Comments on: A Question of Priorities

By: Larry OKC

Larry OKC — Sat, 03 Mar 2012 01:51:31 +0000

JeffreyC: what you described is the way that it is normally handled (that the TIF money is put back into the TIF district). In this case the Devon TIF consists solely of their property. To Devon’s credit, they insisted that the money be spent downtown-wide. While laudable, there is some question if it is even legal to do so. The rational being that money raised from one area doesn’t get spent on another area. The idea that local stays local, sort of like a when a national charity raises money, the money raised in Oklahoma, stays in Oklahoma rather than going to New York.

I agree with you completely about it being a case of the City (once again) knowingly overpromising and then not delivering. Three of our mayors (Norick, Humphreys & Cornett) self-described it as a “disaster” when that happens.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:31:59 +0000

Jeff, on what planet is it acceptable to use TIF, which is just redirected property taxes, to actually go toward construction of the project itself. Please give an example. What you are describing sounds like tax evasion.

By: JeffreyC

JeffreyC — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 22:07:45 +0000

-And Boone Pickens has had no say in the decisions made by the athletic department at Oklahoma State.

By: slackmeyer

slackmeyer — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:38:03 +0000

Jeffrey, I’ve seen and heard nothing that these priorities have been dictated by Devon. I’ve only seen city staff calling these shots… and without much explanation…

By: JeffreyC

JeffreyC — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:35:45 +0000

Larry- if an out of state companry came in building the same thing that Devon has, more than likely they would have requested the TIF money go back into the construction of the building and the immediate area around the building and the city would have done that. My understanding is that arrangement is quite common in situations like these. What made this an incredible act by Devon is that Devon requested that none of that money go back into the building and that the entire amount be used for streetscape, etc, including the park evidently. So I am quite confident in saying it would have been a LONG time before any street work could have been done on the scale that is being done now, if ever. Please correct me if my understanding of the TIF is wrong.

Mike, I believe you’re suggesting that Hudson is now more unsafe than it was before P180. I’m sorry I’m just going to have to disagree with you. It may be equally unsafe, but not more. I’m glad the city is paying back the interest, would your rather prefer not to have the priciple?

Hudson should be completed, but for it to be completed something else will not be completed. Devon evidently wants the park to be completed so it won’t be that.

It’s another case of a city overpromising what can be done and then running in to cost overrides, unforseen problems, and revenue shortfall. It happens in every city in the nation, why is this so surprising. I’m glad you called Devon for comment but if they choose not to comment, I think you’ll have your answer. It looks like the city is following Devon’s wishes for timeline of projects and you’re going to have a hard time convincing anyone that the city is simply defying Devon on completing the park. At some point Steve, you’ll have to point the finger at Devon.

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:55:26 +0000

Larry – the city manager is appointed by the mayor and council, and as the saying goes, he can be removed “any given Tuesday” by a vote. So I don’t understand why they’re providing Jim Couch with so much cover, and not insisting upon answers to their questions.

Unless he’s actually giving THEM cover by taking the heat while a pre-arranged plan is being carried out that is contrary to the public plans.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:41:33 +0000

JeffreyC I am saying that Hudson is very dangerous now after the changes made to too Hudson but not completed by Project 180. To leave Hudson in this situation is unbelievable and I mean it when I say Devon and the city manager, public works and city council would be responsible for any harm done to OKC citizens. I would think that Devon would riwrite a check to finish Hudson if they wanted their Larry Nichols park so badly.
Don’t forget Jeffrey we are paying Devon back every penny with interest of the Project 180 money.

By: Larry OKC

Larry OKC — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:14:47 +0000

IMO, this is just another example of the need of a clean sweep of City Hall, starting with the City Manager. According to the city’s website, it is Council that sets policy and the City Manger’s job to implement that policy. NOT the other way around.

By: Larry OKC

Larry OKC — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:11:16 +0000

The Devon TIF was carved out of an already existing TIF district, so the money was funneled from that one to this one that was to fund Project 180. A TIF by itself is already funneled money from the usual recipients (schools etc). Presumably, by diverting the money from one area, money has to be found from another pile of money someplace to replace the diverted funds. Same for Project 180. It could have been funded thru various methods. Usually for something like this we would use a bond issue or even a MAPS style temporary tax. To say it wouldn’t be done at all without the Devon TIF, I think would be a stretch. It amy or may not get done and may take longer than what Devon wanted. Ends up that is the case now anyway since the plan didn’t generate the funds anticipated and the City ran into unforeseen expenses (which is typical).

By: slackmeyer

slackmeyer — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:02:36 +0000

Jeffrey, I have placed a call with Devon to see if they had a preference in timing between the park and the street projects. Hopefully I’ll hear something soon. I make no apologies for asking that city staff answer this question.