Yukon review committee examines TIF plan for Trae Young-linked sports complex as schools raise funding concerns

The Tax Increment Financing Review Committee on March 23 reviewed a draft project plan for a proposed TIF district to support a mixed-use development near Yukon Parkway anchored by a Trae Young Foundation-linked youth athletic facility, a medical office building, restaurants and a hotel.

Nathan of Nadel's Finance Law Group, the consultants advising the city, described the TIF mechanics and preliminary financials, saying the committee’s draft materials project about $26.6 million in retail sales-tax increment (on a 4% sales tax) and roughly $25.9 million in ad valorem increment over a 25-year horizon. He said the hotel-tax projection—about $5.7 million over 25 years—assumes a pending Yukon ballot measure increases the hotel tax from 5% to 9%, and that the city would revise figures if the election outcome differs. "The development is a proposed construction of a youth athletic facility," Nathan said, identifying the project as comparable to the Young Family Athletic Center in Norman.

Consultants also highlighted potential state leverage because the site lies within a designated enterprise zone. Under one set of assumptions, Nathan said the city could see state matching dollars in the range of $25 million to $32 million, which would push aggregated TIF-related resources into the mid‑$80 million to $90 million range over 25 years. He cautioned that actual leverage depends on the state’s net-benefit determination and on how much local tax the city elects to place in the district.

On the cost side, the draft project plan identifies roughly $30 million for the athletic facility; about $1.2 million for sewer improvements (including possible lift stations); approximately $1.2 million for intersection upgrades; roughly $14 million for internal site infrastructure (drainage, utilities, roads); and about $10 million set aside as incentives or sales‑tax rebates to prospective businesses. The consultant also noted relatively modest water-connection costs estimated near $35,000 for north and south connections.

Committee members pressed consultants about maps and boundaries. The consultant explained the difference between the increment district (the limited white area on exhibit A, where new tax revenue would be captured) and a larger project area (the red area on exhibit C) that can include off-site improvements and project-related activity. The consultant said Yukon has approved annexation and Oklahoma City is scheduled to take de‑annexation action; the annexation would take effect May 1 if Oklahoma City follows through, which the consultant described as a necessary precondition for Yukon to create the TIF.

Education officials and committee members focused on school and CareerTech impacts. A CareerTech representative told the committee that the center is "88% locally funded" and that reductions in ad valorem revenue are concerning: "If that goes away Career Tech is probably going away," the representative said, urging careful consideration of allocations. Consultant analysis reiterated that much of a school district’s additional local revenue can be offset by reductions in state aid under the funding formula; he estimated that a school district’s break-even on a project like this often falls in the high‑40 percent range (roughly 48–50% of revenues allocated back to taxing jurisdictions) but that allocations can be structured in many ways to balance near‑term cash flow needs and long‑term impacts.

The consultant described options including time‑tiered allocations—capturing a higher share of ad valorem or sales tax in early years to service project financing, then stepping the capture down later so taxing entities receive a greater share in the out years. He said the committee must finalize allocation percentages and other blanks in the draft project plan before making a recommendation to the city council.

Procedural actions: the committee voted to approve the meeting minutes and ratified the at‑large representatives (Ken Wilkins, Justin Ellis and Pam Shelton, with Patrick McClurg named as alternate). The committee did not take a vote to forward the draft project plan to council at this meeting; consultants and staff said they would finalize allocation options and publish required notices if the committee reaches a recommendation.

Next steps: the consultant outlined a tentative schedule that includes publishing a 14‑day public‑notice period prior to an initial hearing (publication needed by Apr. 4 to meet the proposed timeline), Planning Commission review on April 13, a first public hearing April 20 and possible council action April 28. Committee members set a follow‑up meeting for April 1 at 3:00 p.m. to review updated numbers and a redlined project plan.

The committee adjourned after scheduling the follow‑up meeting. The draft project plan and exhibits (A, B, C, E) will be revised and redistributed for committee review before the next meeting.