11]


As of the census[1] of 2000, there were 506,132 people, 204,434 households, and 129,360 families residing in the city. The population density was 321.9/km² (833.8/mi²) with 2,317.4/mi² for an urban area[11] that occupies a small portion within the city's incorporated limits, which cover hundreds of square miles of rural land,

Oklahoma City officials consider development impact fees
OKC Business
Pamela Grady
11/21/2008

Oklahoma City officials are considering implementing an impact fee on new residential and commercial developments throughout its rural and urban areas.

The fee, in turn, would be passed on to new home and business owners of the new buildings (see presentation (http://www.okcbusiness.com/article.asp?aID=59312439.41595702.597935.1763378.4 945272.328&aID2=45986).)

Planning Director Russell Claus explained to a crowd of business owners, developers, brokers and city officials at a South Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce meeting that discussions regarding the fee are in the early process, and meetings are being held to provide input.

Claus stressed that city officials have – for the past two years – analyzed the topic of impact fees and have discussed how to begin dialogue with interested parties on the concept.

The impact fee, he said, would provide revenue to help pay for infrastructure costs and related services for new growth.

“We’re talking about three types of infrastructure,” Claus said. “Those are streets, water and sewer, and parks and trails. As you bring additional activity on the roads or bring additional people into the community, those have an impact on that infrastructure system. The fees are a way of supporting that growth.

“This is a pro-growth community,” he said. “But we have discovered that we are falling further and further behind in our capacity to be able to pay for growth and to be able to pay for maintenance of our existing infrastructure. We’ve considered that if we continue to go down that path, we’re going to end up in a situation where we’re not going to be competitive with other communities.”

Claus explained the theory behind impact fees in terms of supporting new growth is that new growth is paying for itself.

Historically, the city has paid for infrastructure through bond issues, which he describes as a “sort of reverse taxation on the existing public.

Paul Odom III, a home builder in southwest OKC and surrounding areas, warned city officials to be “very cautious in these deliberations” and expressed concerns that the impact of the fee would drive businesses to other suburban communities, such as Edmond, Moore and Norman.

“If we start driving growth to our other suburban communities, then we’re going to have a very strong impact situation,” Odom said. “The reality is that’s what will happen.”

City officials plan to conduct a workshop to discuss these issues in December, with hopes of making a decision on how to alleviate the city’s infrastructure problem.

City officials need to look long and hard at places where this has been tried and failed. If impact fees worked Florida communities would be swimming in cash for infrastructure. We are not. The only solution to the problem is to de-annex the rural land in OKC. Eliminate the problem, don't treat the symptoms.

I'm not too knowledgeable on the subject, but I do see the issue. I have friends who live in places like "west Edmond" but technically OKC, and they whine and complain about the quality of the roads, yet they use Edmond utilities and pay most of their tax dollars to Edmond...clearly they are (and want to be) Edmond residents. Somehow, someway this has to get fixed. How can they expect OKC to build them a freeway when they take no part in OKC. Perhaps make those communities take over that land? Force them to move to OKC services and have their taxes come here? I dunno...I see the issue though and something's gotta give. I don't know about the fee though, seems like their tax dollars are just mis-routed to the wrong city.

deannex and go to a county government for some issues so we'll be more efficient.

The only problem with the oft cited market demand to live downtown is the market itself. The urban core market tends to be a mix of the 20 something crowd and the empty-nest market. As long as schools in OKC leave something to be desired, you will never see the young families moving in to the urban core with the same numbers you seem them moving to the fringes.

This leaves areas on the fringes as the driving area for new roof-tops and, ultimately, retail growth. This, in turn, creates a tax revenue growth model problem for the core market because the engine for growth is inherently inhibited by a lack of of a primary desire for the "creative class"; good schools for children. Prohibitive or structured impact fees as a mechanism to engineer a desired outcome can never work until the quality school issue is addressed.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see development for young families on core development. Additionally, I too can point to both exceptions where a particular school or family has bucked the trend in the core and made a push. But the numbers don't lie; the fringes will continue to be a large part of a healthy budget for the City of OKC in the years to come.

As a side note, an interesting new trend I have seen around the country has been the beginnings of "micro" cores that have begun to spring up in the fringes, replicating (on a smaller scale) the office parks, density, and attractions that can be seen in traditional cores. These new micro core areas are based on the desire to have access to work/attractions but within a closer proximity to home. I will be very interested to see how this plays out in the future.

/two cents

we need to invest in the schools here for sure, all my friends leave to the fringe once they have children. And they miss the city really bad. We all are true urbanites since the 80s and its super sad to see them go. Probably leaving myself soon, most of us have owned small business here or still do. OKC loses as long as it ignores the public school problems.

We have invested in OKC schools. If you want a decent, free, public education, it's yours for the taking. My advice would simply be to send your kids to charter schools if they can hack it academically.

We have invested in OKC schools. If you want a decent, free, public education, it's yours for the taking. My advice would simply be to send your kids to charter schools if they can hack it academically.

Do you have kids in OKC school district?

Do you have kids in OKC school district?

My wife teaches in OKC schools.

That wasn't the question.

and unless you yourself have children in the public school system you should quit talking about stuff you know nothing about

Why don't I know what I'm talking about?

Ah I see.... so popping out babies and sending them to public schools makes one somehow qualified to speak on the subject?

That's a fine piece of reasoning if that is in fact what you believe. I suppose my wife who teaches people's kids in OKC schools probably knows nothing about this... nor could I have possibly formulated this opinion by substitute teaching myself for a year. Or heck.. actually being in school for something around 19-20 years now might qualify me to have an opinion here.

Or I could just look at the EOI scores and see that many OKC schools, particularly the charter and magnet schools (the former are open enrollment with seats available) and conclude that since these inner city charter/magnet schools are meeting and beating the scores at suburban schools on a regular basis that these schools might be halfway decent.

Or I could choose to believe the volumes of research that tell us that the parents, not the school have the largest impact on the likelihood of a child's success...

Or any other number of factors which I'm well acquainted with.

Oh.. you sent a kid to school? My gosh.. kudos. You bred and followed the law. You must be so smart!

Why don't I know what I'm talking about?

Ah I see.... so popping out babies and sending them to public schools makes one somehow qualified to speak on the subject?
That's a fine piece of reasoning if that is in fact what you believe. Theres no reason for you to be an ass.


I suppose my wife who teaches people's kids in OKC schools probably knows nothing about this... nor could I have possibly formulated this opinion by substitute teaching myself for a year. Or heck.. actually being in school for something around 19-20 years now might qualify me to have an opinion here. . Gee, slow learner. As far as your wife you brought her into this, I was talking about YOU. I'm sure she is a fine teacher. Teachers are very underpaid here in Oklahoma. And I applaud her for putting up with pain in the butt parents.


Or I could just look at the EOI scores and see that many OKC schools, particularly the charter and magnet schools (the former are open enrollment with seats available) and conclude that since these inner city charter/magnet schools are meeting and beating the scores at suburban schools on a regular basis that these schools might be halfway decent.
Of course charter/magnet schools are going to have higher scores. They do not have Special Ed kids in them. EOI scores are only one indicator of a good school. How many middle and high schools in the OKC district made their AYP last year. For the 2006-2007 school year, only 3 out of 12 middle schools met the AYP. High schools did a little better.



Or I could choose to believe the volumes of research that tell us that the parents, not the school have the largest impact on the likelihood of a child's success...

Or any other number of factors which I'm well acquainted with.

Oh.. you sent a kid to school? My gosh.. kudos. You bred and followed the law. You must be so smart!I agree with you on the parents having the largest impact on children, but good schools are important too and the OKC school district isn't good.

Of course charter/magnet schools are going to have higher scores. They do not have Special Ed kids in them. EOI scores are only one indicator of a good school. How many middle and high schools in the OKC district made their AYP last year. For the 2006-2007 school year, only 3 out of 12 middle schools met the AYP. High schools did a little better.


EOI scores are the best indicator of a good school and many OKC schools do just fine.

As far as special ed kids, I guess you didn't really comprehend what I meant when I said that charter schools have open enrollment. That goes for special ed kids too. If they can hack it academically, with IEP's and all, then they get to stay.


Theres no reason for you to be an ass.

And for you to say this.. that's hellarich considering the fact that you were condescending to me because I hadn't impregnated some girl and had my offspring attend OKC schools. If you think me pointing that out to you is me being a dick, you brought it up. I apologize if you don't like my answer.


Gee, slow learner.

Worked all the way through undergrad and law school. At one time I held a full time job and two part time jobs.

I guess that qualifies me as "slow."

[quote]As far as your wife you brought her into this, I was talking about YOU. I'm sure she is a fine teacher. Teachers are very underpaid here in Oklahoma. And I applaud her for putting up with pain in the butt parents.[quote]

I sure did bring her into this. I guess you don't have a significant other whom you can confide in. I'm certainly not qualified to do what she does, but do I understand the challenges she deals with and the type of environment she works in? Hell yes. I hear about it every day.

I find your jackass attitude to be ridiculous here. You think that just because I haven't sent my offspring to OKC schools that I can't possibly have a valid opinion. You failed to explain why that is, and now you've fallen back on some immature personal attacks. Good for you. Thanks for elevating the discussion.

OKC loses as long as it ignores the public school problems.

:omg: Absolutely ridiculous.

I guess $500 million in cash plus a lottery just isn't enough for some people.

Q&A: Russell Claus: Proposed infrastructure fees will have impact on development in Oklahoma City

Q: Oklahoma City planning staff have been pitching the idea of impact fees as a way to keep the city from falling further behind on streets, water, sewer and trails for new development. How have developers reacted to the idea of impact fees?

A: Reactions have been mixed. For the most part, developers recognize that there is a real issue with our capacity to continue to provide the infrastructure needed to support new development. Most do not believe we should level the cost solely on the development community because of the perceived negative impacts this will have on development as a whole. Some believe there is no need for any fee; others would like to see a fee structure that promotes a more urbanized growth pattern.

Q: What’s the most important point that developers need to consider?

A: We have to do something to address our infrastructure shortfall. A number of developers pointed out that impact fees may drive development to other communities. We don’t discount that risk but also believe that at some point, development will choose those communities anyway if we can’t maintain a decent infrastructure system in Oklahoma City. Impact fees are definitely a double-edged sword.

Q: What’s the most important point residents need to consider?

A: The broader community hasn’t been engaged in the discussion yet, but if we go to some kind of assessment of the broader community, they will have to consider the general benefits that result from growth relative to the costs incurred directly to them. There are also potentially negative impacts on other city goals such as inner-city development and affordable housing that concern me as the planning director.

Q: What are the chances that the City Council will enact impact fees in some form?

A: That is up to council, but I believe there is strong support for some level of fee. Council has a lot to weigh in its deliberations: the current state of the economy, the potential shift of development outside the city boundaries, negative impacts on other stated city goals, the level of fee, equity in who pays. It’s not a simple decision, but if we are going to maintain our current momentum, it is also not an issue that we can ignore.


http://photos.newsok.com/2/showimage/528288/medium
Russell Claus - Photo provided

The Journal Record - Article (http://www.journalrecord.com/article.cfm?recid=98317)

Companies look for fair developer fee system in OKC
by Janice Francis-Smith
The Journal Record May 5, 2009

OKLAHOMA CITY – Todd Booze doesn’t like paying impact fees to the cities that build out their infrastructure to accommodate the new neighborhoods he helps create.

“But we understand, sometimes it’s a necessary evil,” said Booze, president of construction for Ideal Homes.The company builds in Norman and Oklahoma City. Norman has a system of developer fees in place that forces developers to help pay for the municipal infrastructure extended to their projects.

Oklahoma City officials are working to create a developer fee.

Senate Bill 805 would have created a framework for that, listing certain requirements and procedures for implementing the fee. By the time the bill was allowed to die for the session on April 10, developers’ representatives were willing to support the measure. Representatives of the municipalities that would have collected the fee, however, weren’t as supportive.

“We were disappointed it’s going to an interim study instead of passing,” said Mike Means, executive vice president of the Oklahoma State Home Builders Association. “We might not like fees philosophically, but we realize the infrastructure needs to be developed. This would have created a uniform process and procedures.”

Russell Claus, city planner for Oklahoma City, said the bill was so flawed it would have created more problems than it solved.

“Municipal governments were not involved in the crafting of this bill,” said Claus, “and to get it to the point where the municipal governments and the industry agreed, it had to be reworked from scratch. Enforcement would have been impossible. There were legal conflicts that would have stopped development, and we didn’t want that – nobody wants that.”

One part of the bill said the fees would apply to new development included in the city’s comprehensive plan. In another part of the bill developments already included in the comprehensive plan would have been exempt, Claus said.

Municipalities would have been required to purchase all easements; currently, easements are dedicated to the municipality on a voluntary basis, said Claus. The cost of implementing the administrative duties in SB 805 would have been expensive – making the fees cost more, he said.

Creating an equitable developer fee can get complicated, all agreed. Booze said the fee should be proportionate to the size of the development. The money collected from a specific developer should be applied to infrastructure improvements that benefit that development, he said, not used across town for an unrelated project. Then there is the issue of double taxation, Booze said, as cities already collect sales taxes that are applied to infrastructure improvements.

“There are questions regarding how the money gets used and accounted for,” said Booze.

SB 805 passed out of the state Senate on a vote of 40-1, but stalled once it reached the House Appropriations and Budget Committee. State Rep. Guy Liebmann, R-Oklahoma City, who carried the bill in the House for Senate author Sen. Cliff Aldridge, R-Midwest City, agreed the issue should be studied further during the legislative interim.

Means said some developers were upset with the outcome. Cities still have the authority to create their own developer impact fees, but SB 805 would have placed some limitations on how those fees might be applied.