Boulevard Place

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urbanized

It would be flawed math to calculate it in this way because - again - a significant portion of the newly-realized revenue (the part that doesn’t go to schools, county etc) would never have been gained to begin with without the development energy that continues to be fostered by TIF. Including much of the sales (and property) tax growth throughout ALL of the city.

---

You and nobody else can prove that. It's the blanket "but for" argument that is used time and time again without hard data. And when a huge percentage of total spending downtown is done without TIF it doesn't hold up to even the most superficial scrutiny.

When you are talking about redirecting over a billion dollars in public funds - without public vote -- the burden of proof is on the group doing this, not the other way around.

There are good reasons TIF has been effectively banned in certain states and cities and that more and more implementations require a vote of the people. Yet, we continue to continually escalate these takes and awards, such as the huge percentage now virtually guaranteed this project.

You really run into an entire Freakonomics chapter when you dive into TIF. They should actually do an episode over TIF specifically, it would be an interesting story as there has been various studies on this subject in other cities.

I think it boils down to: quantifying the generated/moved dollars from a parcel that received TIF is difficult. You have a large array of economic impacts to take into account that isn't just X dollars generated by this property value before and after the TIF and pitting that against TIF dollars received.

Some easy ones off the top of my head:
Jobs created on that parcel.
Jobs created on surrounding parcels.
Sales tax generated on that parcel.
Sales tax generated on surrounding parcels.
Property tax of that parcel.
Property taxes of surrounding parcels.
Infrastructure considerations if people or businesses are moving to/from some outer area where infrastructure is spread-thin or more difficult to maintain.
City services [fire, police, trash. library] consideration if people or businesses are moving to/from the same.
Public education accessibility.

Also consider: The parcels within a TIF district being vacant, parking, abandoned structure, commercial, industrial, residential, etc. is all significant factors to take into account when analyzing this data for TIF approval as some are probably more acceptable than others.

And what about the timeline of quantifying the impacts of a particular TIF, where is the endpoint of added/removed value?

I think the bottom line is you can use a myriad of data to support both sides for or against TIF. But one thing I think most can agree on is there needs to be a more analytical approach and public input to the approval process than what is currently in place [in OKC].

Let's use this new Core to Shore TIF district to provide a specific example of how TIF is in no way shape or form 'free money'.

The district's boundaries were specifically gerrymandered to include BOK Park Plaza and its entire block along with hundreds of other acres. The C2S TIF (#13) started redirecting property tax in 2018, not coincidentally the year before BOK started paying the new tax rates based on the massive improvements made there. BTW, that project -- by far the largest in downtown since Devon Tower -- received zero TIF.

So let's do the math.

The base year for TIF #13 was 2018. BOK Park Plaza paid $51,992 that year.

Now, for the next 25 years, the difference between that amount and the taxes paid each and every of the next 25 years gets redirected for TIF use.

In 2019, the property tax shot up to $1,348,388 which means all but $51,992 of that went to the TIF district.

In 2022, that number had already risen to $1,551,268.

Assuming 5% increases (the max allowed by Oklahoma law unless a property is sold -- then that cap is blown off) here's what the calculations say will be taken from the schools and other taxing authorities throughout this TIF...

Ready??

$58,685,285.

And this is just one of several hundred properties within the TIF #13 district that will all be treated in the same way.



This is exactly how TIF #2 which covers most of downtown has resulted in $359,869,252 in TIF capture (with 2 years to run) when the original projection was $47 million. Just take all the increases over those 23 years from Leadership Square, BancFirst, Oklahoma Tower, Corporate Tower and everything else downtown that already existed or was built with zero TIF dollars.

As it stands, TIF #13 is projected to capture $395,000,000. You can bet it will end up being more than a BILLION itself and this is just one of 15 and counting TIF districts in the core.

How much do these developments increase tax collection from nearby properties that aren't in a TIF District over the course of 25 years? Are there examples where a TIF project was a catalyst for substantial non-TIF projects 5 to 15 years later or do they shuffle the deck each time another significant development is proposed? If so, do you see any examples where TIF increases sales tax collection, and tourism dollars spent? Is it all bad or just an inconsistent allocation of "goodies"?

^

TIF has been used for the Skirvin and First National and I doubt many would say that wasn't a good use of funds.

One example of a large TIF award really spurring surrounding development was the 21c in Film Row.


Nobody is saying TIF is always bad. My issue is the rampant and ever-escalating tax dollars being spent. TIF is supposed to be used to jump-start a blighted area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild

Are there examples where a TIF project was a catalyst for substantial non-TIF projects 5 to 15 years?

---

Absolutely. And Pete has provided some good examples already and, well, pretty much everything in downtown has been impacted by TIF assistance directly or indirectly. To use that as justification for continuing it in perpetuity for any developer who asks for it essentially undermines the original intent of TIF. And it seems like it's being done somewhat unconditionally at this point.

But you can also reverse that question: Is there an example of a TIF project that waited 5 years, did almost nothing while everything around it was developed and/or improved, and had its TIF award increased by almost 400% during that time?

maybe what we could do is either

1) have the TIF districts expire earlier than 25 years. What if it were 10 or 15 years, would that be better for schools?

2) have a proportion of the increase from the TIF district still go to schools. This whould show a huge commitment to schools if, say 25% of the TIF would still go to schools. Using Pete's $360m from TIF2, Oklahoma City Public Schools would receive $90m. Im certain OKC Public schools could benefit from that influx of revenue; and there would still be $250m for development incentive.

the best scenario would be to implement both; let's revise the TIF process to give something to the schools and a shorter run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HOT ROD

maybe what we could do is either

1) have the TIF districts expire earlier than 25 years. What if it were 10 or 15 years, would that be better for schools?

2) have a proportion of the increase from the TIF district still go to schools. This whould show a huge commitment to schools if, say 25% of the TIF would still go to schools. Using Pete's $360m from TIF2, Oklahoma City Public Schools would receive $90m. Im certain OKC Public schools could benefit from that influx of revenue; and there would still be $250m for development incentive.

the best scenario would be to implement both; let's revise the TIF process to give something to the schools and a shorter run.

---

the issue of course is that it is not the OKC City council's primary job to care / worry about okc public schools .. (clearly it is a care but not the primary care)

and TIF is how cities in this state can actual use property tax ...

If TIF is so great and doesn't rob Peter to pay Paul then why not just make the entire City one big TIF district?

I think the issue that should concern city leaders is that, at some point, enough citizens will knowledge up, start a campaign and work to get TIF as a whole banned. We have too many opportunities for TIF to be a great investment vehicle to jeopardize it with short-sighted usage. I can understand maybe having 3 or 4, ten-year rolling TIFs in the Core of downtown as a way to keep funds on hand to lend to other TIFs
that are truly helping build up blighted areas (See Wheeler) or for special projects (Skirvin/First National). But A) 25 years is too long for any area that has already received substantial investment (10-year rolling would allow us to redefine the baseline calculation and send those funds back to the county/aka schools) and B) TIF needs a few more rules placed on it from an eligibility perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoulderSooner

the issue of course is that it is not the OKC City council's primary job to care / worry about okc public schools .. (clearly it is a care but not the primary care)

and TIF is how cities in this state can actual use property tax ...

---

If they are conscientious and responsible councilmembers, then doing what’s best for our public education system is 100% something they should prioritize. If they are not, one could correctly conclude they aren’t up to the job. Whether it’s technically in their purview or not isn’t really the issue. The issue is that they want to make decisions that will improve our city and its outcomes. The best councilmembers will be the ones who do what’s best for the city — thinking even beyond their individual ward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soonerguru

If they are conscientious and responsible councilmembers, then doing what’s best for our public education system is 100% something they should prioritize. If they are not, one could correctly conclude they aren’t up to the job. Whether it’s technically in their purview or not isn’t really the issue. The issue is that they want to make decisions that will improve our city and its outcomes. The best councilmembers will be the ones who do what’s best for the city — thinking even beyond their individual ward.

---

very much disagree .. . more money has never fixed any school district .. and OKC council has no control over bad policy .

I am not shocked at one bit. Your viewpoint is centered on people adhering to the basest legal obligation and nothing more. I like you personally but you would be an awful civic leader.

A better education system starts with a better family education system. Schools and teachers can produce good students if parents don't value education and don't give their children the support/encouragement/motivate to thrive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoulderSooner

very much disagree .. . more money has never fixed any school district .. and OKC council has no control over bad policy .

---

MONEY ALONE has never fixed any school district. But, lack of money can kill a good plan run by competent people. It’s not binary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BoulderSooner

very much disagree .. . more money has never fixed any school district .. and OKC council has no control over bad policy .

---

These statements that "money" doesn't "fix" schools are not constructive. What does a statement like that even mean? It's like saying that building transportation options will never "fix" mobility issues. Schools are complex systems that are greatly affected by a number of other societal factors, and their "success" is measured by deeply flawed metrics. I can say one thing, underfunding schools does great detriment to students' educational experiences. So, yeah, funding makes a big difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rover

MONEY ALONE has never fixed any school district. But, lack of money can kill a good plan run by competent people. It’s not binary.

---

Thank you.

At this point, I would almost rather them save this site for a possible Omni Hotel expansion.

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/b...274299435.html

Put me in the camp that is quickly souring on TIF. Boulevard Place has driven me there. I am utterly disgusted by the way this project has played out.

1. Initially, when presented, the Boulevard Place proposal offered vignettes about serving as "workplace housing" for service staff at Omni.
2. There were going to be "affordable units" offered, and price points suggested were in the $700 range for studio apartments.
3. The city offered money from its GO bond for affordable housing as incentive.
4. Cathy O'Connor hailed the Boulevard Place proposal as the choice because it offered more affordable units than competing proposals.
5. This was going to be a panacea - a bright, high-impact residential complex with both market-rate and affordable units. There was going to be a day care center. The list of promises goes on and on.

Why was this group really chosen? That's what I want to know. It's been five years and they haven't delivered anything. They only keep coming back with palms out begging for more public money. There will be no day care center. There will be no studio units less than $1,100. There will be few if any Omni employees living there.

TIF is a great tool, and one I have avoided having knee-jerk opposition to, but this proposal has absolutely made a mockery of it and provided ammunition for those who are opposed to it. TIF should not serve to ensure that developers make millions on a proposal when they are receiving public money.

We have gone five years and nothing has happened with this proposal. It seems clear to me that the developers did not have the financial ability to pull this off, which should have been easy to glean by doing due diligence. They just made a lot of exciting promises to sell the rubes and reneged on all of them in short order. So, we will have a large apartment complex for high-income individuals in an area that is prime real estate. TIF is supposed to be a tool to rebuild blighted areas, and, as Pete has pointed out, this is not a blighted area by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm disgusted by how this has played out and again, I wonder, why was this group awarded this precious site?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soonerguru

Put me in the camp that is quickly souring on TIF. Boulevard Place has driven me there. I am utterly disgusted by the way this project has played out.

1. Initially, when presented, the Boulevard Place proposal offered vignettes about serving as "workplace housing" for service staff at Omni.
2. There were going to be "affordable units" offered, and price points suggested were in the $700 range for studio apartments.
3. The city offered money from its GO bond for affordable housing as incentive.
4. Cathy O'Connor hailed the Boulevard Place proposal as the choice because it offered more affordable units than competing proposals.
5. This was going to be a panacea - a bright, high-impact residential complex with both market-rate and affordable units. There was going to be a day care center. The list of promises goes on and on.

Why was this group really chosen? That's what I want to know. It's been five years and they haven't delivered anything. They only keep coming back with palms out begging for more public money. There will be no day care center. There will be no studio units less than $1,100. There will be few if any Omni employees living there.

TIF is a great tool, and one I have avoided having knee-jerk opposition to, but this proposal has absolutely made a mockery of it and provided ammunition for those who are opposed to it. TIF should not serve to ensure that developers make millions on a proposal when they are receiving public money.

We have gone five years and nothing has happened with this proposal. It seems clear to me that the developers did not have the financial ability to pull this off, which should have been easy to glean by doing due diligence. They just made a lot of exciting promises to sell the rubes and reneged on all of them in short order. So, we will have a large apartment complex for high-income individuals in an area that is prime real estate. TIF is supposed to be a tool to rebuild blighted areas, and, as Pete has pointed out, this is not a blighted area by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm disgusted by how this has played out and again, I wonder, why was this group awarded this precious site?

---

Ya this one seems like a head scratcher. Who couldnt build an apartment complex wwhen you get $80,000 per unit in assistance? Amazing how the Lift developer was able to build 350 some odd unit complex in the downtown area with no incentives yet these 268 apartments need $21,500,000.

^

They also have a ready-built parking garage they can connect to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onthestrip

Ya this one seems like a head scratcher. Who couldnt build an apartment complex wwhen you get $80,000 per unit in assistance? Amazing how the Lift developer was able to build 350 some odd unit complex in the downtown area with no incentives yet these 268 apartments need $21,500,000.

---

It really doesn't seem like "need" is a consideration when awarding TIF. At this point, it looks like it's just a matter of if the developer wants to spend the time and resources to go through the process. If they're ready to go and have financing, it may make more sense to move up the ROI timeline than go fishing for government assistance. Granted, it also doesn't look like there are any standards or timelines to adhere to even if they do get TIF.

I'm not sure anything is really known about OKC's TIF procedures or criteria other than the amounts and length of the assistance once it's awarded. So, whether a 'need' was defined or even considered, we'll probably never know.

Time = money. And OKC has lost five years on this deal with nothing to show for it. The pandemic excuse is BS. Developments went on throughout the country during the pandemic, and really, this could have broken ground by the end of 2019 if this group had had financing in place.

Is it OKC's fault that this development group is blaming the relatively recent interest rate increases because they dawdled for four years until the interest rates went up?

We witnessed the felling of Stage Center as a result of insider deals and false promises. We have witnessed all kinds of chicanery. This one takes the cake. They basically promised a bunch of stuff they either couldn't afford to include in their proposal or had no intention of fulfilling -- just to win the bid. Which is why I question why this group was chosen. A proper due diligence of the proposal would have seemingly shown that they didn't have the financing or their promises were not doable.

It would be interesting to revisit the other proposals that were submitted during the RFP phase. One wonders, rightfully, if another proposal would already be welcoming occupants right now instead of asking for more and more public money while at the same time removing critical elements of the proposal that gave them the deal.

Again, the TIF is being twisted to guarantee profits for the developers, not deliver the things the city wanted from the development. It really, really stinks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soonerguru

Time = money. And OKC has lost five years on this deal with nothing to show for it. The pandemic excuse is BS. Developments went on throughout the country during the pandemic, and really, this could have broken ground by the end of 2019 if this group had had financing in place.

Is it OKC's fault that this development group is blaming the relatively recent interest rate increases because they dawdled for four years until the interest rates went up?

We witnessed the felling of Stage Center as a result of insider deals and false promises. We have witnessed all kinds of chicanery. This one takes the cake. They basically promised a bunch of stuff they either couldn't afford to include in their proposal or had no intention of fulfilling -- just to win the bid. Which is why I question why this group was chosen. A proper due diligence of the proposal would have seemingly shown that they didn't have the financing or their promises were not doable.

It would be interesting to revisit the other proposals that were submitted during the RFP phase. One wonders, rightfully, if another proposal would already be welcoming occupants right now instead of asking for more and more public money while at the same time removing critical elements of the proposal that gave them the deal.

Again, the TIF is being twisted to guarantee profits for the developers, not deliver the things the city wanted from the development. It really, really stinks.

---

you understand that they haven't been given any money at all .. right??

It's evident they didn't have financing in place from the beginning, then COVID, then no financing, then inflation. After all this, still not confident this will break ground anytime soon even with TIF. And I am sure they will change the design.

Why can't we attract national developers to handle these deals?