Roscoe Says: "Do the River!"

[Book of Three]

A TIF can be a property tax TIF, a sales tax TIF, or both.

[YoungTulsan]

Wouldn't a property tax TIF be better on higher dollar developments with higher construction qualities?

Like Tulsa Hills for instance, it is a vast array of big boxes and expansive parking lots.  The construction quality is very low, hence the property taxes taken from there wouldn't be that substancial.  The sales taxes generated by all of those retail giants would, however, be substancial.

Tulsa Landing on the other hand, would be high quality upscale construction, lots of non-sales-tax-generating residential and office included.  A property tax TIF would be the best solution in this case, I would guess.

Not to mention the fact that Tulsa Hills will be pulling new taxes out of the suburbs.  Tulsa Landing might, to an extent, but the majority of its sales tax dollars will just be moved from another part of Tulsa.  The property values will be brand new revenue for Tulsa though.  A property tax TIF wouldn't hurt Tulsa's tax base at all.

[YoungTulsan]

And T-Town Mike, you are mistaken if you think that means they are making west-siders pay for it.  That is a TIF on ONLY the land that Tulsa Landing would sit on.  They build new property which has new high property values.  Brand new revenue that Tulsa would just set aside to help pay for the land acquisition/infrastructure the first few years of the development's life.  People living down the road in West Tulsa will not see their property taxes raised, nor siphoned, for Tulsa Landing.

[TheArtist]

But isnt the city going to still have to buy the property first? aka before the property taxes, the money to buy the property, are paid? Then put out a request for proposal.  Where is that money to buy the property, before there is any development, going to come from?

I thought in a tif, the developer got enough financing from the bank to buy the property, do the development and infrastructure, then instead of paying the sales tax or property tax, that sum went to pay off the cost that was "tiffed". Take the River District in Jenks tif for instance. Instead of the city paying 200 mill in infrastructure. The developer is going to do that with the financing he gets. He doesnt pay the tax back to the city, they never gave him the money, he pays that sum to the bank until the agreed amount is paid for. So in the Tulsa Landing case. The developer would get the financing to purchase the property, and would pay the city back? But the city isnt the one buying the property. And he is not going to buy the property until he can be guaranteed that he will be the one to get chosen after the request for proposal process that has to be done on the city part of the property he needs to do the development.

I still dont get it lol.

[carltonplace]

Got it, we'd only lose taxes collected on the MidContinent property at its current value (not really going to the city anyway) and nothing would be lost on the properties that the city already owns.

But this means that some entity would have to buy the property and I think Tulsa Landing wants to lease, and I bet he wants a sweet deal like the never built Native American Cultural Center ($1.00 per year).

[Book of Three]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

But isnt the city going to still have to buy the property first? aka before the property taxes, the money to buy the property, are paid? Then put out a request for proposal.  Where is that money to buy the property, before there is any development, going to come from?

I thought in a tif, the developer got enough financing from the bank to buy the property, do the development and infrastructure, then instead of paying the sales tax or property tax, that sum went to pay off the cost that was "tiffed". Take the River District in Jenks tif for instance. Instead of the city paying 200 mill in infrastructure. The developer is going to do that with the financing he gets. He doesnt pay the tax back to the city, they never gave him the money, he pays that sum to the bank until the agreed amount is paid for. So in the Tulsa Landing case. The developer would get the financing to purchase the property, and would pay the city back? But the city isnt the one buying the property. And he is not going to buy the property until he can be guaranteed that he will be the one to get chosen after the request for proposal process that has to be done on the city part of the property he needs to do the development.

I still dont get it lol.

If a TIF is used to finance the purchase, Bonds are sold to raise money to fund the land acquisition.  The bonds are issue by some city instrumentality (the developer isn't on the hook to repay the bonds) and the idea is that the increased sales tax or property tax or both, depending on what kind of TIF it is, repays the Bonds.  The Bonds can only be successfully marketed and sold if the market believes that the increase in sales taxes, property taxes, or both can repay them.

[Double A]

I like this plan. It would be a good use of a TIF. The only property that will be affected is the property located in the TIF district. THIS WOULD NOT INCREASE PROPERTY TAXES FOR WEST TULSANS OUTSIDE THE TIF DISTRICT.

[USRufnex]

I don't own a home in Tulsa (yet), but unless there's some sort of exceptions made for properties outside the TIF district...

Why wouldn't the development increase property taxes for those who live outside the development?  Why would the city make an exception in this case?

The Tulsa Landing TIF development could LITERALLY increase property taxes collected while the tax rate would stay the same... because it is assumed that property values, including those outside the TIF district, could go up-- ALOT.  The more successful the development, the higher the property values...

And would the development itself be successful enough to finance a 22,000 seat "mixed use AAA baseball stadium"???... wink, wink... nudge, nudge... say no more... []

The up-side would be that west Tulsa residents could actually benefit by having higher property values.  That means if they sell their homes and "cash out," they could make a good profit.  But if these are folks who don't want to move from the 'hood for the rest of their lives, I assume they will pay higher taxes.  

With property taxes frozen at a certain level for 10-15-20+ years? depending on the terms of the TIF... the more successful the development becomes, the more tax dollars above that "frozen level" are put back into the "community", or used to finance part of the project.  The property taxes outside the TIF would go to the city...

Let's say your modest $45k outdated fixer-upper west Tulsa bungalow home rises in value to $150k in five to ten years--at some point the land may actually become more valuable without the house... do you pay higher property taxes or do you take the money and run?

This seems to be Mayor Daley's way of increasing tax revenues in the city of Chicago while at the same time saying he hasn't raised property taxes... upscale younger couples and "empty nesters" from the affluent suburbs are drawn to a nice, urban setting and... drumroll, please... gentrification.

I'd feel sorry for older folks in west Tulsa who may feel squeezed and have to move someplace else, but Tulsa really hasn't seen much/any real gentrification that I can see at all.  As long as it becomes the exception and not the rule, it could be a win-win.

IMO, it got outta hand in Chicago... but... some of the older folks who "cashed out," got to retire in Arizona and Florida...

Here's a taste of the debate from my old stomping grounds...
http://morsehellhole.blogspot.com/2005/09/whos-tif-is-it-part-2.html

quote:So, a local developer boils down his motivation, strategy, and expected outcomes in a short quip to a reporter, "Gentrification occurs, the yuppies move in, and all of a sudden you have Starbucks and Trader Joe's."

Mmm.  Trader Joe's.  How is that a BAD thing?... that's a loaded question, btw... []

http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/theworks/061006/

[YoungTulsan]

I think the refinery area seperates the main West Tulsa residential area from where Tulsa Landing would be enough so that there wouldn't be any gentrification going on.  Might increase values slightly by having a lively entertainment district in short distance, but it will hardly be connected as one community.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Book of Three

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

But isnt the city going to still have to buy the property first? aka before the property taxes, the money to buy the property, are paid? Then put out a request for proposal.  Where is that money to buy the property, before there is any development, going to come from?

I thought in a tif, the developer got enough financing from the bank to buy the property, do the development and infrastructure, then instead of paying the sales tax or property tax, that sum went to pay off the cost that was "tiffed". Take the River District in Jenks tif for instance. Instead of the city paying 200 mill in infrastructure. The developer is going to do that with the financing he gets. He doesnt pay the tax back to the city, they never gave him the money, he pays that sum to the bank until the agreed amount is paid for. So in the Tulsa Landing case. The developer would get the financing to purchase the property, and would pay the city back? But the city isnt the one buying the property. And he is not going to buy the property until he can be guaranteed that he will be the one to get chosen after the request for proposal process that has to be done on the city part of the property he needs to do the development.

I still dont get it lol.

If a TIF is used to finance the purchase, Bonds are sold to raise money to fund the land acquisition.  The bonds are issue by some city instrumentality (the developer isn't on the hook to repay the bonds) and the idea is that the increased sales tax or property tax or both, depending on what kind of TIF it is, repays the Bonds.  The Bonds can only be successfully marketed and sold if the market believes that the increase in sales taxes, property taxes, or both can repay them.

Aaah, thanks for the info.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Double A

I like this plan. It would be a good use of a TIF. The only property that will be affected is the property located in the TIF district. THIS WOULD NOT INCREASE PROPERTY TAXES FOR WEST TULSANS OUTSIDE THE TIF DISTRICT.

The way they said it, that's not a TIF, AA.  If that statement went forward as a resolution, it would indicate to me that they want a west side assessment to pay for something that would benefit all of Tulsa.  Tax the poor is NOT a good idea, you know that.  You better get with your golden dude and tell him if he wants a TIF, then he'd better call it a TIF.

[Bledsoe]

From an email I sent my city councilor, Cason Carter yesterday.

______________________


Cason:  I hope you support councilor Turner's pro-river resolution.

Your statements in this mornings Tulsa World imply that because "the community" rejected the recent tax proposal they have rejected river development and funding.   Nothing can be further from the truth!!!!!!

A majority of the citizens of Tulsa voted for the tax, reversing a trend for such elections during the Savage administration.  It was the voters outside Tulsa that defeated this proposal.  Please look at how the people voted in District 9--I believe it was an overwhelming YES vote.

Even those in Dist. 9 that voted NO were for the most part not against river development or funding.  Most often they voted no because they questioned the process, the county's leadership and usurpation of the tax structure and/or the use of a regressive sales tax rather than a bond election or a TIF district.

I worked for the YES vote but agreed with many of the concerns of its critics.  We can now do better.  Its failure gives us a new opportunity to work together to get obvious river development like the concrete plant, something that has been proposed and promised since the 1980s.

For me the use of a TIF district is a no-brainer.  This captures for the City of Tulsa property tax revenue that we have no other means to access.  It is in effect a voter approved tax restructuring that gives cities like Tulsa the opportunity to tap much need (and relatively progressive) revenue.  There is no real loss to the county and schools as this development and increased revenue would never happen, but for the TIF.  It is WIN/WIN for all concerned.

_________________________

And for those who wonder how a TIFF plan would purchase the property--there are numerous options, the most obvious one would allow the developer to finance the purchase of the land with committed future tax revenue from the TIFF district.  Revenue bonds could also be sold financed from the anticipated increased tax revenue that can now be committed by the TIFF.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Bledsoe

From an email I sent my city councilor, Cason Carter yesterday.

______________________


Cason:  I hope you support councilor Turner's pro-river resolution.

Your statements in this mornings Tulsa World imply that because "the community" rejected the recent tax proposal they have rejected river development and funding.   Nothing can be further from the truth!!!!!!

A majority of the citizens of Tulsa voted for the tax, reversing a trend for such elections during the Savage administration.  It was the voters outside Tulsa that defeated this proposal.  Please look at how the people voted in District 9--I believe it was an overwhelming YES vote.

Even those in Dist. 9 that voted NO were for the most part not against river development or funding.  Most often they voted no because they questioned the process, the county's leadership and usurpation of the tax structure and/or the use of a regressive sales tax rather than a bond election or a TIF district.

I worked for the YES vote but agreed with many of the concerns of its critics.  We can now do better.  Its failure gives us a new opportunity to work together to get obvious river development like the concrete plant, something that has been proposed and promised since the 1980s.

For me the use of a TIF district is a no-brainer.  This captures for the City of Tulsa property tax revenue that we have no other means to access.  It is in effect a voter approved tax restructuring that gives cities like Tulsa the opportunity to tap much need (and relatively progressive) revenue.  There is no real loss to the county and schools as this development and increased revenue would never happen, but for the TIF.  It is WIN/WIN for all concerned.

_________________________

And for those who wonder how a TIFF plan would purchase the property--there are numerous options, the most obvious one would allow the developer to finance the purchase of the land with committed future tax revenue from the TIFF district.  Revenue bonds could also be sold financed from the anticipated increased tax revenue that can now be committed by the TIFF.

I'll only say this. When I first came to this forum just after v2025 passed, I made the argument that there was no consensus among Tulsans of just what river "development" was. That still holds true. You, and many others appear to see river development as the exploitation (not in a bad way) of land surrounding the river. That to me is only one element of development and one that will come naturally and be privately accomplished, once the infrastructure of the river is "developed".

What Tulsa County did or did not vote down and why, will be argued for a long time, but one truth, is that until we define and agree upon what development consists of and in what order we intend to accomplish it, we won't have a successful comprehensive effort. INCOG planning attempts to do that. Sporadic development of land like the concrete plant doesn't.

I think we should beware of following the Riverwalk example of cart before the horse planning. It works in Jenks because of its nature as a fast growing, well funded suburb. If it would work here, the concrete plant wouldn't be a concrete plant.

Even in OKC they built the canal first didn't they? They also had long term plans on the books for a "string of pearls" along the Canadian. After the resulting success of Bricktown proper, they started on the infra-structure of the Canadian.

[Bledsoe]

Waterboy--I generally agree with your comments and most of your past comments on this subject.  I guess I would make an exception for the concrete plant.  As far as I know, its redevelopment into a commercial/mixed use location or an extension of River Parks has been in every plan (big or little) for the river for more than 20 years.  

I remember when Mayor Inhoff built Zink Lake he told us that buying the plant was just around the corner.  At that time they were talking about an even trade for land at another location so that a concrete plant could continue to operate.

Now we have foreign ownership and a 35 million $ price tag, but also an interested developer(s).  

Securing this land for Tulsa should be a priority.  I think it is also central to the present INCOG plan.  It is a limited goal that most Vote No folks can agree on--(Bates, Hewgley, KFAQ, Eagleton, Turner, Henderson, North Tulsa).

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Bledsoe

Waterboy--I generally agree with your comments and most of your past comments on this subject.  I guess I would make an exception for the concrete plant.  As far as I know, its redevelopment into a commercial/mixed use location or an extension of River Parks has been in every plan (big or little) for the river for more than 20 years.  

I remember when Mayor Inhoff built Zink Lake he told us that buying the plant was just around the corner.  At that time they were talking about an even trade for land at another location so that a concrete plant could continue to operate.

Now we have foreign ownership and a 35 million $ price tag, but also an interested developer(s).  

Securing this land for Tulsa should be a priority.  I think it is also central to the present INCOG plan.  It is a limited goal that most Vote No folks can agree on--(Bates, Hewgley, KFAQ, Eagleton, Turner, Henderson, North Tulsa).

Really, no one wants a concrete plant in the middle of River Parks. Or a low income housing project either. I do worry that this parcel of development will be some sort of litmus test for future development. Do you remember why the swap never took place, or any more development after that time? It was the combination of the river flooding and the economy tanking that made everyone second guess the wisdom of further river development. It simply lost momentum.

Meanwhile, the basic infrastructure improvement efforts like channelization, bank hardening, debris removal, utilities improvement, storm sewer filtering, abandoned pipeline removal, lowater dam improvements...all slowed or ceased. These are the things that ensure nearby river bank developments will proceed with confidence. Collapsing bluffs and exposed bridge debris around Riverwalk are a good example of developing the land without developing the river infrastructure.

I know there are fewer options available, but I would hate to see a single development effort run into difficulties and end up blunting development for another 25years.