Chickasha holds first public hearing on proposed two-district TIF plan as residents press for more outreach

City of Chickasha staff and outside counsel outlined a proposed economic-development project plan on Aug. 5 that would establish two tax increment financing districts—one centered on downtown and another along the Highway 62 corridor—and authorize a large, multiyear program of infrastructure and incentive spending.

Nate Ellis of the Public Finance Law Group, retained by the city, said the plan calls for two increment districts and a larger project area to allow TIF-funded improvements outside the districts where necessary to support development. Ellis said the review committee and planning commission recommended the project plan and that the council would hold a second statutorily required public hearing on Aug. 19, with potential ordinance consideration at the council’s Sept. 3 meeting.

Ellis described the financing structure the city is proposing: the TIF would capture incremental tax revenues generated by new development and split some revenue back to taxing authorities. "The TIF would capture a 100% of the ad valorem revenues, but 50% of it is being allocated back to the taxing entities and only 50% of it is being allocated to the project cost," Ellis said, explaining the plan’s revenue-sharing approach and how it aims to compensate taxing jurisdictions during the TIF term.

The project plan lists roughly $581.6 million in authorized project costs across the project area—costs that Ellis said are largely infrastructure needs (water, sewer, drainage, streets and bridges) rather than a promise that TIF revenues will pay the full total. Based on conservative development assumptions, Ellis said the plan models approximately $36 million in incremental revenue that would be captured by the TIF districts (the city’s share of projected ad valorem, sales and hotel tax increments), and estimated ad valorem and sales-tax proceeds over a 25-year horizon.

Ellis also described an option to apply to the state Department of Commerce under the Leverage Act for matching funds; he said a 100% match, while not guaranteed, could substantially increase the funds available for incentives.

Public hearing: questions about notice, inclusion and eminent domain

When the mayor opened the required public hearing at 8:26 p.m., a large crowd filled the council chamber. Dozens of residents and property owners spoke. Some voiced support for chosen goals—economic growth and addressing aging infrastructure—but many asked for more direct outreach to landowners and for the council to allow a public referendum before creating a district.

Bud Lowe, who identified himself as a fourth-generation landowner on the Highway 62 corridor, told the council he had not received direct notice and asked that his acreage be removed from the proposed increment area. "I have no intention to develop that ... 20 years from now," he said, adding that he had not been contacted by the city about plans for the corridor.

Other speakers asked how the TIF would affect school financing, whether incremental revenues would change state aid calculations, and whether eminent domain could be used to take private land for development. Ellis and city staff responded that Oklahoma law requires a public purpose for eminent domain and that the TIF itself does not alter property ownership or compel development: "Being in the TIF has no impact on what their taxes are. It creates no obligation for them to develop their property," Ellis said during the hearing.

Council members and staff acknowledged some residents’ concerns about notice and process. Staff said the project plan—a much longer document than the slide deck—had been posted with the public hearing notice and that the review committee process included representatives from affected taxing jurisdictions. The council said it would accept public input at the Aug. 19 hearing and consider revisions before any ordinance vote.

Why the city is considering a TIF now

City and EDC officials framed the TIF as a tool to address infrastructure shortfalls that, they say, have limited private investment in certain parts of Chickasha. Staff pointed to water and sewer constraints downtown and to the absence of adequate utilities near the interstate as obstacles to attracting employers or destination projects. "If you cannot put in your fire suppression system, we can't let you build the building," a staff member said, describing permitting constraints tied to fire-suppression and water-pressure requirements.

Next steps

Council members said they would collect public comments from the Aug. 5 hearing and hold the second required public hearing on Aug. 19. A vote to adopt the project plan and ordinance, if sought, is anticipated to appear on the council’s Sept. 3 agenda. Staff and outside counsel indicated the city can adopt the ordinance and then choose whether—and when—to commence individual increment areas (the plan allows up to 10 years to activate an increment area).

The hearing closes the first formal chance for public input on the Gateway to Chickasha project plan; residents who want additional information were told the full project plan is available online and that staff would circulate the document ahead of the Aug. 19 meeting.