A grassroots organization focused on the intelligent and sustainable development, preservation and revitalization of Tulsa.
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 20, 2017, 01:19:10 pm
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: $294 Million TIF for the River District approved  (Read 12436 times)
swake
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 7285



« on: November 14, 2007, 11:15:14 am »

The billion dollar project will move forward.

Jenks Schools will get $7.5 million of the $13 million they were wanting.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=071114_1_A9_hSome68134

Logged
Conan71
Recovering Republican
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 28714



« Reply #1 on: November 14, 2007, 11:37:17 am »

What do you think about the TIF Swake?  Was Kirby Lehman just gas-bagging or is this really a bad deal for JPS?

I've just figured that more retail/MUD in that area is going to attract more homes to undeveloped land w/in the Jenks district along with converting flood plain/grazing land to income-producing has got to be a bonus for the school system.
Logged

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the firstĒ -Ronald Reagan
fung shui
Guest
« Reply #2 on: November 14, 2007, 11:47:01 am »

JPS is a Malcolm Baldridge award winner. Jenks is on Money Magazine Top 100 cities to live in in America-don't you think they are coming with or without this development. Jenks needs sales tax from retail development. This is of a class and magnitude to serve the region and is not another big box ho-hum.
Logged
FOTD
Guest
« Reply #3 on: November 14, 2007, 11:51:43 am »

Ever get the impression government has lost it's way?

Shameful.

Developers should have to find investors, financial institutions, and users before the government is inserted into something they have no business doing.
Logged
Conan71
Recovering Republican
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 28714



« Reply #4 on: November 14, 2007, 11:54:07 am »

quote:
Originally posted by FOTD

Ever get the impression government has lost it's way?

Shameful.

Developers should have to find investors, financial institutions, and users before the government is inserted into something they have no business doing.




Somehow developers have convinced municipalities this is how business is done these days.
Logged

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the firstĒ -Ronald Reagan
swake
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 7285



« Reply #5 on: November 14, 2007, 11:54:41 am »

I think the school system was right in wanting more money, those 600 residences are going to bring in a lot of new students that have to paid for, but itís disingenuous to say it would cost the district money because Oklahoma has level funding for all school districts via the state contribution, so if the district is short on student funding (and it is NOT, at least compared to the rest of the state) the state makes up the difference.  

The district wanted the increased bonding capacity. And it could have used it, but, the city of Jenks (which is not at all the same as the Jenks Schools district) has done a lot for the district, like working to bring in and expand Kimberly Clark and the second power plant. These were only marginally good for the city as few residents of the city work in these plants, but the having the facilities located in Jenks means that the property taxes that the district can bring in for bond issues are only about half funded by taxes on residential homes. Itís makes passage of school bonds much easier. Jenks Schools would have liked to expand that reality even more.

Itís important to note that the city of Jenks has a population of about 16,000 and the district is at about 90,000, mostly in Tulsa. So the good of the city of Jenks and the good of the district are not always the same and in this case may not have wholly been the same. On balance I think the school district is coming off as being short sighted. The River District is going to be good for the entire metro area as a real regional tourist draw. Itís going to increase the property values around the district and spur other related developments that also will increase property taxes.

That said, this was just a negotiation. The district didnít get all they wanted, but they got a lot more than was offered to start the process. Thatís how is should work. And I think the district does not want to look to the voters like they just rolled over on this plan and also donít want to look like they did so for future TIFs. I think Jenks Schools is at the end of itís ability to absorb TIFs and they have to be against this one at least on paper so they can better fight future TIFs. I think if the district was really hard against this plan you would have seen a much bigger fight than you did.
Logged
TheArtist
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6593



WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 14, 2007, 12:57:15 pm »

Actually, to be a stickler,  the article states that the TIFF has not been approved by the City Council. Plus there has to be a public hearing as well. I think in the end it will go through, but I have learned that ya never know what can happen lol.
Logged

"When you only have two pennies left in the world, buy a loaf of bread with one, and a lily with the other."-Chinese proverb. "Arts a staple. Like bread or wine or a warm coat in winter. Those who think it is a luxury have only a fragment of a mind. Mans spirit grows hungry for art in the same way h
swake
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 7285



« Reply #7 on: November 14, 2007, 01:10:42 pm »

quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist

Actually, to be a stickler,  the article states that the TIFF has not been approved by the City Council. Plus there has to be a public hearing as well. I think in the end it will go through, but I have learned that ya never know what can happen lol.



Well, to be clear, this was an offer from the city of Jenks to the TIF review board. So for the city to reject this plan it would be rejecting itís own proposal.
Logged
fung shui
Guest
« Reply #8 on: November 14, 2007, 01:22:28 pm »

good point Swake, however it says the Committee amended the original proposal and it is sending the  amended proposal back to the Jenks City Council.
Logged
USRufnex
Guest
« Reply #9 on: November 14, 2007, 05:45:25 pm »

This is use of TIF's for simple economic development, and JPS is right in bringing up the issue that the area would rise in value w/o the development.

This is a different situation compared to the proposed Tulsa Landing or East End/East Village...
Logged
Conan71
Recovering Republican
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 28714



« Reply #10 on: November 14, 2007, 06:02:23 pm »

quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex

This is use of TIF's for simple economic development, and JPS is right in bringing up the issue that the area would rise in value w/o the development.

This is a different situation compared to the proposed Tulsa Landing or East End/East Village...



I'm not sure I'm following you.

According to the story Swake quoted, sounds like the Creek Tribe was interested in buying the land if RDDG doesn't develop it.  FAIK, the Creek Tribe would be exempt from property taxes.

Without that, there's no doubt the property value would increase as other development inches closer, but I don't think it would increase in value near as quick as just going ahead with the development now.  In 18 years it should represent a significant windfall.

The upshot for JPS is it makes So. Tul. and Jenks more liveable, that will attract even more homeowners, ergo more home development with it's attendant property tax.

I'm still somewhat lukewarm on the concept of municipalities being on the hook for major new developments by private developers, but if that's what's going on around the country to get things like this done, that's what you have to do to compete and keep up.
Logged

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the firstĒ -Ronald Reagan
FOTD
Guest
« Reply #11 on: November 14, 2007, 06:26:28 pm »

TIFFS originated from governments desire to take blighted and debilitated areas and transform that area into an economic driver.

Jenks, it seems you just might be taking advantage of that original intent. And besides, this project borderlines crap shoot. What was the business of "if we don't do this the Creek Indians will?"
Was that an indirect threat or is there truth in that comment?

The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ~Bertrand Russell
Logged
swake
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 7285



« Reply #12 on: November 14, 2007, 06:41:11 pm »

quote:
Originally posted by Conan71

quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex

This is use of TIF's for simple economic development, and JPS is right in bringing up the issue that the area would rise in value w/o the development.

This is a different situation compared to the proposed Tulsa Landing or East End/East Village...



I'm not sure I'm following you.

According to the story Swake quoted, sounds like the Creek Tribe was interested in buying the land if RDDG doesn't develop it.  FAIK, the Creek Tribe would be exempt from property taxes.

Without that, there's no doubt the property value would increase as other development inches closer, but I don't think it would increase in value near as quick as just going ahead with the development now.  In 18 years it should represent a significant windfall.

The upshot for JPS is it makes So. Tul. and Jenks more liveable, that will attract even more homeowners, ergo more home development with it's attendant property tax.

I'm still somewhat lukewarm on the concept of municipalities being on the hook for major new developments by private developers, but if that's what's going on around the country to get things like this done, that's what you have to do to compete and keep up.



If the Creek have the land placed in reserve it would be tax exempt.
Logged
fung shui
Guest
« Reply #13 on: November 14, 2007, 09:15:50 pm »

The City of Jenks is not on the hook for anything. Unlike Tulsa Hills the TIF money is not being fronted by a revenue bond to pay the developers. The development pays for the infrastructure/amenity/other qualified expenses then pays their property tax after the assessor sends tax back to the city it is rebated to the developer.
Logged
RecycleMichael
truth teller
T-Town Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 12861


« Reply #14 on: November 14, 2007, 09:51:27 pm »

quote:
Originally posted by swake
The district wanted the increased bonding capacity. And it could have used it, but, the city of Jenks (which is not at all the same as the Jenks Schools district) has done a lot for the district, like working to bring in and expand Kimberly Clark and the second power plant. These were only marginally good for the city as few residents of the city work in these plants, but the having the facilities located in Jenks means that the property taxes that the district can bring in for bond issues are only about half funded by taxes on residential homes.


Oddly enough, the Kimberly Clark paper plant in Jenks contributes property tax to Bixby schools and not Jenks schools.
Logged

Power is nothing till you use it.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

 
  Hosted by TulsaConnect and Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
 

Mission

 

"TulsaNow's Mission is to help Tulsa become the most vibrant, diverse, sustainable and prosperous city of our size. We achieve this by focusing on the development of Tulsa's distinctive identity and economic growth around a dynamic, urban core, complemented by a constellation of livable, thriving communities."
more...

 

Contact

 

2210 S Main St.
Tulsa, OK 74114
(918) 409-2669
info@tulsanow.org