Are you trying to be a troll?

Nowhere does it say they are down to three buildings. This TIF request is for the south parcel ONLY. But nice try there inserting your already well repeated complaints on the height.

Because the Milhouse plan puts residential directly adjacent to the park and masses the building at the intersection I think I prefer it. Also, the idea of two almost identical buildings side by side excites me about as much as.... well, let's just say it doesn't excite me at all.

I agree about fronting the park with residential, but I hope they don't use that as the deciding factor. The milhouse proposal looks pretty weak compared to clayco's.

The Milhaus residential tower, though smaller, is a sure thing. The Milhaus proposal does not include an office tower though.

Actually, the Milhaus proposal has 47 more apartments than the Clayco proposal. It also reserves space for future development - which could be another residential tower. Given the choice between office and residential, I'll pick residential every time.

Alpha, sorry buddy, just scroll right past me then if you don't like my posts. I'm not trying to offend, just disappointed and speaking what in my mind seems to be true. They are just barely taller than mid rises and will not have a huge impact on our skyline, although they are cool projects. Just asking for at least one of them to stand out and make an impact, that's not too much to ask for is?

I agree about fronting the park with residential, but I hope they don't use that as the deciding factor. The milhouse proposal looks pretty weak compared to clayco's.

I agree. The thing is, I would be beyond excited about the Milhaus proposal on any other lot, but because it's underwhelming compared to what it is up against I hope it doesn't win. I do hope they decide to build it on another lot.

Pete, do we have any idea what Clayco is asking for incentives for the north (Stage Center) development? Roughly the same amount?

Good question. I'll research it.

Also, I'm working on a list of all the other TIF's and where the money has been spent.

The biggest TIF award I've seen is the $5.3 million for 21c ($51.5 mil investment).

Actually, the Milhaus proposal has 47 more apartments than the Clayco proposal. It also reserves space for future development - which could be another residential tower. Given the choice between office and residential, I'll pick residential every time.

I get what you are saying. I still prefer the Clayco proposal, but will still be excited if Milhaus wins for that reason. It does have the advantage of park-front living.

Alpha, sorry buddy, just scroll right past me then if you don't like my posts. I'm not trying to offend, just disappointed and speaking what in my mind seems to be true. They are just barely taller than mid rises and will not have a huge impact on our skyline, although they are cool projects. Just asking for at least one of them to stand out and make an impact, that's not too much to ask for is?

Anyone that has ever read this thread knows you're disappointed, stop repeating it over and over again. You are turning into a troll.

Clayco all the way for me. Milhaus can maybe find another area to build their project.

Clayco. I love the uniformity of the two buildings, not to mention the quality.

The Clayco proposal is a safer bet. There will be a beautiful twin to the OG&E building flanking the park, and the residential tower on the north lot will demonstrate if a second residential tower is warranted. If they have trouble leasing the north tower, then the south residential tower would be problematic for Milhaus anyway. If the north tower leases quickly, then Clayco will add the south tower soon enough. If the north tower doesn't lease, maybe Clayco would do a third office tower or a hotel in the space.

Actually, the Milhaus proposal has 47 more apartments than the Clayco proposal. It also reserves space for future development - which could be another residential tower. Given the choice between office and residential, I'll pick residential every time.

I am impressed with Clayco's ability to create a more impactful urban development out of less units (reserving more inelastic demand left over for a continued stream of developments).

The Milhaus proposal, though exciting and impressive on its own, just does not compare to Clayco. All that remains to be seen is what kind of settlement is reached between the schools and the development.

On one hand this is heavy residential across the street from the school. On the other hand the specially approved large TIF could be used for a parking facility hidden in the site to also serve the park and convention center..it could also maintain a "Festival Plaza" along the California Avenue axis with Crystal Bridge..it could be a very cool setting that continues the big city park environment through the OG+E project. This negotiation highlights the challenges of urban real estate development.

I am impressed with Clayco's ability to create a more impactful urban development out of less units (reserving more inelastic demand left over for a continued stream of developments).

This is just to quibble, but if residential demand were inelastic then we should actually support Milhaus' development here since it would bring both more density and allow for more dense development to the west. Inelastic demand would also suggest, no require, that north residential tower perform either well enough to support building the the south residential tower, or not well at all, leading to no further residential towers. Allowing for a continued stream of developments would suggest a market of elastic demand. But then again I'm tired, so I might double check this in the morning and cringe.

I think that the Clayco development is a jewel for OKC. I doubt that they will have any trouble filling a residential tower. I have talked with dozens of professionals who have told me that they will move there right away. everyone of them have the means to do it as well.

This is just to quibble, but if residential demand were inelastic then we should actually support Milhaus' development here since it would bring both more density and allow for more dense development to the west. Inelastic demand would also suggest, no require, that north residential tower perform either well enough to support building the the south residential tower, or not well at all, leading to no further residential towers. Allowing for a continued stream of developments would suggest a market of elastic demand. But then again I'm tired, so I might double check this in the morning and cringe.

You just may lol, no offense since I always appreciate your very informed viewpoints. Inelastic demand is somewhat fixed in that it only grows with population trends and the legitimization of its market (in other words only the dependent controls can grow inelastic demand). Luckily there is a TON of this demand. That's when you still do your market study, and it comes back as a green light.

As for density, more density is not necessarily more meaningful density. I don't think we need to push for higher density than the Clayco development, which is a great "density pinnacle" if you're looking at standards like CNU (new urbanism) or DPZ (smart code).

I think high rise apartments is the way to go. It works very well when the market is looking for "vanity," which lets face it is the main thing driving downtown housing. This is gentrification en masse, whereas the inner city historic districts all have much much slower markets. The views provided by high rise housing is the primo advantage Clayco will have, and they will do VERY well by offering a strong market something it doesn't have yet.

Was it Tim Cook that said Apple flourishes by selling you something you need so bad you didn't even know you needed it a year ago?

I think that the Clayco development is a jewel for OKC. I doubt that they will have any trouble filling a residential tower. I have talked with dozens of professionals who have told me that they will move there right away. everyone of them have the means to do it as well.

I agree with this because there is simply nothing like it.

We don't have mid- or high-rise luxury apartments at all right now and you combine that with the proposed amenities and access to the the park and the rest of the CBD, and I think they'll set a new standard in rents.

I also think they time is right to test the market with high-rise condos for the same reason: There are none in the market, apart from the handful at City Place and those are all crazy expensive.

The Centennial condo project in Lower Bricktown is by far the most successful project of it's type in OKC. It sold out almost immediately and it's nothing special, other than for sale units in a good location with decent amenities and a little bit of a view.

You just may lol, no offense since I always appreciate your very informed viewpoints. Inelastic demand is somewhat fixed in that it only grows with population trends and the legitimization of its market (in other words only the dependent controls can grow inelastic demand). Luckily there is a TON of this demand. That's when you still do your market study, and it comes back as a green light.

As for density, more density is not necessarily more meaningful density. I don't think we need to push for higher density than the Clayco development, which is a great "density pinnacle" if you're looking at standards like CNU (new urbanism) or DPZ (smart code).

I think high rise apartments is the way to go. It works very well when the market is looking for "vanity," which lets face it is the main thing driving downtown housing. This is gentrification en masse, whereas the inner city historic districts all have much much slower markets. The views provided by high rise housing is the primo advantage Clayco will have, and they will do VERY well by offering a strong market something it doesn't have yet.

Was it Tim Cook that said Apple flourishes by selling you something you need so bad you didn't even know you needed it a year ago?

OK I see what you were getting at. You were referring to the elasticity of demand for high rise housing in particular, not residential in general. That makes sense, and your analysis becomes more clear in context. I agree then, and in this case we would also consider the elasticity of supply. Since there is currently only one developer willing to build such a product, Clayco would be the rational choice.

Inelasticity of demand implies that demand doesn't change with price change. Rarely does true inelasticity exist. The issue is at what point that elasticity exhibits itself in a significant sense. Same for elasticity of supply.

Inelasticity of demand implies that demand doesn't change with price change. Rarely does true inelasticity exist. The issue is at what point that elasticity exhibits itself in a significant sense. Same for elasticity of supply.

True. You're discussing the price inelasticity of demand. At first I thought Spartan was talking about that as well and that's why I responded. What he was really getting at was that as there is currently very little supply of high-rise residential and pent up demand, a clever strategy might be to go with fewer units (Clayco) to encourage the development of yet another high-rise building (Milhaus? Lumberyards?) elsewhere. It's an interesting little idea, and perhaps couching it in a discussion of elasticity is a bit clumsy, but it shouldn't be outright dismissed because of that.

Either way, I think the city should demand (huzzah) Clayco build both residential properties if they are to receive such substantial public funding. While downtown office space is tight, housing options are in even shorter supply and are arguably more worthy of public intervention. Besides, with such low vacancy rates for office, the market is set to take care of that problem on its own. Residential, on the other hand, should be pushed at every opportunity until we have achieved critical mass.

Let me ask this. Can Clayco build one residential tower and Milhaus build theirs on that site? I think I already know the answer but just throwing it out there.

The north parcel will include an office tower for OGE and a residential tower, one is 25 stories and the other 26 stories. That is a done deal as far as I understand. On the south parcel, Clayco will commit to the office tower and then build the residential tower if the one on the north parcel fills quickly. Lastly, if there is interest, there is still room in Clayco's design for a boutique hotel.

At worse, there will be three towers on the site, and at best up to five.

I think some of you are being manipulated masterfully in the Clayco proposal by them including the Stage Center lot in their rendering for their south lots. Clayco is only promising a single office building fronting the park. Their residential tower only gets built if they are happy with their north tower. If the choice is between an office building fronting the park and a residential tower with 47 more units fronting the park why is anyone picking the office building? Are pretty pictures really that powerful?

I do like the symmetry and look of identical buildings, yes. Also, there will be one 25 story residential building built with Clayco. If there is demand, the second one will come. If the first is not a success, the second one could become an omen for other developments. I don't see what is wrong with testing the market and building a slightly more conservative timeline to guarantee success by the developers. I really think the identical towers will be a distinctive feature for downtown and will be used widely for shots of OKC.

I'm completely on board with milhous.not a fan of identical buildings.its a good looking building, but not so nice we need it twice. Residential facing the mbg is more important and can garner a lot higher rents.

We are being duped by clayco with their fake promise of 2 residential towers . If they won't commit to building the residential tower it shouldn't even be allowed in their proposal.

They need to reverse it. Guarantee the south residential tower, if it doesn't lease don't build the north.

I agree. The only thing I don't like about Clayco is the south residential tower isn't guaranteed. Do I think the north tower will lease? Absolutely. Do I think the south tower will be built. Very likely. However, the fact it's not guaranteed is enough to be concerned, especially considering other projects in this city. I like catch22's idea of reversing the south parcel, promising the residential tower and let it front the park. I don't think if that's even a possibility at this point though.

Would be an interesting question for Clayco. Why put the office building on the park side? I assume OGE wants the park front for their parcel, but why not reverse them on the second parcel? Will the office space garner more revenue and higher rates for views?

In a growing city like OKC is you can be pretty sure the 1st tower is going to do great and the 2nd will be built soon after. I think there's prob demand for much more than what these proposals will bring. I say build them all!

In a growing city like OKC is you can be pretty sure the 1st tower is going to do great and the 2nd will be built soon after. I think there's prob demand for much more than what these proposals will bring. I say build them all!

Would like to see Clayco build a 36 story office tower and a 34 story residential tower (Phase I); then, you could add some smaller additions (Phase II) like an 18 story office and 16 story residential towers to complement what you have built if the demand hasn't peaked.

I want to see them decrease all 4 buildings to 20 stories, and then build 2 more identical towers (total of 6) just to piss you guys off.

I want to see them decrease all 4 buildings to 20 stories, and then build 2 more identical towers (total of 6) just to piss you guys off.

With lots of use of EIFS. Set back with parking lots in the front.

I think some of you are being manipulated masterfully in the Clayco proposal by them including the Stage Center lot in their rendering for their south lots. Clayco is only promising a single office building fronting the park. Their residential tower only gets built if they are happy with their north tower. If the choice is between an office building fronting the park and a residential tower with 47 more units fronting the park why is anyone picking the office building? Are pretty pictures really that powerful?

Because we have a huge need for office space.

I think some of you are being manipulated masterfully in the Clayco proposal by them including the Stage Center lot in their rendering for their south lots. Clayco is only promising a single office building fronting the park. Their residential tower only gets built if they are happy with their north tower. If the choice is between an office building fronting the park and a residential tower with 47 more units fronting the park why is anyone picking the office building? Are pretty pictures really that powerful?

Glad to see your time away improved your people skills.

I want to see them decrease all 4 buildings to 20 stories, and then build 2 more identical towers (total of 6) just to piss you guys off.

Whatever they build; they need to fill the vacant lots in the CBD & Bricktown. The undeveloped land is of more a concern than anything.

I want to see them decrease all 4 buildings to 20 stories, and then build 2 more identical towers (total of 6) just to piss you guys off.You fiend! ;)

At worse, there will be three towers on the site, and at best up to five.

Not necessarily - the Milhaus proposal only uses the east side of the lot and leaves the west side undeveloped. Someone could build two more towers on the undeveloped section (including Clayco if they lose the whole block but still want to develop their project).

Not necessarily - the Milhaus proposal only uses the east side of the lot and leaves the west side undeveloped. Someone could build two more towers on the undeveloped section (including Clayco if they lose the whole block but still want to develop their project).

Kerry, what you're saying agrees with what Motley said. With the two on the North half there could be as few as three or could be five. With a potential hotel that actually could provide up to six.

Kerry, what you're saying agrees with what Motley said. With the two on the North half there could be as few as three or could be five. With a potential hotel that actually could provide up to six.

Sort of, but I am saying there could be 6 building max (3 on the Stage Center lot and 3 on the south lot). The Milhaus proposal leaves half the block for future development and Clayco's two proposed towers could easily fit on the west half. In fact, all 5 Clayco towers could be built on the Stage Center site alone. To be honest, this project isn't near dense enough. The lot is about 310' by 435'. Oklahoma Tower, Robinson Renaissance, Corporate Tower, and 1/2 of the City Center East Garage take up 11% less space.

Sort of, but I am saying there could be 6 building max (3 on the Stage Center lot and 3 on the south lot). The Milhaus proposal leaves half the block for future development and Clayco's two proposed towers could easily fit on the west half. In fact, all 5 Clayco towers could be built on the Stage Center site alone. To be honest, this project isn't near dense enough. The lot is about 310' by 435'. Oklahoma Tower, Robinson Renaissance, Corporate Tower, and 1/2 of the City Center East Garage take up 11% less space.

Well not every new project downtown is going to be maximum density. In fact, most probably won't be. Your Utopia is not coming. :)

Well not every new project downtown is going to be maximum density. In fact, most probably won't be. Your Utopia is not coming. :)

It won't if I don't say anything. :)

It won't if I don't say anything. :)

And it won't if you do also. LOL

New Towers to Require Requested Record Amount of Tax Increment Financing | News OK (http://newsok.com/new-towers-to-require-requested-record-amount-of-tax-increment-financing/article/5369686)

From that article.


Clayco is asking $29 million in TIF for the proposed 25-story office tower, which they forecast to cost $216 million. The company is asking $9.25 million for the planned $70 million, 26-story 253-unit apartment tower.
We're looking at a total $38.25 million in TIF with this - or 89 percent of the anticipated ad valorem taxes that would be generated by the development.
Will the TIF requests cause any hiccups in what is set to be the most extensive expansion of the downtown skyline since the early 1970s? Will equally aggressive requests be made by Clayco for the north half of the block? Will more TIF be requested for a tower I expect to be announced for Main and Hudson?

Stayed tuned kids. This is where downtown development gets serious.

so Clayco is asking for 13% in TIF. Not that much greater than the 10% norm. ..

Milhaus is asking for 26+% in TIF. This is the huge outlier!

There should be no way that Clayco doesn't get this, BUT - I hope the city imposes a moratorium on the $9M TIF for the Residential, that it doesn't get paid until that tower gets built. Since OGE is paying for the Stage Center area, I wouldn't think there'd be any TIF desired - unless to relocate utilities or aide in other activity the city would be involved in anyways (like Devon's non-P180 activities).

I, for one, am interested to know what they want to do with the TIF? The 13% amount doesn't phase me.

There should be no way that Clayco doesn't get this, BUT - I hope the city imposes a moratorium on the $9M TIF for the Residential, that it doesn't get paid until that tower gets built. Since OGE is paying for the Stage Center area, I wouldn't think there'd be any TIF desired - unless to relocate utilities or aide in other activity the city would be involved in anyways (like Devon's non-P180 activities).

I think this is a good idea. The TIF should be dependent on the south residential tower getting built to ensure that it does.

The $9M TIF mentioned in the article is for the south residential tower, the money is vapor unless it is built at all.

Looks like they picked Clayco officially!

Renewal Authority chooses two-tower plan for development near Stage Center site
By: Molly M. Fleming The Journal Record

OKLAHOMA CITY – The Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority has chosen Clayco Inc.’s proposal for the area south of the former Stage Center site. The development will be south of the new OGE Energy Corp. headquarters, which will sit at the southwest corner of Sheridan and Hudson avenues.
Clayco proposed two towers: a 25-story commercial building and a 26-story, 253-unit residential apartment tower, with structured parking in between. The project is estimated to cost $280 million.
The company requested a tax increment financing allocation equal to approximately 89% of the ad valorem taxes generated on the proposed project.
The OCURA agenda stated that the TIF request is significantly higher than what the city allocates to projects.
“Therefore, significant negotiations will be necessary before the financial structure and feasibility of these projects are determined,” stated the agenda.
Clayco is also building the OGE headquarters and was the first to inquire about purchasing the adjacent 3.15 acres. The site is now home to several buildings, including La Luna Mexican Café, and an office building that houses the Arts Council of Oklahoma City and other organizations.
Redeveloping the site will mean a location change for the council’s Festival of the Arts. The council is looking at moving the festival to the Civic Center’s Centennial Park or the north corner of Myriad Gardens, at the intersection of W. Sheridan Avenue and Ron Norick Boulevard.
Milhaus development had offered a competing proposal for the area.


Read more: Renewal Authority chooses two-tower plan for development near Stage Center site | The Journal Record (http://journalrecord.com/2014/11/24/renewal-authority-chooses-two-tower-plan-for-development-near-stage-center-site-real-estate/#ixzz3K0ccuMaT)

Good.

Time to nail down the incentive details and get this thing rolling.

Is the TIF money a one time allocation based on the initial ad valorem tax for building? Does Clayco still pay the annual property taxes for the development? What would those annual taxes amount to?

Is the TIF money a one time allocation based on the initial ad valorem tax for building? Does Clayco still pay the annual property taxes for the development? What would those annual taxes amount to?

The money would come from the increased property taxes (and likely sales taxes) from developing the property.

They basically take all these incremental tax dollars over a 25-year span and just give them back to the developer, rather than them going into the general City/County budget.

Thanks for the explanation. I expected it to be only the taxes/fees for the initial construction, not taxes over the 25 yrs. That is not insignificant, but then what this development will do for downtown will not be insignificant either.

I'm of mixed opinions on the TIF thing. On the one hand, the developer should pay taxes just like everyone else. It's not like the city is drowning in extra tax revenue that they just don't know how to spend. On the other hand, if this doesn't get built, we don't get any extra tax revenue from the thing. We are no worse off by letting them build it essentially tax-free. We get a new building, but not the associated tax revenue.

This is a big financial gamble for them, so I'm okay with some amount of support. This is one of the biggest developments to come to this city in a long time, arguably bigger than Devon.

The Quarterback has just asked us to the prom. How many sexual favors we have to give afterwards depends on how secure we are that we can get a guy like that.

I don't think the way OKC is operating their TIF is the way other cities are doing it. My understanding is that normally TIF dollars were to be spent on public facilities and infrastructure within the TIF district, not as a direct payment to developers building within the TIF district to spur development. I'm pretty sure I don't like the way OKC is doing this. These building require improvements to infrastructure and in many cases new infrastructure. If we just give away all the new tax revenue to the developer where are the tax dollars going to come from to pay for infrastructure maintenance and eventual replacement? This is why urban sprawl isn't financially sustainable and now they are applying that same failed model to urban development. It won't end well when 20,000 people are living downtown and all the tax revenue has been given to the developers.

Remember when Peggy Bundy started selling cosmetics, and then became her own biggest customer so she would be get the big commission checks? Even Al figured out that wasn't sustainable.

The Full Journal Record article:

Coming up: Authority chooses downtown developer, plans negotiations over TIF

OKLAHOMA CITY – The Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority is prepared to work with the city to bring the Clayco Inc.’s design to the southern half of a site at W. Reno and S. Hudson avenues.

OCURA chose Clayco as the conditional redeveloper for the 3.15 acre property during its meeting Monday morning. The company plans to build two towers: a 25-story commercial building and a 26-story, 253-unit residential tower, with structured parking in between. Executive Director Cathy O’Connor gave high praise to Clayco and Milhaus Development, which submitted a proposal for a 20-story mixed-use building.

“We think the level of the development proposed by Clayco will create a catalytic project for downtown Oklahoma City and hopefully spur other development,” she said. “But both of these proposals requested amounts of tax increment financing that are well beyond what the city of Oklahoma City typically allocates to projects.”

She said the city and OCURA will have a lot of work to do to negotiate a TIF package. Clayco partner Larry Chapman said he’s not concerned about having to negotiate the TIF package. The company requested TIF allocation equal to approximately 89 percent of the ad valorem taxes generated on the proposed project. The redevelopment is expected to cost $280 million.

“We have a lot of work to do, clearly,” Chapman said. “But up until now, there was no ability to sit around a table and negotiate anything. Now we’ll sit around the table and talk through the details so we can understand what the tradeoffs are. Why is (the project) a good idea? What is the city really going to get? That’s what we’ll do now. That’s what I love to do. I’m looking forward to that part.”

O’Connor said there are also some design concerns with Clayco’s proposal. She said she recommended the Alliance have the RTKL architecture firm give a third-party opinion on the design. She said the Alliance has the authority to approve the design, but the city will have to approve the TIF.

“I don’t think either of these issues are insurmountable and can’t be solved and worked through,” she said. “I do want everyone to know there’s work to be done and it’s going to take a little bit of time to get all those things resolved.”

But the Alliance plans to resolve the issues in 90 days.

Clayco is developing the OGE Energy headquarters building at the southwest corner of Sheridan and Hudson avenues. The site is owned by Kestrel Investments. Chapman said at an OCURA meeting earlier this month that the OGE building should have started two months ago. Kestrel Investments President Rainey Williams said the south property proposal process has delayed the work because Clayco had a bigger project goal. The company was the first to ask about developing the south property.

“Now that we’ve been chosen as the conditional redeveloper, we can start to do what we really do for a living, which is to implement our plans,” Chapman said. “We can start to market the property. We can really drill down on what the entire project looks like and feels like, the financing around it, and those kinds of things.”

We’ve always believed that this project is better together,” he said.

“OGE is fantastic on its own, but it’s better if you can plan the two-block area in a significant and powerful way.”

The project would require the development of a new TIF district, which would ultimately have to be approved by the Oklahoma City Council, said Brent Bryant, economic development program manager. Bryant said a new TIF district is needed because the amount of financing Clayco’s project would require is over a longer period of time than downtown/MAPS Increment District.

He said he and city staff are evaluating the feasibility of Clayco’s project. The last time the City Council created a district inside the downtown area was for the Devon Energy Corp. headquarters in 2008.

Redeveloping the site will mean a location change for the council’s Festival of the Arts. The council is looking at moving the festival to the Civic Center’s Centennial Park or the north corner of Myriad Gardens, at the intersection of W. Sheridan Avenue and Ron Norick Boulevard.

Does anyone remember what the TIF % of ad valorem taxes were for the Devon? I think almost everyone would agree that investment of TIF money was well worth it. Also, wonder what the design concerns are from the Authority? Maybe they are wanting the residential on the park side or more height!

I don't think the way OKC is operating their TIF is the way other cities are doing it. My understanding is that normally TIF dollars were to be spent on public facilities and infrastructure within the TIF district, not as a direct payment to developers building within the TIF district to spur development. I'm pretty sure I don't like the way OKC is doing this. These building require improvements to infrastructure and in many cases new infrastructure. If we just give away all the new tax revenue to the developer where are the tax dollars going to come from to pay for infrastructure maintenance and eventual replacement? This is why urban sprawl isn't financially sustainable and now they are applying that same failed model to urban development. It won't end well when 20,000 people are living downtown and all the tax revenue has been given to the developers.

Remember when Peggy Bundy started selling cosmetics, and then became her own biggest customer so she would be get the big commission checks? Even Al figured out that wasn't sustainable.

JTF, I don't know how these things work and I may be way off base, but if the TIF returns the money back to the developer in return for reconstruction of portions of streets, sidewalks, lighting, waterlines, sewer lines and sanitation lines to handle the larger use and capacity needs, isn't this the same as the city doing it at direct taxpayer expense? Devon and Project 180 seemed to be special cases from a corporation making extreme profits. OG&E isn't quite in that boat. It seems to me the taxes paid back to the city long-term will be far more than the TIF "investment." Is it known if these improvements are part of the project?

To me, TIF is more akin to the way restaurants and bars comp celebrities than the Peg Bundy ploy. Even though celebrities are more than able to pay for an expensive dinners, they get it free because their presence is a giant advertisement and endorsement of the restaurant. Clayco is a signature development that will entice a lot of other investments, so it is worth the investment of TIF money. If Clayco didn't happen, OKC would be setback a 1/2 decade or more. I am sure the Clayco development is what is making Preftakes and others think of even bolder plans.

It would be interesting to know what this means from the article.


O’Connor said there are also some design concerns with Clayco’s proposal. She said she recommended the Alliance have the RTKL architecture firm give a third-party opinion on the design. She said the Alliance has the authority to approve the design, but the city will have to approve the TIF.

I'm not thrilled with giving them 25 years tax free. That's just me.

Here's the way this breaks down (in millions):

North parcel (OG&E):
Officer Tower $200
Apartments $67.5
Total: $267.5
TIF request: $62.1

South Parcel:
Office Tower $216
Apartments $70
Total: $286
TIF Request $80.5


Total Investment: $553.5
Total TIF Request: $142.6