Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Increment Financing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chickasha council adopts Gateway TIF plan after hours of public comment
Summary
After extended public comment from farmers and nearby landowners, the Chickasha City Council voted to adopt the Gateway Chickasha Tax Increment Financing (TIF) project plan and ordinance, enabling two increment districts and a 10-year commencement window while preserving statutory safeguards.
The Chickasha City Council on [date not specified] voted to adopt ordinance 2404-05, approving the Gateway Chickasha Economic Development Project Plan and establishing two TIF increment districts and a broader project area.
The move came after more than an hour of public comment from landowners and residents who urged the council to remove specific farmland from the proposed boundary. Bertha Thomas, who reviewed the plan’s exhibits at the meeting, disputed portions of the document and questioned outreach: “That is absolutely not true,” she said, referring to a project-plan statement that no sales tax revenue was currently generated within the proposed increment districts.
Supporters and city staff told the council a TIF is a voluntary tool for economic development that does not raise tax rates or force landowners to develop. Jim Cowan, a resident who spoke in favor of a TIF, noted its ability to attract matching state funds and described what a TIF does not do: it “does not raise or lower tax rates” and “does not forgive the obligation to pay taxes.” Legal advisers explained the ordinance and project-plan mechanics, including how baseline ad valorem and sales-tax figures will be certified by the county assessor if the council later elects to commence either district.
Council members pressed staff and outside counsel on statutory compliance and the document’s level of detail. Attorney Jared Davis walked the council through tax-assessment and baseline procedures and explained that some municipal-owned properties leased to private tenants may be subject to ad valorem taxation under existing case law. Davis also described how the project-plan maps, the increment boundaries and a certified baseline would be set if the council chooses to commence a district.
Several landowners asked to be excluded from the plan. A Thomas family speaker reviewed decades of family ownership and appealed for removal of the Thomas and Lowe properties from the proposed boundaries. Councilmembers and staff acknowledged the trust issues those owners raised, but staff said the statutory notice procedures were followed during the review committee and public-hearing processes and that the TIF inclusion does not change property ownership or automatically compel development.
The ordinance establishes the legal structure for two separate increment districts—the downtown and Highway 62 corridors—and reserves to the city the authority to make minor amendments consistent with the statute. Council members emphasized that even if the ordinance is adopted, it does not automatically commence the districts; commencement and any baseline certification would be a later council action tied to specific projects.
The motion to adopt the ordinance passed after deliberation and roll-call vote. The ordinance will appear in the required public notices and is subject to the statutory referendum/contest period that applies to municipal ordinances, during which time legal challenges can be filed.
The council recorded the proceedings and said that more detailed project-level decisions, potential economic development agreements and any future bond proposals would return to the council for separate review and approval.
