"A dust-up with commercial developers could determine whether established neighborhoods can capture a greater share of tax revenue to maintain streets and parks.

The city has pushed back against developers who contend a proposed increase in "development impact fees" would be bad for profits and a drag on growth.

But officials are collecting more information for city council members before a vote set for April 26.

It remains to be seen whether developers will be satisfied by additional data on how the cost of building in Oklahoma City compares to costs in other cities."

Oklahoma City, developers tussle over fees for new construction | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-developers-tussle-over-fees-for-new-construction/article/5490853)

Impact fees are certainly necessary for maintaining and building new infrastructure but this rate increase for new commercial development is much to high of an increase and will send new construction and develpments to Moore, Edmond, Mustang, etc. Residential builders arent getting too big of an increase but increasing commercial fees 600-700% will definitely send business elsewhere, only hurting the city even more.

Are the new proposed fees for commercial development actually higher than the current fees in the suburbs? The article gives examples of the current versus the current:


The data shows Oklahoma City's $950 fee for a 2,000-square-foot home is less than half the fee charged by Edmond and a third of the fee charged by Norman.

The $4,944 fee charged by Oklahoma City for a 100,000-square-foot office building is a fifth of the fee charged by Edmond. Norman charges nine times as much, according to the chart.

But unless I'm missing something doesn't give a similar example fort he proposed fees.

Are the new proposed fees for commercial development actually higher than the current fees in the suburbs? The article gives examples of the current versus the current:



But unless I'm missing something doesn't give a similar example fort he proposed fees.

Yes, the proposed fees will be significantly higher than the suburbs, which is why they are probably cheering for it to pass.
The proposed $4 per square foot for new commercial outside of downtown will make that 100,000sf building impact be $400,000. So you could say thats a slight increase, and one that would send projects to the suburbs.

Yes, the proposed fees will be significantly higher than the suburbs, which is why they are probably cheering for it to pass.
The proposed $4 per square foot for new commercial outside of downtown will make that 100,000sf building impact be $400,000. So you could say thats a slight increase, and one that would send projects to the suburbs.

Considering the way taxes are distributed, it seems like the best situation for OKC is to set development fees high enough on residential areas to push greenfield suburb development out to the suburbs, while keeping commercial impact fees low to entice commercial development in the city limits. Best outcome for OKC is for people to live in Edmond and get their services there, but shop and pay sales tax in OKC proper. Since the suburban school districts impinge on OKC city limits at the margins (where all this stuff is being affected by the fees), the property tax distribution to schools is unaffected either way. Let Edmond/Yukon/Piedmont figure out how to sustain roads/sewers/police to sprawl. Let OKC get the sales tax income.

Or am I missing something here?