Correct. Wine and beer up to 8% ABV I believe. That's pretty similar to most states. Few states have as liberal liquor laws as Missouri.

Hopefully OKC can get a Total Wine and Cost Plus World Market as well with the new laws going into effect.
World Market ought to come to OKC soon too considering they have a store in Tulsa now. As far as Costco goes, Great get for OKC.

World Market ought to come to OKC soon too considering they have a store in Tulsa now. As far as Costco goes, Great get for OKC.

Cost Plus has been looking in OKC for quite a while. Not sure why they have yet to pull the trigger.

Hope they plan on improving the intersections in this area.

Yah, would like to see the Costco and Whole Market here. I would shop both. I used to have a Costco card when I made more trips to KC or Dallas each year.

Hopefully Oklahoma will modernize their laws so that Costco can have an optical department.

That's already on the table, and surprise surprise, eye doctors are against it.

So far, they're losing the fight though.

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-supreme-court-allows-ballot-question-effort-to-move-ahead/article/5582387

I don't know enough about this to know if changing the optometry laws is a good thing or bad. I guess if they have the same level of training and equipment and certifications then it's a net balance. I know I get a lot more checked out than my vision when I do my annual eye exams.

I don't know enough about this to know if changing the optometry laws is a good thing or bad. I guess if they have the same level of training and equipment and certifications then it's a net balance. I know I get a lot more checked out than my vision when I do my annual eye exams.

Where legal, they have an on-site OD and offer appointments at a very reasonable rate.

But more importantly, they also stock tons of eyeglasses which can be purchased at pretty low prices, especially given that market is a bit of a cartel.

Do they allow you to pay a fee to enter if you don't have a membership? I wouldn't mind check it out, but I can tell you right now I'll never be able to justify a membership. But might be nice to shop at a couple times a year.

I think they have the same if not better training and equipment. Speaking only from my personal experience with the Costco on Research Blvd in Austin, the eye doctor was not an employee of Costco. The entrance to her office was right next to the Costco entrance, but was its own separate entrance, and her own separate business. You could then go out her door, step a few feet to the right, and go into Costco if you wanted. Or you could go elsewhere. No problem. Going into Costco granted you a HUGE selection of frames at affordable prices (the real reason there's a huge lobby against it in this state, but I digress). But again, you did not have to buy there. It was the exact same situation we have here, I can go to any eye doctor I want here in Oklahoma, and I can get my exam and then walk out and get frames elsewhere. The only difference was in Texas, Costco was allowed to offer frames, so the selection was larger and the prices smaller. My experience with places like Eyemart Express is you don't 'really' get your prescription there, you get tested to see what the closest match their stock will work for you. That's why you get glasses 'in about an hour', because they don't really tailor anything for YOU, they just fit the lenses they have into the frames you choose. I'm kinda particular about my eyesight, and to steal from that insurance commercial "almost what I need" isn't "what I need". The one time I went there for glasses I couldn't get rid of them fast enough.

Bottom line (again, at the risk of digressing) it's about choice, and if one feels one does not get the same service from the eye doctor at Costco (or Sam's, or Walmart, or whatever) nobody is forcing one to go there.

Do they allow you to pay a fee to enter if you don't have a membership? I wouldn't mind check it out, but I can tell you right now I'll never be able to justify a membership. But might be nice to shop at a couple times a year.

Again, I can only answer based on my own experience, but you are free to go in and browse, and in fact you can use Costco's pharmacy without a membership. I have no idea whatsoever if this is a Federal law or was/is a State law in Texas, but I've personally done it.

I THINK, and want to stress so strongly that I could very well be wrong, that you might be able to make purchases without a membership, but pay an upcharge. I do know for certain you can go in with a friend that does have a membership and pay member prices.

Where legal, they have an on-site OD and offer appointments at a very reasonable rate.

But more importantly, they also stock tons of eyeglasses which can be purchased at pretty low prices, especially given that market is a bit of a cartel.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/anaswanson/2014/09/10/meet-the-four-eyed-eight-tentacled-monopoly-that-is-making-your-glasses-so-expensive/#5147358a6b66

Do they allow you to pay a fee to enter if you don't have a membership? I wouldn't mind check it out, but I can tell you right now I'll never be able to justify a membership. But might be nice to shop at a couple times a year.

I think if a member gets you a preloaded Costco cash card you can shop there.

Again, I can only answer based on my own experience, but you are free to go in and browse, and in fact you can use Costco's pharmacy without a membership. I have no idea whatsoever if this is a Federal law or was/is a State law in Texas, but I've personally done it.

I THINK, and want to stress so strongly that I could very well be wrong, that you might be able to make purchases without a membership, but pay an upcharge. I do know for certain you can go in with a friend that does have a membership and pay member prices.


I think if a member gets you a preloaded Costco cash card you can shop there.

If this is true, these 2 coupled together could get me what I want I think.

Thanks, I'll definitely look into it when it opens.

In Denver, they check for your COSTCO card when you enter the store. I think a cash card or membership is required.

In Denver, they check for your COSTCO card when you enter the store. I think a cash card or membership is required.

https://www.moneytalksnews.com/7-ways-you-can-shop-costco-without-membership/

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-shop-at-costco-without-a-membership-2017-3

https://www.rather-be-shopping.com/blog/2015/06/29/things-you-can-do-at-costco-without-a-membership/

And my favorite: https://20somethingfinance.com/shop-costco-without-membership/

Which says you're welcome to enter, just tell them you want to look around. They might send you to the membership desk (inside the store, of course) and then they are the ones who will tell you you're welcome to look around. And worst case scenario, it also points out Costco's membership guarantee, which is if you decide it isn't for you after all, here's your refund.

Getting in is absolutely not a problem, and there are multiple ways to shop without a membership.

Interesting to note, the Sam's on SW 5th has told me (a few times, since it took awhile to break the habit) that you are no longer required to flash your card upon entrance.

Interesting to note, the Sam's on SW 5th has told me (a few times, since it took awhile to break the habit) that you are no longer required to flash your card upon entrance.

Right, I think this is now true for all Sam's.

Not sure why they changed but it's yet another way they have streamlined their system, the totality of which I strongly prefer over Costco which doesn't even have self check-out, let alone anything remotely similar to Scan & Go.

Interesting. The people at the one in South Denver will ask you. I can imagine they would let you in if you were interested in seeing if a membership was worthwhile to you but would, as you said, give some sort of guest card.

Right, I think this is now true for all Sam's.

Not sure why they changed but it's yet another way they have streamlined their system, the totality of which I strongly prefer over Costco which doesn't even have self check-out, let alone anything remotely similar to Scan & Go.

I'm really with you on how good scan and go is at Sam's. But I'll probably give it up to sever my last ties to WalMart.

Funny how cities complain about the decline in city sales revenue and respond to the problem by enticing big box stores to come to town by giving them multi-million dollar sales tax rebates. I wonder if anybody will boycott Costco because of such a deal? At least Costco pays its workers well.

No offense but I doubt there are too many people who care.

California of course allowed Costco to sell liquor and their Kirkland brand vodka, tequila and other spirits were excellent and about half the price you'd pay at a liquor store for something similar.

I used them for all by bigger parties.

Maybe Costco, to further modernize Oklahoma alcohol laws, will want to finance a petition for a vote on that, especially if the legislature won't move on it.

Exactly as we previously reported, agenda for Tuesday’s meeting of the OKC Economic Development Trust includes a resolution recommending $3 million in incentives for a proposed Costco. City Council would have final approval the following week.

It appears lower performing and newer stores generate around $100mm in sales. At that rate, the tax break would last less than a year - unless I am missing something.

Exactly as we previously reported, agenda for Tuesday’s meeting of the OKC Economic Development Trust includes a resolution recommending $3 million in incentives for a proposed Costco. City Council would have final approval the following week.

Why does a multi billion dollar retail corporation need $3 million in incentives, especially if, as mug notes, the store will generate $100 million in sales? Costco will build here anyway because there is money to be made and I can think of a hundred other things that $3 million could be used for to improve this city.

Here is the wording from the incentive document:

Project Background
Costco plans to invest approximately $15,000,000 or more for the
construction and equipping of approximately 150,000 sf of commercial
space. The new facility is anticipated to have approximately 150 part and
full-time employees and is expected to open by April 2019.

City Financial Structure
Oklahoma is the only state where a city cannot utilize property taxes to
fund day-to-day operations. As a result, Oklahoma City is heavily reliant
on sales tax to support operations. In an effort to expand the City's sales
tax base, the City Council adopted a retail policy in 2009 to promote
retail projects that are new to market, have a regional market draw or
support underserved areas. Oklahoma City is considered a driver of retail
in the state with a variety of shopping opportunities and its central
location in the state.

Economic Impact
Based on industry research, City staff projects Costco will generate an
estimated $80 million in annual sales in year 1 and grow to more than
$140 million by year 6. It is anticipated that approximately 41% of the
sales will be new to the City's sales tax base. For the initial six years, it is
projected that Costco will annually generate approximately $600,000 -
$1,100,000 in new City General Fund sales tax, $270,000 - $500,000 in
new Better Streets, Safer City sales tax, $200,000 - $375,000 in new
Public Safety sales tax and $35,000 - $60,000 in Zoo sales tax.

The City's FY 2018 General Fund budget totals $404 million.
Approximately 62% or $250.6 million of the budget is funded by sales
and use tax and approximately 51% of the sales tax is derived from retail
activity. The proposed project would be classified under the General
Merchandise category of retail sales tax. With an existing General
Merchandise sales tax base of 1.4 billion annually, it is expected that the
project would increase the overall General Merchandise category between
7-10% over the next five years.

Recommended Incentive Amount: $3,000,000
It is recommended that a performance based incentive amount not to
exceed $3,000,000 be provided to Costco over a 4-5 year period based on
85% of the net new General Fund sales taxes based on the following:
• The current retail incentive policy promotes the development of
new to market retailers and regional attractions
• Costco is a regional draw with a trade area based on serving
customers up to 90 minutes away or greater.
• Costco will attract over 900,000 annual visitors
• Costco will attract shoppers from outside of the region,
preventing/reducing retail sales leakages to surrounding
communities
• Costco will allow the City to recapture sales tax from over
2,777 OKC based consumers who are currently traveling to Tulsa,
Kansas and Texas.
• City will receive related internet sales from local
residents which will result in new sales taxes.

They knew how much to ask for because the City already paid Cabela's -- which is right across the street -- $3.5 million.

Reminder that Tulsa paid Costco $2 million but Costco argued the Western & Memorial site was expensive to build upon due to drainage issues. So why exactly are taxpayers footing this bill? Why not just pay the landowner less, given the limitations of his property?


They basically came to the city and say, "Either give us this amount or we'll take our sales tax to Edmond". It's exactly what Cabela's did, too.

But of course that argument seems like an empty threat. Does anyone really think that these two big retailers who are likely to only operate one store in the area for some time, would take a much lesser location in Edmond if they didn't get this incentive?

They knew how much to ask for because the City already paid Cabela's -- which is right across the street -- $3.5 million.

Reminder that Tulsa paid Costco $2 million but Costco argued the Western & Memorial site was expensive to build upon due to drainage issues. So why exactly are taxpayers footing this bill? Why not just pay the landowner less, given the limitations of his property?


They basically came to the city and say, "Either give us this amount or we'll take our sales tax to Edmond". It's exactly what Cabela's did, too.

But of course that argument seems like an empty threat. Does anyone really think that these two big retailers who are likely to only operate one store in the area for some time, would take a much lesser location in Edmond if they didn't get this incentive?

Tulsa was in a worse spot negotiating with Costco, as Bixby is literally on the other side of Memorial Dr from the Tulsa location. Paying these fees is outright extortion made possible by the outmoded way Oklahoma allows cities to fund themselves.

If we have to draw the line somewhere, let's draw it after we get a Costco!

If we have to draw the line somewhere, let's draw it after we get a Costco!

A search in Google shows that COSTCO seeks tax incentives just about everywhere it goes - including a town where they were to build a chicken processing plant. Even here in Progressive Denver in a nearby town of Parker, CO, they got $7mm. There are towns that said no, but got no COSTCO. As usual, Swake has tried to paint this as some sort of backwards Oklahoma thing when it is the normal M.O. If you read the proposal you will see the expectation is the store will increase OKCs overall tax collections.. If the store generates sales at the forcasted level - which is conservative for what average national store sales are - the incentive for THEM is a wise decision. Cabella's is another story.

Why does a multi billion dollar retail corporation need $3 million in incentives, especially if, as mug notes, the store will generate $100 million in sales? Costco will build here anyway because there is money to be made and I can think of a hundred other things that $3 million could be used for to improve this city.

People were getting sick and tired of waiting for Costco to come. For all you know, it's become the custom around the country for big chain stores to first get tax breaks before breaking ground. Costco was possibly patient enough to wait years more for a tax break. Restaurant chains, such as Olive Garden, have been known to take sales tax breaks.

I really think what Costco was waiting for was for Oklahoma's liquor laws to be updated to last century standards. You'll never be able to convince me that the target date for opening is shortly after the new rules kick into effect for any other reason.

That said, to address the tax break situation, as I understand it there are thresholds that must be met. Costco isn't getting a $3,000,000 check. Pete's post above has the details.

Please don't confuse this with the buckets of money thrown at oil companies for no reason. This is a "if you make $10 for me, I'll let you keep up to $7.50 of it" type deal. For a limited time, and with a cap.

I really think what Costco was waiting for was for Oklahoma's liquor laws to be updated to last century standards. You'll never be able to convince me that the target date for opening is shortly after the new rules kick into effect for any other reason.

That said, to address the tax break situation, as I understand it there are thresholds that must be met. Costco isn't getting a $3,000,000 check. Pete's post above has the details.

Please don't confuse this with the buckets of money thrown at oil companies for no reason. This is a "if you make $10 for me, I'll let you keep up to $7.50 of it" type deal. For a limited time, and with a cap.

That may be true, but for the record, there has been a Costco in Wichita since 2015 and KS liquor laws are very similar to ours. They just approved beer up to 6 point in grocery stores in April 2017 which will go into effect in 2019 as a reaction to CO and OK virtually eliminating 3.2 beer and concern over the potential future lack of 3.2 beer supply. They still do not allow wine to be sold anywhere outside of a liquor store.

Wichita has more concentrated wealth than OKC does so site selection is easier to justify on a spreadsheet

I really think what Costco was waiting for was for Oklahoma's liquor laws to be updated to last century standards. You'll never be able to convince me that the target date for opening is shortly after the new rules kick into effect for any other reason.

That said, to address the tax break situation, as I understand it there are thresholds that must be met. Costco isn't getting a $3,000,000 check. Pete's post above has the details.

Please don't confuse this with the buckets of money thrown at oil companies for no reason. This is a "if you make $10 for me, I'll let you keep up to $7.50 of it" type deal. For a limited time, and with a cap.

It may have played a small part but only one COSTCO in the state of Colorado iscallowed to sell liquor. The "flagship" liquor store at the Park Meadows Mall COSTCO has a relatively small selection of brands so the sales revenue would have to be relatively small.

hope and expect that OKC's will also be a flagship

I'm still holding out hope for the Norman location!

I'm still holding out hope for the Norman location!

While they aren't actively looking now, I think once they see OKC's numbers surpass their projections (like every other retailer who has come here) I think they will probably put one down in Norman and eventually Yukon.

Costco's fixed-price car buying service is really growing:

http://www.businessinsider.com/costco-car-program-has-a-key-perk-2018-2

The incentives are on the City Council agenda for Tuesday, which would be the final hurdle before Costco closes on the Memorial and Western property and starts construction for an early 2019 opening.

As is the practice with such things that originate with economic development / The Alliance, they have already met and presented this to council in private meetings and basically received their blessing before ever taking it to the Economic Development Trust, which has already approved.

Also, I am not aware of the council ever voting down any economic development incentive.

You'd think that at least a Sam's rep would show up and say "we didn't need incentives, why should they get them".

Probably because they saw ACADEMY waste their breath when Bass Pro was granted their "incentives".

I'm still holding out hope for the Norman location!

Not if it means losing out on sales tax $'s thank you very much. By losing out on sales tax $'s, I'm referring to the money that would be lost from a decrease in what Sam's contributes to the Norman economy and those sales tax dollars going to Costco's profit instead of going into the Norman tax coffers

Per the proposal in Pete's earlier post, the projection is for approximately 41% of sales will be newly generated (as opposed to simply a shift in market share). People shopping at stores in Tulsa and DFW will return and new shoppers will come in from other parts of the state. If there is a short term cost of $3mm in order to get $4.2mm annually going forward for the forseeable future, why in the world would you NOT make this investment? I don't believe every new business should get this but COSTCO is as sure a thing as you will find.
Yes, that $3mm can be used on streets and it will come with or without COSTCO. Doesnt $4.2mm for roads and streets annually in exchange for a one-time $3mm incentive sound far better? This is an investment in the future, just like MAPS

I was refering to a future Norman location. You do make a good point about newly generated money. Should one be proposed for Norman with the condition os sales tax rebates, it should only be based on what a study would indicate new revenue generation and the same % applied to the rebate formula.

^

The flaw in the 'the incentives come from new sales' argument is that the assumption we are dealing with an either/or proposition, which is always how it is presented by the people working in economic development.

How about getting the new sales without having to pay a company millions? Does anybody really think that given the overall investment and massive amount of revenue Costco generates that they would forgo all that if they didn't get this reimbursement? Sam's -- which is a close to a parallel and control in an experiment -- is a mile away and didn't need anything from the city.

The problem becomes that the more you do this, the more these companies have leverage. Costco knows that OKC paid $3.5 million to Cabela's right across the street.

We also set aside huge amounts for this sort of thing, so when someone comes with their hands out, it's already waiting for them.


It seems all that money should stay in the general budget where we are cutting school days and mental health services and only be carved out when it is determined that this sort of thing is a better use of that money.

That is not going to happen until people better understand the amounts involved and how this all works, and I'm working on breaking all that down.

^

The flaw in the 'the incentives come from new sales' argument is that the assumption we are dealing with an either/or proposition, which is always how it is presented by the people working in economic development.

How about getting the new sales without having to pay a company millions? Does anybody really think that given the overall investment and massive amount of revenue Costco generates that they would forgo all that if they didn't get this reimbursement? Sam's -- which is a close to a parallel and control in an experiment -- is a mile away and didn't need anything from the city.

The problem becomes that the more you do this, the more these companies have leverage. Costco knows that OKC paid $3.5 million to Cabela's right across the street.

We also set aside huge amounts for this sort of thing, so when someone comes with their hands out, it's already waiting for them.


It seems all that money should stay in the general budget where we are cutting school days and mental health services and only be carved out when it is determined that this sort of thing is a better use of that money.

That is not going to happen until people better understand the amounts involved and how this all works, and I'm working on breaking all that down.

Respectfully, to your question about whether or not COSTCO would forgo building here if OKC failed to provide incentives -- We'll never know but specifically about COSTCO, there are articles you can look up that shows they did, in fact, not build in more than one community where incentives were not offered. They have legitimate concerns that Wal Mart owns this city and are not begging to come here.
With regard to sales projections, even if the true figure isn't 41% but 20%, it's still a wothwhile investment because once they have their incentive paid, the tax revenue continues.
With regard to precedent and everyone having their hand out, I really don't see it that way. If XYZ Fabrics wants to come into the market, let them do it on their own. There are 10 other fabric sellers here. Same for In and Out Burgers or most other retailers. Sam's and Target are the only other real competitors and Sam's is disliked by a lot of us for quality - not political reasons. COSTCO quality is significantly higher plus their online services are outstanding. Government should pick and choose. Some are nearly obsessed with Cabellas. Personally, I don't care for them one way or another but there are probably very few retailers who would be worthy of incentives. COSTCO is one - again, trading some school/road money today for likely a lot more in the future is a worthwhile investment.

Respectfully, to your question about whether or not COSTCO would forgo building here if OKC failed to provide incentives -- We'll never know but specifically about COSTCO, there are articles you can look up that shows they did, in fact, not build in more than one community where incentives were not offered. They have legitimate concerns that Wal Mart owns this city and are not begging to come here.

I can also point you to hundreds of locations Costco has done without any economic incentives whatsoever.

It's very simple: There are companies like Costco who seek economic incentives where they know they have leverage. That takes all of 15 minutes to determine... A quick visit to the city and state economic websites tell you right away if they have these types of programs.

Then, they just do a bit of quick research, see that Cabela's got $3.5 million right across the street and so did Von Maur and others and they also know they were able to work Tulsa for $2 million for that site.

Look at Amazon vs. Federal Express, two national companies who have recently expanded greatly in OKC. Amazon seeks incentives, asks for them and thus we paid them. Fed Ex is now building their second big facility in a year and they never even contacted economic development (I asked Cathy O'Connor specifically). If they had, I'm sure they would have been paid as well but for whatever reason, they didn't nor do the huge majority of companies that move here or greatly expand.


I'll state it again: If you set aside money from your budget for this purpose and hire people specifically to distribute these funds, it is money that largely goes looking for a problem to solve.

The entire premise of economic incentives is the "but for" argument: This will not happen but for the incentives, so all the new revenue generated is somehow magical found money.

It's important to keep in mind that is completely un-provable and IMO a horrible argument for allocating BILLIONS in corporate welfare when the state is in emergency.

Not to get into a whole trickle-down economic discussion but that has largely been proven to be a failure and that philosophy and practices such as this that result can pretty much be traced directly back for our current state government crisis. We don't need to raise taxes one bit; all we would have to do is cut back on some of these incentives and the budget gap would close overnight. But the truth is, these are all separate programs and nobody has the totals... I know because I've been researching this for some time and I'm determined to quantify all this. The fact that nobody really even bothers to total it up tells you 1) That's incredibly dangerous budgetary management; and 2) They would rather not have the public know.


If this worked like business and you went to your boss and said, "Hey if you give me a big pool of money to give to potential clients, I can bring in a lot more." What do you think they would say? I can tell you it would go exactly like this: "We have thousands of clients already who didn't need to get paid. We have one exactly like this in the exact same business who didn't need it. Do your job and stop asking the company to pay for what you should be able to do on your own while we can spend that money on much more important things. And by the way, once you let that genie out of the bottle a lot more clients are going to come to us with their hands out."

Let's not forget that Costcos will decrease some of the sales tax revenue received from other stores that carry similar products. Although, Costco have a unique product line, there are some items that Costcos carry that make it convenient (discounts on trash bag-sized pouches of chicken nuggets and bulk packs of toothpaste) for you to buy from them while you're in their shopping domain.

It's nice to attract a Coscos; however will we have the same concerns we had when the City helped subsidize the construction of Bass Pro over the objections of Academy who wanted similar concessions.

With the closings of many of the Sam's Club (Walmart family); another membership store is ready to move in.

As one who is through paying for memberships for the paltry savings you receive, hope there will never be a need for me to patronize Costco. There are ways around these membership clubs.

As far as I know, none of the Sam's Clubs set to close are in Oklahoma, so failing to see the relevance there. You seem to have a hatred for Costco. Rational or irrational, doesn't really matter. Still being built any way, and nobody is going to force you to shop there. Other people have posted in this very forum that they "do not get" Aldi, or "do not get" Trader Joe's. Yet they seem to be doing smashingly well, one of them expanding/remodeling existing stores while still building more. The back and forth over In-N-Out being good/not that good has become an official OKCTalk trope. Regardless, there will be lines wrapped around the block if one ever opens. Vive la différence, variety is the spice of life, etc etc.

If this worked like business and you went to your boss and said, "Hey if you give me a big pool of money to give to potential clients, I can bring in a lot more." What do you think they would say? I can tell you it would go exactly like this: "We have thousands of clients already who didn't need to get paid. We have one exactly like this in the exact same business who didn't need it. Do your job and stop asking the company to pay for what you should be able to do on your own while we can spend that money on much more important things. And by the way, once you let that genie out of the bottle a lot more clients are going to come to us with their hands out."

Pete, I've worked for my entire working life with an expense account under which I had that very thing! Most anyone in sales does and they can be quite significant. In gevernment, you are correct, they generally don't go out proactively and seek businesses just to offer incentives. However, in business, you always keep in touch with your clients, take them to dinner, take them golfing, take them to plays, ballgames, snow ski days symphonies, send birthday cards, bottles of wine, all sorts of things. It shows your appreciation for their business and solidifies the relationship. To this day, some of my best friends started out as clients.
My understanding is COSTCO wasn't seeking to come here but, like Whole Foods, was recruited.
As far as clients with their hands out? Absolutely! We had clients all the time who jumped from company to company looking for free commissions or cash payouts. If the situation was worthwhile and the client was looking for longer-term financial planning or asset management, we considered an incentive. Jumpers were not considered but I doubt COSTCO will make the kind of capital investment they will make just to leave when the incentive runs out.
All of this is normal practice in any sales organization.

Even if revenues from Costco are offset by losses from Sam's, there are the secondary benefits of higher minimum wages, and the quality of life effect which is harder to quantity, but high end talent might be more likely to locate where there are Costco's and Trader Joe's, etc.

Pete, I've worked for my entire working life with an expense account under which I had that very thing! Most anyone in sales does and they can be quite significant. In gevernment, you are correct, they generally don't go out proactively and seek businesses just to offer incentives. However, in business, you always keep in touch with your clients, take them to dinner, take them golfing, take them to plays, ballgames, snow ski days symphonies, send birthday cards, bottles of wine, all sorts of things. It shows your appreciation for their business and solidifies the relationship. To this day, some of my best friends started out as clients.
My understanding is COSTCO wasn't seeking to come here but, like Whole Foods, was recruited.
As far as clients with their hands out? Absolutely! We had clients all the time who jumped from company to company looking for free commissions or cash payouts. If the situation was worthwhile and the client was looking for longer-term financial planning or asset management, we considered an incentive. Jumpers were not considered but I doubt COSTCO will make the kind of capital investment they will make just to leave when the incentive runs out.
All of this is normal practice in any sales organization.

Wining and dining potential clients -- which the city also does -- is not in the same universe as giving them millions.

Wining and dining potential clients -- which the city also does -- is not in the same universe as giving them millions.

Economic development money which has more than once been approved by the voters is exactly what this is for. Costco absolutely doesn’t have to build in OKC. They could just as easily pick moore or Norman or edmond to build their store. And OKC then gets 0 of the tax dollars. This is a no brainer all day every day

Economic development money which has more than once been approved by the voters is exactly what this is for. Costco absolutely doesn’t have to build in OKC. They could just as easily pick moore or Norman or edmond to build their store. And OKC then gets 0 of the tax dollars. This is a no brainer all day every day

TIF -- one of the biggest elements of the economic development arsenal -- has never, ever gone before voters.

And again, you nor anyone else can prove the 'but for' argument while I can give hundred of examples of things like this going forward without any incentives whatsoever.

What does tif have to do with the Costco project?

You said 'economic development money', not Costco money and I was clarifying.

Also, I'm not sure what you said is true with the various economic development programs offered by the state and various municipalities.

The honest truth is that nobody seems to have a handle on the totality of this and that is something I am working on... Then at least everyone involved can make more educated decisions, including voters.

What does tif have to do with the Costco project?

Are they not asking for and getting a sales tax TIF?

I hate that this big profitable company is getting essentially a subsidy, and I've railed on them here many of times. But them going in OKC is good for OKC residents and it wouldnt be good for OKC residents if they went elsewhere. The fact is they will draw plenty of shoppers from outside of OKC. Will they cannibalize some sales from existing OKC Sams and other big box stores? Yes, but a lot less than you think. I wouldnt be surprised if you saw no drop in sales at the Penn and Memorial Sams when this opens up.

Their own numbers they provided to the city was 41% of "new growth" which means 59% cannibalization, and that's a Costco pitch for why they want a $3 million hand out.

You can almost be guaranteed the cannibalization will be higher.