Neighbors 4 Norman: Ward 4 Runoff Candidate Questionnaire

Mar 9

QUESTION 1:

The proposed zoning change of the property at the NE corner of Berry and Lindsay: do you support council's vote to reject the upzoning that would have allowed for a retail strip with 50 parking spots? (Recall, the same basic request has come around before and council was told a proposal will come back before them b/c change there was inevitable.)

ANSWER: I support the council's decision to not rezone the NE corner of Berry and Lindsay and approve the Sooner Traditions project. As the only candidate in the Ward 4 race to receive the Red Earth Group’s endorsement, my answer is going to be heavily weighted on the ecological side, which environmentally speaking, the impact effects more than just residents in the immediate area of the proposed change. I want to be very clear that any additional stormwater runoff that goes into Imhoff creek, which has serious erosion issues, is also bad for the Canadian River*.

On the human side of the equation: people directly impacted by the proposed rezoning have homes with children and elderly adults that would be exposed to light, exhaust, and noise pollution. Even with the changes to the Sooner Traditions design, which did get Planning Commission approval, the residents did not have confidence that those changes would be enough to mitigate the negatives they would personally have to experience.

Additionally, I listen to communities, and the neighbors in that area, some being generations of the same family, did not want the character of their neighborhood altered for what essentially amounts to a strip mall.

I know that changes will come to Norman in one form or another, but ignoring certain realities does not equate to responsible and sustainable development. I know given the Turnpike expansions announced by the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority we will have to update our City plans to mitigate all the issues to come from that. But until then, I will end on two points the Norman 2050 Land Use and Transportation Plan’s overarching goals, and notes on a future that would include Pattern Zone:

“…The City of Norman is best served by managing growth through influencing the location choices of future development. Infrastructure is recognized as being an effective tool to manage the location of growth.

Urban-level growth is encouraged to locate where infrastructure is readily available and discouraged in the more rural and environmentally sensitive areas of the City. The long-term economic health of the City is also a major influencing factor for future growth, as are protection of the rural environment and the provision of a greenbelt system throughout the City…” - Source: 2050 Land Use and Transportation Plan

If I had to offer a suggestion to the developers working to bring in retail, shared office space, or restaurants into that area: listen to residents, consider a multi use, low impact design option, and take a look at how Pattern Zone might be helpful. The last being a concept that could get both residents and developers to find some middle ground and meet the City of Norman’s goals as outlined in the 2025 Land Use and Transportation Plan, sure to get an update given recent news, but put the kinds of development wanted and needed on a more transparent, accessible track. Pattern Zoning favors incremental development for sustainability and the preservation of a neighborhood’s character. One project shown during a city council meeting was a mixed use building designed to fit the character of a neighborhood and offered flexibility over the lifetime of the building*.

*see resource list at the end of this post.

QUESTION 2:
Do you support residents voting on sales tax Tax Increment Finance programs over a certain size (say $5 million)? Recall these are long term projects (up to 25 years) which divert sales taxes from the general fund and incur debt.

ANSWER: My support of a TIF program under or over $5 million would depend on the project, the transparency, accountability, and social and economic impacts. I think if designed well, a TIF could provide the funds necessary to redevelop areas that are sliding into blight or at risk of it. Additionally, instead of causing gentrification, there are TIF programs that can complement the development of Affordable Housing. It really just depends on the aims and impact.

“...TIFs are sometimes used like slush funds by politicians to achieve conflicted or questionable legacy projects in violation of the TIF agreement. (Egregious examples abound in the City of Chicago that is revising how it implements TIFs. Other examples include expensive sports stadiums and entertainment complexes.)” - source: ERIS, Environmental Risk Information Services

When looking at any TIF options to revitalize an area like say a dying strip mall, for example, it is important to plan for the future effects of successful efforts, and the taxpayers who financed it must always be factored into the part of the equation that determines overall success. The benefits should be clearly stated, transparently achieved, and improve lives not degrade them.

“...Depending on how strict states are in defining the areas where TIFs are permitted, using TIF to preserve affordable housing opportunities in areas likely to experience economic growth may or may not require new legislation. In some states, communities have relatively wide discretion to define an area as “distressed” so that a TIF can be implemented. But in other states, this term is more narrowly construed and new legislation may be needed.

Communities might also be able to utilize the “but-for” test by arguing that but for the imposition of the TIF, the intended use of the TIF—affordable housing–would not be feasible. Where jurisdictions cannot meet existing criteria for designating TIFs, it may be worth considering new legislation to expand the authority to use TIFs as an affordable housing preservation tool. The legislation to create Austin’s Homestead Preservation Districts is one example.

While TIFs are traditionally set up to fund investments that will revitalize distressed communities, there is also justification for establishing TIFs or TIF-like districts to help preserve affordable housing opportunities in neighborhoods that have already begun to experience development pressure. By establishing a TIF district in a neighborhood already experiencing or likely to experience economic growth, communities can capture tax-increment funds that they can use to build or preserve affordable homes or to help existing renters buy into their neighborhoods.

Using TIFs in neighborhoods experiencing economic growth is a somewhat non-traditional use of this tool. Critics argue that if not implemented properly, this approach enables government to divert the tax increment toward specific projects (not always in the public interest) instead of supporting public services such as school districts, police and fire departments or utilities.” - source: NHC, National Housing Conference

QUESTION 3:
Do you support setting the new connection fees for water at the full cost to add infrastructure to serve new homes and commercial buildings? Currently the water connection fee is $1000 and estimated costs range from $2000 (more wells or OKC water) to $3000 (hoped for lake Augmentation). If you don't support full cost recovery, what % do you think the City should shift to ratepayers?

ANSWER: I do support new connection fees and I have shifted my position from the $3,000 price point for Alternative 1, Lake Augmentation, which is politically untenable because there are parts to the plan that have not been secured, chiefly buy-in from Midwest City and Del City. This is not to say once those municipalities hop aboard with Lake Augmentation that we cannot vote for the proper connection fee increase to get us to Alt. 1. And now with additional impacts bearing down on us in the form of the OTA Turnpike expansions, it is imperative to plan for the future and what that means for our new growth and water supply.

We need to be mindful of our City’s water portfolio and the costs associated with it and new growth. We need our current Councilmembers to do right by our ratepayers aka existing residents in regards to passing appropriate connection fee increases. Those concerned about paying for future water would do well to ask City Council members to not only pass a resolution against the turnpike, like the Norman City Council did in January 1999, but also raise the connection fee from the proposed 25% increase, which covers none of the alternatives, to at least cover Alt. 2, buying more clean drinking water from OKC. It is not the preferred Alternative, as that is Alt. 1, which follows the 2060 Strategic Water Supply Plan, and it includes Lake Thunderbird augmentation, to be clear. Alternative 2 is 100% a compromise, but one that makes logistical sense for right now, and a diverse water portfolio is a strength, not a weakness. If wells go down, and we might lose 9 of them with Turnpike expansion, or the Lake is struggling to keep up with demand, the OKC option doesn’t require us to get up to speed on finding new sources and treating more water.

Alt. 2 raises the current connection fee from $1,000 to $2,010. For perspective: 25% means a connection fee of $1,250, which shortchanges everyone but developers and their future customers, and it is the latter who are the ones that end up paying the new connection fee anyway. Norman City Council can vote on March 22nd for this higher, but not unreasonable Alt. 2 connection fee, and roll out that in stages over the next 2 years to lessen immediate impact.

New development should pay for itself and existing residents should not have to make up the difference. Current residents vote on our water rate increase, which is desperately needed for new meters, disinfection, and pipe replacement and does not cover new expansion, on April 5th. Deadline to register to vote on that date is this Friday, March 11th.

QUESTION 4:
Do you support using City funds to build an arena in the University North Park area in which OU basketball would be the anchor tenant but have no skin in construction or operations and maintenance costs? (This is what the previous proposal entailed).

ANSWER: I do not support using City funds, taxpayer money, to build an arena in the University North Park area for OU, or any other major developer or sports team owner with millions of dollars at their disposal to invest in their own infrastructure. Many studies have been done on this subject and research by economists across the political spectrum have consistently found stadiums impact how leisure dollars are spent, which means a shift from a leisure activity like going to Norman Film Fest, Norman Music Fest, Jazz in June, or to another venue for food and entertainment, for example, to another leisure activity, like going to a basketball game and nearby businesses, and overall they do little to generate a lot of new spending.

“...“Pretty much any study done by anyone anywhere that is credible and independent looking at sports stadiums finds that they have next to no impact on the local economy,” said Garofalo, who has done extensive research on subsidies for sports stadiums…” - Investigative Post

Taxpayers should pay for programs and infrastructure that actually benefits the public. That is truly the best bang for our buck. I know a homeless shelter is not as an attractive or exciting development, but you save as a taxpayer, in resources that would cost us and burden our healthcare system even more to leave people on the street, in the long run vs paying for an arena, which arguably could put people on the street by not paying a high enough wage, or in only offering “seasonal” types of work. Also I found this observation very enlightening when I was trying to find out if taxpayers ever win, too.

“...In fact, local and state governments get new tax revenue from stadium-related events in only two ways: steering purchases toward activities with higher tax rates and taxing out-of-town visitors.

Hotels and rental cars are examples of spending that generally is taxed at a higher rate than other types of spending. Hotel stays are usually taxed in the 10-12 percent range, much higher than ordinary sales taxes, so there is some gain there. But my pre-game meal before a game generates no more tax than a meal I might have eaten in my neighborhood if I had skipped the game.

Thus, the second hope for capturing new revenue is out-of-town visitors. I live an hour from Atlanta, in a different tax jurisdiction. So when I go to a Hawks game and eat a pre-game dinner in Atlanta (usually at Ted’s Montana Grill), Atlanta gets some tax revenue and my hometown loses an equal amount. If the Hawks attract fans from far enough away to stay in hotels, Atlanta wins some more.

Once you look at things this way, you see that stadiums can only justify public financing if they will draw most attendees from a long distance on a regular basis. The Super Bowl does that, but the average city’s football, baseball, hockey, or basketball team does not. Since most events held at a stadium will rely heavily on the local fan base, they will never generate enough tax revenue to pay back taxpayers for the cost of the stadium.

So support your local sports team, enjoy the Super Bowl, but never support public financing of a sports stadium. You as a taxpayer are virtually guaranteed to lose that game.” - Forbes, 2015

FUN FACT: This was prepared listening to a song by Pond called “America’s Cup”. It was chosen for the history that informs the lyrics. It will make the next the Quintessential Candidate Ward 4 Playlist Vol. 2. to be sure. If you missed the first, check it out here.