Tulsa County holds public hearing on proposed Clydesdale data center plan that would seek 25‑year tax exemptions

A public hearing Monday before the Tulsa County Board of County Commissioners introduced a proposed multiphase data center project — the Clydesdale project — that would use tax‑incentive districts under Oklahoma’s Local Development Act to seek 25‑year, 100% exemptions from ad valorem taxes for new real and personal property and would include negotiated annual pilot payments and road‑improvement payments.

Jeff Sabin, an attorney with the Center for Economic Development Law, told commissioners that the project plan covers a multiphase data center development on the county’s north side within the Owasso Public School District and that each proposed phase represents a “minimum $700,000,000 for initial investment.” He said each phase would likely create a separate tax incentive district, each with a deferred creation date of up to 10 years and a 25‑year exemption period once triggered.

The plan, Sabin said, asks the taxing jurisdictions to allow an unusual 25‑year incentive for data centers under the Local Development Act (where most abatement tools typically run five years). To offset foregone ad valorem revenue during the exemption period, the project proposes a negotiated annual pilot payment of $1,500,000 per data center, split pro rata among taxing jurisdictions, plus a $500,000 annual community betterment payment earmarked for adjacent roadway improvements. Sabin said the developer and review committee estimated roughly 50 permanent, high‑paying jobs per data center and emphasized that county staff and the Local Development Act Review Committee concluded the project would not occur “but for” the incentives.

Why it matters: The request would remove the new value of the project from the tax rolls for up to 25 years for each phase, shifting revenue timing for county and local taxing entities. Commissioners, taxing jurisdictions and members of the public pressed for more financial detail, projection models, and clarity on what the county — and taxpayers — would gain in both the short and long term.

Public comments and county questions focused on school funding, infrastructure costs and transparency. Joe Hart, a resident, said the arrangement “circumvents the spirit of our law” by giving one local school district an outsized benefit and asked how other districts would fare if a large parcel received a long abatement. Troy Fugate, a board member of the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (TMAPC), questioned the net fiscal benefit, noting the project would produce relatively few permanent jobs compared with the size of the investment. Scott Lassen, CEO of Bailey Medical Center and representing the Owasso Chamber of Commerce, said the chamber supports the project.

Lauren Harvey, development director for Beal Infrastructure and the project’s developer representative, said the developer intends the $500,000 annual road payment to support widening and congestion relief on the nearby roadways identified by community input. County staff and other speakers said the county had an existing obligation under Vision Tulsa to widen approximately two miles of 86th Street and that current estimates to complete that work have grown from roughly $8 million to about $22 million, figures cited during the hearing.

County Treasurer John Fothergill and other speakers urged the board to negotiate stronger protections and asked why pilot payments escalate by 1% annually rather than by the consumer price index (CPI). Farmers and property owners warned that long‑term fixed escalation rates can lag inflation; one commenter asked whether construction had already begun, which would affect the “but for” analysis required under state law.

Sabin and other presenters said the Local Development Act review committee — which included representatives from each taxing jurisdiction and three public members — unanimously recommended approval of the project plan and that the Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission found the plan consistent with the county comprehensive plan. Sabin said the incentive districts require separate tax‑incentive agreements approved by each taxing body before any exemption takes effect and that the first public hearing’s statutory purpose is informational; a second hearing is scheduled for Sept. 29, 2025, before the county would consider a resolution on the project plan.

The board did not vote on the project plan. Commissioners moved to open the public hearing and later moved to close it; both procedural motions passed unanimously. Commissioners and members of the public asked staff to provide underlying financial projections, the list of taxing‑jurisdiction reviewers, and additional documentation cited by developers and chambers so the public and commissioners could evaluate projected revenue, pilot payment calculations and long‑term fiscal impacts.

Several clarifications made during the hearing: - Each proposed phase was described by presenters as a separate incentive district, each with its own deferred effective date and 25‑year exemption term. - Pilot payments were described as $1,500,000 per data center for the initial phase, increased for later phases by amounts tied to CPI from the date of the initial payment and then escalating 1% per year during each incentive district’s term. The $500,000 annual payment for community betterment was described as specifically for adjacent roadway widening. - Taxing entities listed as included in the exemption discussion were Tulsa County, Owasso Public Schools, Tulsa Tech, Tulsa Community College (TCC), the health department, and the library; each taxing jurisdiction must separately approve inclusion of its levies in an incentive agreement for incentives to take effect.

Next steps: The board scheduled a second public hearing for Sept. 29, 2025. County staff said they will provide the commissioners and the public with the review committee membership list, the county’s projection models referenced at the hearing (the presentation estimated roughly $47,000,000 in ad valorem generation over 25 years under one projection scenario), and other documentation used by the Local Development Act Review Committee and the developer for the commission’s and public’s review. No county action on the project plan will be taken until after the second public hearing and subsequent agenda consideration.