Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Increment Financing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission finds amended downtown TIF plan in conformance despite hotel-industry objections
Summary
TMAPC adopted a resolution finding the Second Amended Downtown Area Economic Development Project Plan (TIF) in conformance with the Tulsa Comprehensive Plan; hotel owners objected to a reported $100M+ proposed local incentive for the Philcade project and urged denial, but staff and city legal said TMAPC's role is limited to plan conformance.
The Tulsa Metropolitan Area Planning Commission voted 8-2 to adopt a resolution that the Second Amended Downtown Area Economic Development Project Plan is in conformance with the Tulsa Comprehensive Plan. Staff presented the Project Plan as a tax-increment financing (TIF) mechanism intended to finance public infrastructure, support downtown placemaking, and catalyze private investment, including objectives such as housing, pedestrian activation and historic preservation.
Several hotel-industry representatives—Michael Levinson (Aloft Hotel), Macy Synder (The Mayo Hotel), and John Snyder (Brickhuggers)—spoke in opposition to potential local incentives tied to the Philcade redevelopment. They argued a reported $100M+ local incentive would be "unfair competition" that could cannibalize business from existing hotels and divert hotel-tax revenue used to market the city. John Snyder also told the commission the project had already received substantial federal and state incentives (stated in the hearing as about $66 million) and urged denial of additional local incentives.
City staff, Partner Tulsa and City Legal repeatedly clarified that TMAPC’s role is narrowly to determine whether the amended Project Plan conforms with the Tulsa Comprehensive Plan’s land-use and street-network policies; project economics, incentive sizing and LDARC/City Council review are separate processes. Jeff Stephens from City Legal emphasized that conformance review does not adjudicate the fairness of incentive packages. Committee member Humphrey moved to adopt the conformance resolution; Committee member Walker seconded. The motion passed 8-2 (nays: Committee member Craddock and Committee member Hood).
