Any new economic developments?

[DKG]

There will be a billion dispensed in just TIF.

I'm not talking per year; in total.

Don't have a dog in this fight, but would like to understand this last point. My understanding of TIFs are pretty limited, but I didn't think TIF funds were a city budget line item where the city writes actual checks for the funds. I thought the idea was diverting future increased tax revenue as a result of development (ideally development that may not occur without the TIF). Do you think TIFs should be accounted for and treated the same way as "dispensing" actual money from the city bank account?

[BoulderSooner]

Lost in all of this is the $1M to Heartland that was also approved.

They are already well under construction on their building so this is a prime example of city council's approval being a foregone conclusion even though it didn't even appear on their docket until last Friday. So, how are they providing any meaningful oversight over billions of tax dollars being spent in the name of economic development?

because the council has known about and been informed about that incentive for a long long time .. and in fact already approved this amount at council in sept 2018 before construction started ..

[Pete]

Don't have a dog in this fight, but would like to understand this last point. My understanding of TIFs are pretty limited, but I didn't think TIF funds were a city budget line item where the city writes actual checks for the funds. I thought the idea was diverting future increased tax revenue as a result of development (ideally development that may not occur without the TIF). Do you think TIFs should be accounted for and treated the same way as "dispensing" actual money from the city bank account?

it works like MAPS. They collect the tax money in a separate fund then there has to be approved projects, budgets, and ultimately city council has final say to approval of allocating the funds.

It's "actual" money in the same way as any other tax revenue.

[Pete]

because the council has known about and been informed about that incentive for a long long time .. and in fact already approved this amount at council in sept 2018 before construction started ..

Half the city council has changed since then and it couldn't have been completely done in September otherwise they wouldn't have voted on it yesterday.

[BoulderSooner]

Half the city council has changed since then and it couldn't have been completely done in September otherwise they wouldn't have voted on it yesterday.

there are always multi votes before actual payment is given ..

but the 1,00,000 dollars allocation was approved on sept 11, 2018 before they started construction ..

not approving it yesterday would absolutly be in bad faith and basicly destroy any ability for the city to make any deals in the future ..

[Pete]

^

Then that would also explain why JoBeth the others didn't vote against that allocation while making an issue of the $250K to Booz Allen.

And it also seems to signal that they will provide much more scrutiny -- necessary, IMO -- on the new economic development incentives put in front of them.

[BoulderSooner]

^

Then that would also explain why JoBeth the others didn't vote against that allocation while making an issue of the $250K to Booz Allen.

And it also seems to signal that the will provide much more scrutiny -- necessary, IMO -- on the new economic development incentives put in front of them.

that seems fair .. and will be an insteresting thing to follow going forward ..

[GoGators]

I recently came across an interesting article that describes the importance of the beauty of a city with its ability to attract business development.

A study finds that the more beautiful a city is, the more successful it is at attracting jobs and new residents, including highly educated and affluent ones.

https://www.citylab.com/life/2019/05...remium/589480/

[DKG]

it works like MAPS. They collect the tax money in a separate fund then there has to be approved projects, budgets, and ultimately city council has final say to approval of allocating the funds.

It's "actual" money in the same way as any other tax revenue.

I see. Very helpful information. Thank you.

[Jersey Boss]

^

Then that would also explain why JoBeth the others didn't vote against that allocation while making an issue of the $250K to Booz Allen.

And it also seems to signal that they will provide much more scrutiny -- necessary, IMO -- on the new economic development incentives put in front of them.

That seems to be a smart thing to do if it happens. A study should be done spanning say the last 5-8 years on how much was awarded to each company/entity, what the conditions of the incentive were, what companies achieved those qualifying bench marks and what was done to recoup the funds from companies that failed to achieve those marks. Additionally a breakdown on what the cost per job was and how much was lost by existing competing businesses in profits and lost tax revenues by the existing business. I am generally against these incentives as they warp the free market. If a company can not make a profit w/o the incentives, what is the justification in thinking the company will be viable when the incentives disappear. The government should not be picking winners and losers with tax monies to for profit companies. If BASS PRO would not locate here with out the kick backs, maybe they are not viable with ACADEMY essentially providing the same thing without the tax payer juice.

[jerrywall]

That seems to be a smart thing to do if it happens. A study should be done spanning say the last 5-8 years on how much was awarded to each company/entity, what the conditions of the incentive were, what companies achieved those qualifying bench marks and what was done to recoup the funds from companies that failed to achieve those marks. Additionally a breakdown on what the cost per job was and how much was lost by existing competing businesses in profits and lost tax revenues by the existing business. I am generally against these incentives as they warp the free market. If a company can not make a profit w/o the incentives, what is the justification in thinking the company will be viable when the incentives disappear. The government should not be picking winners and losers with tax monies to for profit companies. If BASS PRO would not locate here with out the kick backs, maybe they are not viable with ACADEMY essentially providing the same thing without the tax payer juice.

I see no problem with this line of thinking (although I think I would disagree with your conclusions). What is worrisome is the idea that it might be approved for company a and denied for company b based on political points scored. That knife cuts both ways.

[mugofbeer]

Nobody is saying that we shouldn't offer them.

You have made statements several times on here very critical of companies relocating without incentives. You have also made it clear about your disapproval of incentives to get certain retailers to locate stores here - COSTCO, at all. We can all wish we lived in Shangri La where incentives didn't exist but they are a fact of life. Obviously, there should always be a thorough investigation before they are given but because of OKCs retail reputation for cheapness and spread-out demographics, many employers will not invest in OKC.
it doesn't work 100% of the time but like Whole Foods (don't recall if incentives or another arrangement from McClendon) and (I'm betting COSTCO), some are very successful and will pay back incentives times over.
Being happy to have more and more Councilmen and Women who wish to stop incentives is being happy to kill off new business growth. Scrutiny yes, eliminating them is just myopic.

[jonny d]

^

Then that would also explain why JoBeth the others didn't vote against that allocation while making an issue of the $250K to Booz Allen.

And it also seems to signal that they will provide much more scrutiny -- necessary, IMO -- on the new economic development incentives put in front of them.

That is my thing. I have no problem with the incentive bids being vetted more thoroughly. But using them as a political power play, when turning around and voting in support of another bid, seems very sketchy to me. I am all for making sure the money is well spent. I would just hate to see the economic future of OKC, in terms of job creation, put in jeopardy because of some misguided agendas.

[BoulderSooner]

That seems to be a smart thing to do if it happens. A study should be done spanning say the last 5-8 years on how much was awarded to each company/entity, what the conditions of the incentive were, what companies achieved those qualifying bench marks and what was done to recoup the funds from companies that failed to achieve those marks. Additionally a breakdown on what the cost per job was and how much was lost by existing competing businesses in profits and lost tax revenues by the existing business. I am generally against these incentives as they warp the free market. If a company can not make a profit w/o the incentives, what is the justification in thinking the company will be viable when the incentives disappear. The government should not be picking winners and losers with tax monies to for profit companies. If BASS PRO would not locate here with out the kick backs, maybe they are not viable with ACADEMY essentially providing the same thing without the tax payer juice.

in most cases in the last 5-10 years OKC only pays the incentive after the bench mark is met ...

[jn1780]

We gave a tax incentive for a big box sporting store(Cabela's) in the suburbs and at the end of the day we ended up with two Bass Pro shops. We don't need deals like this.

[jonny d]

We gave a tax incentive for a big box sporting store(Cabela's) in the suburbs and at the end of the day we ended up with two Bass Pro shops. We don't need deals like this.

Retail incentives are quite different than job creation incentives. In a state that refuses to dedicate appropriate funding to schools at all levels, we need every edge we can get.

[Pete]

Retail incentives are quite different than job creation incentives. In a state that refuses to dedicate appropriate funding to schools at all levels, we need every edge we can get.

There are tons of incentives of all types (both city and state) and all of them come from tax dollars that could be spent elsewhere.

[mugofbeer]

There are tons of incentives of all types (both city and state) and all of them come from tax dollars that could be spent elsewhere.

This is exactly the point I am trying to make. Use COSTCO as an example. It will ultimately bring in millions more in tax money than the incentives provided. It is an investment. The question isn't even whether COSTCO takes from other retail or is there a net gain - though my bet is they will bring business in from elsewhere that would not have otherwise shopped in OKC. They will pay property taxes in a few years that may not have been paid, had they not built their store. Sales taxes may also be additional. Incentives that are "tax abatement's" are not paid out but are taxes that will not be collected until a point in the future. They are not "taken" from tax dollars.

[Jersey Boss]

This is exactly the point I am trying to make. Use COSTCO as an example. It will ultimately bring in millions more in tax money than the incentives provided. It is an investment. The question isn't even whether COSTCO takes from other retail or is there a net gain - though my bet is they will bring business in from elsewhere that would not have otherwise shopped in OKC. They will pay property taxes in a few years that may not have been paid, had they not built their store. Sales taxes may also be additional. Incentives that are "tax abatement's" are not paid out but are taxes that will not be collected until a point in the future. They are not "taken" from tax dollars.

Color me skeptical. A post incentive study of what the net gain is would go along way to put that in perspective. Right now all I hear is optimistic opinion.

[Pete]

^

It's all semantics.

It's tax money that could be spent elsewhere.

[mugofbeer]

No, I'm sorry, but it's not. If COSTCO had not come to OKC, the land would sit there vacant for some period of time. Relatively little tax money is collected on vacant land. The incentives provided are tax postponement of money that would not have been collected unless and until COSTCO built their store. The city never paid out any $, but will get back a ton of money in something like, 5 years, that the city would not have otherwise gotten. Additional sales tax money is a matter of whether COSTCO increases the net tax take or just redistributes it. It is the property tax revenue increase that is the payoff for the incentives. You can't spend money on education that is not there.
This doesn't even take into consideration the 100-200 jobs COSTCO provides, though they are not executive level, they are jobs.

[Pete]

You and nobody else has any way of knowing 1) That Costco would not come here without incentives; and 2) that they wouldn't have accepted less incentives.

The bottom line is that when you set aside a big pool of money and then start giving it away to anyone who asks, you can be guaranteed plenty of others will ask as well.

And in the broader sense, you are providing a business with a multi-million dollar gift which their competitors did not receive after choosing to invest in OKC on their own accord. Yet, they get punished.

[jonny d]

You and nobody else has any way of knowing 1) That Costco would not come here without incentives; and 2) that they wouldn't have accepted less incentives.

The bottom line is that when you set aside a big pool of money and then start giving it away to anyone who asks, you can be guaranteed plenty of others will ask as well.

And in the broader sense, you are providing a business with a multi-million dollar gift which their competitors did not receive after choosing to invest in OKC on their own accord. Yet, they get punished.

We have decades of them NOT coming here as proof something needed to change. They opened in states without strong-point beer, as well (Utah, being among them). So what was the factor?

[jn1780]

So at what point does Costco became the norm and we don't give them anymore tax incentives? The second store, third store, fourth store? At some point there not any better at bringing in revenue then a Walmart or Sam's club. They are competitors and most people who went to Costco had a Sams club membership and they don't plan on renewing at Sams.

[BoulderSooner]

You and nobody else has any way of knowing 1) That Costco would not come here without incentives; and 2) that they wouldn't have accepted less incentives.

The bottom line is that when you set aside a big pool of money and then start giving it away to anyone who asks, you can be guaranteed plenty of others will ask as well.

And in the broader sense, you are providing a business with a multi-million dollar gift which their competitors did not receive after choosing to invest in OKC on their own accord. Yet, they get punished.

if okc offered costco 0 dollars they would absolulty have built thier store 2 or 3 miles away in edmond on I35 for the money they would have gotten from that city and OKC would be getting 0 dollars in sales taxes from them ..