Taylor Pot Calling Creek Kettle Black?

[DowntownNow]

This article was featured in today's Tulsa World. 

City, Creeks tussle over land

by: CLIFTON ADCOCK World Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
5/5/2009 3:29:22 AM

The city of Tulsa is fighting a proposal by the Muscogee (Creek) Nation to put land on the west side of the Arkansas River into federal trust status for proposed development. The city says it would cost more than $34 million to provide infrastructure to the property.

The property, slightly more than 25 acres between Jones Riverside Airport and the Arkansas River at 81st Street and Peoria Avenue, is owned by the tribe, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs is considering an application to put that land into trust. The land is across the river from the tribe's massive new casino, River Spirit, at 81st Street and Riverside Drive.

A Nov. 26 letter from the BIA to the city seeking comment on the proposed trust status indicates that the land will be used for a non-gaming establishment, namely retail shops and a strip mall.

Mayor Kathy Taylor asked the BIA's superintendent, Kelly Harjo, in a January letter to reject the trust application because the city would lose property taxes on the land and developments and would lose a projected $4 million a year in sales tax revenue. The land is in a flood zone, and there would be substantial infrastructure requirements, Taylor's letter states.

The letter says the city would lose $6,556 in property tax on the land as it is, and it would lose $83,000 a year if the land was developed as described.

Citing the Arkansas River Master Plan's directive that the property will be an open green area with a walking trail, the letter says there are no storm sewer, sanitary sewer or water lines near the land for any development to hook into and that the two-lane streets in the area would be insufficient to service a retail mall. It would fall to the city to install water lines and sewers to the property and expand the streets, the letter states.

The city estimates that the cost of providing the infrastructure needed for such a project would be about $34.6 million, "clearly a costly and unexpected burden for which funds are currently unavailable," the letter states. Rights-of-way, utility and environmental items would cost an additional $7.1 million, it says.

Furthermore, the letter says, the property is on the river side of a federally built flood protection levee, and some parcels of land are within the floodplain.

"These facts make flooding a very real issue and implicate jurisdictional and zoning issues if and when that flooding occurs," Taylor wrote.

A Muscogee (Creek) Nation spokesman, Thompson Gouge, said the application to put the land in trust was still being processed.

Gouge said the idea for a strip mall and retail shops was part of a plan for the tribe's development and that the tribe hopes to collaborate with the city to work out the issues.

"We want to keep a good working relationship with the city of Tulsa," Gouge said. "We'll see how we can work with the city of Tulsa regarding that."

Creek Nation Principal Chief A.D. Ellis has said that the tribe hoped to develop the area around the casino, creating an entertainment district that would rival Oklahoma City's Bricktown. He has said the tribe was looking for developers for projects on tribal property alongside the banks of the Arkansas River, but no definitive plans for development on the west side of the river were made public.

A city spokeswoman, Kim MacLeod, said the city has received no further correspondence from the BIA on the matter since Taylor sent the letter.

While I'm not sure we got all the information in this article, the most striking thing that occurred to me was this:

Is this not what Mayor Kathy Taylor is doing by facilitating the construction of a ballpark in downtown Tulsa to, in her words, help encourage economic growth and development? 

Is she not willing to spend an estimated $69 million+ of IDL property owner's assessments and leases over 30 years to support "infrastructure/ballpark" to accomplish this goal? 

Taylor goes further in her January letter to BIA Superintendent Harjo, stating that such improvements and their associated cost would be "clearly a costly and unexpected burden for which funds are currently unavailable."   Um, isnt this the point IDL property owners are trying to make as well regarding the forced assessment and current state of the economy?  (Not to mention the real argument of direct and proportional benefit)

Taylor also argues that the City would lose property taxes on the land...I seem to remember when the ballpark and its surrounding development area was being discussed by proponent and aide, Peter Boylan, that the Trust may seek a property tax abatement on the specified surrounding properties to encourage development.  Recent talk has been floated to eventually include these properties within the Brady TIF district to access available funds generated by surrounding businesses.  What's so different then?

One would have to be ignorant to actually believe that the Creeks would move forward with a development and not take into account the necessary improvements that would have to be made to the land and infrastructure for a development where some properties lie within the flood plain.  As one TW commenter posted, most if not all of the Riverwalk development is within a flood plain and I would suggest that the same is true for the proposed Billion dollar development to its South.

It would seem, according to the story posted, that the City is unwilling to work with the Creeks to make a development happen.  If the arguement is that funds may be short, we have only to look at the cooperation between the Cherokees and ODOT on the interchange at 193rd & I-44 to see the benefits generated in wanting to work with, instead of against a project.  That project will be realized sooner as a result of the Cherokees pitching in $11 million.

This seems a good case of what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.  Or more plainly a double standard perhaps?

[RecycleMichael]

You don't see the difference of developing downtown and developing a floodprone property at the edge of the city limits? You don't see the difference building a family gathering place generating sales tax revenue and developing another strip mall that doesn't pay sales taxes?

I think your obsession with getting something bad on the Mayor is clouding your vision.

[cannon_fodder]

Ha!

To me this is a slap to the face.  The city has blabbed about developing around the river for a while and nothing has been done.  Jenks got it done pretty well, we haven't done a damn thing.   So the tribe is giving the city a big bird and planning on doing it themselves.

/face palm

[Renaissance]

What is all the ruckus here?  Pretty obvious conflict.

Tribe is applying for land to be put into trust so that it will be tax exempt.

City was asked for comment.

City said, uh, we'd rather tax the development, thanks.

How else would anyone have any of these entities behave?

[Gold]

Agree with most of the comments.  You can look for a conflict here, but the city's agenda will always be to increase sales tax revenue.  This land would be exempt if it became the property of the trust and the city would have to pay costs as a result.  Can't say I'm surprised they objected.  By comparison, the Drillers moving to downtown will create a net increase in sales tax revenue, and, at a minimum, maintain a pretty big sales tax contribution.  If you watched the City Council debate on the stadium last summer, this is pretty much why they voted for it.

[TheArtist]

 Depending on the development and its tax potential. Perhaps something could be negotiated.

We the city will build a good chunk of the infrastructure, and the Creeks chip in, IF we are allowed to get our part of the city sales taxes, and the Creek development still doesnt have to pay county and state taxes.

[Gold]

Depending on the development and its tax potential. Perhaps something could be negotiated.

We the city will build a good chunk of the infrastructure, and the Creeks chip in, IF we are allowed to get our part of the city sales taxes, and the Creek development still doesnt have to pay county and state taxes.

Good call.  If anything, that's pretty responsible work by our local government and I'd be upset if they didn't try something like this.  They had an opportunity to comment and they commented.  Apples and oranges from what happened with the stadium.

[Renaissance]

Some sort of negotiated TIF for supportive infrastructure would definitely make sense here.  Otherwise just make them deal with their own sewers, traffic lights, etc.

[DowntownNow]

Not so different when you look at the approaches each wants to take.  Taylor can't have it both ways simply depending on where it is.  Does downtown need revitalized...yes.  Does the North, East and West of Tulsa need revitalized...yes, especially if you believe in the PLANitulsa process that has identified these areas as the neediest.

The simplest approach would be a joint venture opportunity...but that requires discussion.  The article lacks sufficient comment to identify if any has truly taken place, but Mayor Taylor's comments to the TW should have been "we would look forward to working with the Muscogee Creek Nation in redeveloping this area" rather than the reported comments she made, in effect striking it down at first glance. 

Ironic that she states one reason is such a cost is an unexpected burden and funds arent available...again, there is a similarity to what the downtown property owners are claiming in stating as much the same thing.  It cant work for them but can work for Taylor? 

The best approach to this would be the encouragement and cooperation of the City and Creeks to redevelop this property, even at a tax loss (or really no gain) in order to encourage further redevelopment efforts around this property by other private developers and turn low tax paying properties into greater ad valorem and sales tax generating developments. 

Is this not what she has said she wants to do with the Stadium? 

We will never recover the expense constructing and maintaining the ballpark itself (i.e. infrastructure in this case) but she says that cost must be levied to spur the surrounding growth and development.  What is different in this case?

[PonderInc]

The Creek tribe wants to build a tax-free strip mall in the Arkansas River channel (inside the levy), and they want the city to provide over $40 million in infrastructure to enable it? 

I wonder how you get flood insurance for such a thing?  Or would our own tax dollars then be used to "buy out" the property, after the next big flood?

Surely, Tulsa has learned its lesson on this stuff.  1.) We need to encourage development that maximizes the ROI from our existing investment in infrastructure.  2.) Don't build in flood plains.   3.) And don't encourage sprawl, b/c we can't afford it anyomre....

[TheArtist]

The Creek tribe wants to build a tax-free strip mall in the Arkansas River channel (inside the levy), and they want the city to provide over $40 million in infrastructure to enable it? 

I wonder how you get flood insurance for such a thing?  Or would our own tax dollars then be used to "buy out" the property, after the next big flood?

Surely, Tulsa has learned its lesson on this stuff.  1.) We need to encourage development that maximizes the ROI from our existing investment in infrastructure.  2.) Don't build in flood plains.   3.) And don't encourage sprawl, b/c we can't afford it anyomre....

It wouldnt be Tulsa building it, and we couldnt "buy it out" if we wanted to once its put in Trust. Plus the "strip mall" slant on their River Walk type development seems a bit unfair. Most people like the Jenks River Walk, but when the Creeks want to do one the TW calls it a strip mall? I dont think the argument here is about IF something gets built there. The Creeks already own the property and this has been in the works for years as part of the casino/hotel long range plan for a large entertainment district connecting both sides of the river with a pedestrian bridge and eventually a water taxi. 

If we would have wanted them to use existing infrastructure, we should have said something a looooong time ago before they started the new casino and hotel. Just like the new casino, this isnt something that has suddenly come from out of the blue. Its all part of their master plan for the area.  Perhaps we should have swapped them the land they have now with that on the west bank downtown and had them develope there, BEFORE they invested a hundred million or so on the first phase of their over all plan. Little late in the game to be hollering about building everything they had planned in an area without infrastructure at this point?

[joiei]

the tribe wants to develope this then they can pay for the infrastructure to develope it.  I am not usually against new developement but in this case they need to give me a better reason than just they want a new revenue source at the city's expense.