Monday, May 20, 2024

What could $600,000,000 Million Buy? A LOT!

The proposed University North Park Arena/entertainment district TIFs (#4 and #5) seek $600,000,000 to finance $230,000,000 for an arena/parking structure and district infrastructure.  

For perspective, $600 million is over $4,500 per person in Norman.

What could $230,000,000 buy in terms of Norman Forward Project Budgets?

  • 5 Young Family Athletic Centers 
  • 19 Westwood Aquatic Centers
  • 16 Adult Wellness Centers 

These Norman Forward projects were huge successes in terms of utilization. 

The proposed $600,000,000 in tax spending amounts to almost $5,000,000 per acre of the 121 acres that OU Foundation owns in the proposed TIF district. 


DO OTHER CITIES IN OKLAHOMA HAVE TIFs THAT ARE THIS LARGE? NO

According to the Oklahoma Department of Commerce "Oklahoma Tax Increment Financing Districts" report (2024), $600,000,000 million is larger than any other single TIF increment in the State. 
This is available at Oklahoma Tax Increment Financing Districts 2024 (okcommerce.gov).

We might expect Tulsa or Oklahoma City, which are much larger cities, to have bigger districts than Norman.  This, however, is not the case. 

CAN NORMAN AFFORD TO CARRY THIS AMOUNT OF DEBT GOING FORWARD?

This question has not been addressed so far by the TIF feasibility studies. Due diligence suggests analysis which show projected city (county and school district) tax revenue growth for the baseline (no TIF) scenario as well as less than 100% completion of the proposed projects (say 50%, 75%). 




Wednesday, May 8, 2024

Norman Transcript Article on UNP TIF #2 5/7 meeting


'Canary in the coal mine': committee questions TIF district Feasibility" by Andrea Hancock, Norman Transcript, 5/7/2024.

Here are some excepts from the article.
"The oversight committee discussed recent economic impact studies with Anthony Francisco, the City of Norman’s finance director, and Kathryn Walker, the city attorney.

Four members of the committee were present, one short of quorum, so they could not officially issue any sort of formal recommendations to City Council. Still, they shared concerns with the economic impact studies they reviewed.

The first issue is there is no official project plan for the TIF district yet."

Another issue is the addition of land south of Rock Creek to the latest develop plan.

"Committee member Rob Norman, a business lawyer, characterized this as “the first canary in the coal mine” regarding the project’s feasibility.

He said the area south of Rock Creek is already well along its way, and the taxes brought in from its continued development should go to the city and county, not to finance the arena."

Other issues were raised. 

Parking?
Impact on Lloyd Noble and businesses in rest of town?
How to protect city/county/school budgets from cannibalization?

Read more... 
 'Canary in the coal mine': committee questions TIF district feasibility | News | normantranscript.com

UNP ARENA PLAN: PRICING TO PERFECTION, CANARY IN COAL MINE

 UNP ARENA PLAN: PRICING TO PERFECTION, CANARY IN COAL MINE 

Norman's UNP TIF #2 advisory board met on April 7, 2024 to discuss the proposed arena/entertainment district in the north part of the University North Park area.  Only 4 members were present (Dr. Greg Burge, Attorney Robert Norman, Developer Bill Wilson, and Norman Schools CFO, Brenda O'Brian). Without a quorum, no voting action could be taken.  The committee members asked some great questions.  

Discussion centered around three studies which provided projections for different versions of "THE PLAN" plus commentary provided by me (Dr. Cynthia Rogers, OU Economics Professor).

Hunden Partners - provided economic activity projections based on assumed net new activity for Cleveland County. Does provide some fiscal impact analysis based on full-build out scenario.

Rainer/Lincoln provided projections to the UNP Arena/Entertainment district statutory review committee.  These projections included land south of Rock Creek adjacent to the Young Family Athletic Center in the increment calculations.  

OK Department of Commerce - provided projections of multiplier effects from inputting completed project plan into a regional econometric model (Remi).  Details of model inputs, or model details, were not provided.

SCHODINGER'S PLAN

Committee Chair Dr Burge: Project plan is STILL in the works.  No one has seen the proposed plan yet.  The studies inform a plan that is not completed, which begs the question of how one can assess a plan that doesn't yet exist. How useful are studies of non existent/partial/incomplete plans? 

Dr. Burge: Dept of Commerce and Hunden Partners reports follow similar approach. Base figures on estimates from key stakeholders that have provided market values and additional land controlled by NEDC which has that has given "some level" of commitment.  Best practice (due diligence):

1. Generally get independent analysis - not just info from developers and main beneficiaries of public spending

2. Contemplate more than one scenario and look at projected vs. collected for similar projects, and city's own projections.

Did not see any of that discussion. Only saw "Pricing to perfection" projections.

Francisco mentions projections made by Dr. Lex Holmes (OU Regents Prof, former State Budget Director) in 2005/2006.  [COMMENT - Holmes made projections of retail sales activity - he did not do economic impact analysis or consider impacts on sales activity outside the TIF.  We see that the city budget DID suffer from displacement of retail activity and related tax revenue collections - which drove the city to end the increment diversion.]

Francisco - City's job is to say is this [the full build out] is realistic. Burge - are there going be any discussions of net present value discounting. Reports show profits 5 years, 10 years out and comparing to present value of costs. Francisco - yes - going to do that. 

Dr. Burge - need more serious discussion of cannibalization - impact on Lloyd Noble current and future activity and impacts on city budget.

Francisco - Hunden Report did a better job of that then Dept of Commerce. Dr. Burge - Hunden didn't give discount present value. Even if just take Hunden's best case scenario without discounting, rate of return would be less than 1% a year - can get better return from investing in bank without risk. 

DOUBLE TIF-ING LAND IN ORIGINAL UNP TIF #2/ CANARY IN THE COAL MINE

Committee Member Robert Norman asked how/when properties South of Rock Creek were added to the UNP North TIF. UTC (University Town Center, LLC) owns land in south. UNP LLC and UTC are both  subsidiaries of OU Foundation. PUD zoning for south allows commercial and other uses. North has limits on commercial, residential and convenance preventing retail in the north, part of negotiations.

Robert Norman - thought idea when settled to end UNP TIF #2 increment diversion was to stop devoting TIF money to increment district.  Young Famity Athletic Center (YFAC), opening area south of Rock Creek, was part of negotiation. YFAX used Norman Forward (special purpose sales tax revenue and UNP TIF #2 funds to purchase UNP Land and create a publicly owned and operated facility). 

The south part was going to be fully returned to the city. Now to say we want to TIF this south bit, seems like double dipping with south TIF. Developing around YFAC is going great guns, in position to do deals.  Area does not qualify or need TIF financing. That little area south of Rock Creek - does not qualify in intent or spirit of the local development act.

Why included? Right by YFAC. Great benefit to city, county, and schools to realize tax money from YFAC related activity. Taking away promise to end the UNP TIF #2 diversion. Canary in coal mine - is the deal feasible without capturing 100% of sales tax and ad valorem in that little spot. It makes a difference if we a draw line at Rock Creek and bring forth new TIF.

Burge: is there precedent to double TIF land? No answer.

Norman: Not supposed to TIF land that is primed for development already. Raises red flags that this is suddenly being included. 

Norman - what is UNP LLC going to do with land north of Rock Creek in tif - sell it? be landlord?  UNP LLC (wholly owned subsidiary of OU Foundation) - their rational thinking is they have open land and in $2 million fund raising campaign. How to accomplish goal to fund OU?  Land development is the driver of the choice to locate arena in the UNP North area.

City Attorney Walker - not privy to that info. City finance director, Anthony Francisco, thinks OU Foundation would form another LLC to develop/own/operate.

WEATHER MUSEUM STATUS IS UNCERTAIN 

What about the proposed Weather Museum? Sean Reiger (representing OU Foundation) had spot for it, but said it was not part of TIF increment. Francisco - in district but not approved project to receive TIF funds. Francisco - not certain if it would help financing.

LESS PARKING THAN AVAILABLE AT LLOYD NOBLE CENTER (LNC)

Parking - 1,200 parking spots proposed, and Lloyd Noble has 4,600 which fill for big events. Committee Member Bill Wilson: Where will people park? Francisco - part of PUD discussion. YFAC is discussing shared parking and circulator transport. Robert Norman - in 2018 mentioned lack of parking around OU stadium, park in streets, etc. Answer - go away from LNC model with enormous parking lot surrounding facility. Begs question of where you put them. Wilson - no neighborhood to absorb street parking.

PLAN DOES NOT PROTECT CITY/COUNTY/SCHOOL BUDGETS FROM CANNIBALIZATION 

Dr. Burge - looks like Dept of Commerce jobs analysis was jobs being pulled out of Lloyd Noble. Jobs in new arena were old jobs in Lloyd Noble. There would be nearly 1 for 1 cannibalization of arena/event staff. Walker - jobs for office development (but this would also cannibalize office jobs outside of TIF).

Robert Norman - would there be cannibalization adjustments to TIF increment [transfer adjustments]? Under TIF #2 if retail moved from within Norman to TIF then this was taken out of increment [ in fact, this happened to only a very limited extent]. Settlement to UNP TIF #2 - tried to protect schools.

Francisco - thinks b/c TIF #4 is not retail based, there is not much need for anti-cannibalization restrictions.  City new that UNP TIF #2 included Target moving from Main Street. No big Target store for relocation. Winston is not driver to general fund.

Robert Norman - area around YFAC would be taken out of city/county/school funds.  This is a problem. South of Rock Creek IS retail. Don't have analysis of how much sales tax is being forgone by including that in the TIF #4 increment. Area around YFAC will go great guns with all the YFAC activity.

Can mitigate some of the hit on city/school budgets with cannibalization requirements.

NEXT STEPS - STATURORY REVIEW COMMITTEE EVALUATION & PLANNING COMMISSION

Planning Commission application has been postponed yet again - to June.
SRC is scheduled to meet May 13, 16, and 23.

How can SRC evaluate a plan that has not been created or presented to Planning Commission? 


Friday, April 19, 2024

Why can't OU Foundation invest in an arena?



Andy Rieger provides some interesting history about OU basketball facilities.

"Here’s a friendly suggestion: Keep building competitive athletic programs that use the arena. That will engage fans, and then build something to accommodate the crowds. Nothing would be more embarrassing to OU than to have the SEC visitors travel here to a new arena and realize they outnumber the Sooner fans. " https://www.normantranscript.com/opinion/local-column-keep-building-championship-programs-then-talk-about-a-new-arena/article_b5fc8352-f9bf-11ee-b559-83889d4ac6a8.html?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1kFr9oZikalt28v3ebK8RnFbbVBFxEJS505Lw6gv3mhutCJRzX-uN1Mi0_aem_AZcWAkOg6Zu8acZL3W_uNqP-aQzqDruaJMUsobOZJulNsJSLQOBmUhFaB5H5AYDP_MYamIu9h5jwx64eqn-GbFw5

I would add another friendly suggestion to OU Foundation- invest in your own arena/concert venue. Sell naming rights and club memberships. Pay a private company to own/operate it (like UT). Secure a long-term lease with OU. Pay for it with revenues from concerts and events.

The city could use TIF for the basic supporting infrastructure needs... estimated to be around $40 million (?). This would not kill the city, county or school budgets.

Financially support the cost of transportation for the students who don't have transportation to the UNP. Maybe run OU shuttles on game/competition days.

City of Norman can't afford to give up sources of sales tax growth

 

The proposed 2024-25 Budget stresses the importance of sales tax revenues for funding city goods and serviceshttps://www.normanok.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-04/fye_25_budget_book_-_prelim_for_web.pdf

The growth in the City's sales tax revenue base is di cussed and illu trated above. Sales tax is not only the major source of revenue for the City's major operational fund, the General Fund, sales taxi the major (or only) source of revenue related to expand d public safety initiative approved by our voters in 2008 and 2014 • major quality oflife improvement ("Norman Forward") approved in 2015; public transportation (approved in 2019) and for earmarked capital programs originally approved in 1976. The City is dependent on sales tax revenue to fund over half of its general purpose (non-utility Jee base,/) operational and capital programs and is becoming more dependent. (page iii)


The city finance director has painted a pretty bleak general fund trend suggesting at the current rate the city will be bankrupted in 7 years.

At the same time some members of council (particularly Mayor Heikkila) seem more than willing to give up sales tax revenues collected in the UNP north area, which is an area that WILL definitely, 100% grow without a tax diversion.

Common sense suggests that if your expenses are growing at 4% annually and your general fund revenues (sales taxes) are growing only at 2%, then you can't afford to give up any sales tax revenues.

Given the city's reliance on sales taxes to fund the general fund, then the only way to balance things is to reduce general fund expenditures. Most of the general fund goes to personnel - police, fire, public utilities. So if we give up sales tax revenues there is no way possible to fund extra lines in these departments.

You can't grow sales tax base by giving away sales taxes for the next 25 years. The math does not work that way.

Case Study of Missouri's move from Big 12 to SEC

The SEC has not had tangible effect on Columbia's tourism economy

https://www.columbiamissourian.com/sports/mizzou_football/the-sec-has-not-had-tangible-effect-on-columbias-tourism-economy/article_4a54386e-49cc-11e9-af93-bbc4672ab49d.html?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR3nTqTx8dOY0F1LKF6FRiDIaCyOPEcT55gY7qEyI_44EoVC9aQoN9eae8E_aem_AZeHGdnGFtRvR_Czh6rFN2uulDua6GZ3s99gzd9sf1fd5Kx7nUILuCPd5lBzWtgBJpqC9VXUnZv1Rem-bHE-9q13

 

GUEST COLUMN: Threat to move OU sports out of Norman is toothless

Cynthia Rogers | OU Economics Professor
Norman Transcript April 17, 2024

In recent interview, OU President Harroz suggested that if the City of Norman does not pay for a new arena in the University North Park district, then OU would consider moving OU sports to other cities. This statement is unfortunate. It does not set the tone for a collaborative partnership between the City and OU and the threat itself is disingenuous.

Certainly, we can understand why OU would want to dip into city, county, and school tax revenues to pay for a publicly owned arena. It is a sensible business strategy to use an arena to attract investors for a restaurant and bar cluster, especially if OU can shift the costs to taxpayers. An arena hosting OU basketball and women’s gymnastics would generate foot traffic for nearby restaurants and bars raising the development value of the land in the area.

The point of locating a new arena in the UNP is to raise the development value of the land owned by OU Foundation. If OU chose to locate basketball and gymnastics competitions in Moore or OKC, it would still need an anchor for its 90 acres of land in the UNP area. Will Moore give OU Foundation 90 acres to develop plus build a new arena for OU to lease? Not likely.

It is unclear why OU choose to threaten to move OU sports from Norman. This strategy was used to convince OKC voters to approve a sales tax to fund a new arena of the NBA Thunder team. The situation in Norman, however, is different. A new arena won’t make Norman a “big league” city. The proposed new arena won’t be the nicest or biggest in the SEC! OU is already a member of the SEC with or without a new arena.

This ultimatum strategy could undermine future collaborative community building opportunities in Norman. Instead of being a generous development partner, OU/OU Foundation looks like a greedy land developer which puts its own financial interests ahead of community wellbeing.

The threat of losing OU sports is not credible. The arena is meant to serve as an anchor for 90 acres of land five miles from campus. If it was just about a new arena, OU could build one right next to Lloyd Noble in its sports complex.

Clearly locating a new arena in the UNP is the best way to leverage OU Foundation’s land holdings.

Norman leaders should bargain from a position of strength. If OU Athletics and OU Foundation could get a better offer, wouldn’t they have made this public? Let OU bring an actual competing offer to the table. Maybe Moore would give them 90 acres and build a new arena? Maybe OKC would give them a sweetheart deal on leasing the new Thunder area?

City council should focus on a plan that addresses Norman’s priorities and not be distracted by empty threats. TIF schemes are powerful tools because they secure public funds for a targeted project plan without requiring a public vote. City council has not asked voters if they want to tie up $220 million in tax revenues for the next 25 years for a new arena and another bar and restaurant strip.

Comprehensive economic and fiscal impact analyses are crucial to inform the decision. The arena TIF plan may “work” to pay off the project costs and debt, but this does not indicate the impact on city, county, or school budgets. Afterall, the UNP land will not sit vacant for 25 years without a new arena, and TIF is not needed to meet market demand for housing.

It is time to weed through the threats, focus on market fundamentals, and do what is best for Norman.

 

GUEST COLUMN: Can you believe the UNP Arena Entertainment District hype?

Cynthia Rogers, Ph.D. | Guest Columnist
Norman Transcript October 6, 2023

There is a lot of excitement about the proposed new arena and entertainment north of the University North Park (UNP) shopping district. Much of the promotion, however, is more hype than substance, including labelling those in opposition as “naysayers.” As an economist who specializes in local economic development and tax policy, I can point to the economics reasons to reject this proposal.

To begin, we need to ask the right question. The question is not CAN we use public funds to promote an arena-anchored entertainment district in the UNP area, but rather is there a compelling reason to do so? Common sense economics, which is backed by peer-reviewed empirical analysis, provides ample justification why spending $200 million in public funds to build an arena is a poor investment for the community.

The net impact of relocating OU basketball and gymnastics competitions from Lloyd Noble to roughly 6 miles away from OU campus is likely to be small. OU athletics would serve as the anchor tenants for the new arena. These sports competitions are already occurring in Norman. These competitions would not be new activity, but simply shift where competition-related spending would take place.....
[read whole article here... https://www.normantranscript.com/opinion/guest-column-can-you-believe-the-unp-arena-entertainment-district-hype/article_f86fce5e-639e-11ee-bd95-37ab819eab87.html]
If we are willing to spend $200 million of taxpayer funds, what is the best opportunity to enhance Norman? The choice is not a new arena or nothing.