Property as part of an enterprise zones mean it is by definition unproductive, undeveloped, underdeveloped, or blighted for the purpose of TIFF financing, and therefore it automatically qualifies under the Local Development Act.

Because it automatically qualifies, the court says it doesn't violate the constitutional provision or the 8521 and two, the but for test in the local development act.

The AG is weighed in since then when asked how the city's compliance with those two provisions measured.

They say districts in historic preservation reinvestment or enterprise areas are per se consistent with such guidelines.

So you see a difference there when we look at historic preservation reinvestment or enterprise areas.

Currently, all of our TIFFs that are in existence are in enterprise areas.

So that but four test does not apply.

They have per se met that for the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

So the example of the University North Park District.

It's a great example.

Many of us would view that as not being economically depressed, not being undevelopable.

It's flat fronts.

Prime I 35 property.

It's completely developed all the way around it.

So it's a prime target to be developed on its own, but because of that first one, it is in an enterprise, a grandfathered enterprise zone.

That is what qualified the original UMP TIF and this new one as well.

Correct.

Okay, so and that's important because in this ordinance, we are implementing a BUT 4 test even for enterprise zones or historic preservation areas or reinvestment areas.

So under the Local Development Act, if it's not one of those areas, you see the butt four tests that I read earlier over there in the left column, and then you have you go through those remaining legislative guidelines.

Under this ordinance, we're talking about implementing a test regardless of whether that project is in a historic preservation reinvestment or enterprise area.

So that would require an analysis to look at whether, and this is what's in the ordinance right now, whether to I'm sorry, whether investment development and economic growth in that area would be difficult but uh possible with TIFF assistance in line with the city goals.

So Griffin is the example we talked about last week, right?

Blank property essentially uh it's got some buildings on it, but it's a primarily largely undeveloped.

And so if someone were to buy it, would it develop?

Sure, it could.

But would it develop with affordable housing?

Would it develop uh with all the public infrastructure needs that are there that need to be addressed?

There's asbestos we know in some of the older buildings.

So there are things that would make it difficult, not impossible.

Uh but TIF assistance could help it develop in a way that meets the council's goals.

And so that's what based on our discussion last week, that's what's in the ordinance right now in 12 702 A2.

Again, if it's an area that's not in a historic preservation reinvestment or enterprise area, it still has to meet the test in the local development act.

Uh but for those areas that don't have to meet that test.

This is a test that that we would be implementing that they don't currently have to meet.

And is that the case made for the entertainment district?

Is that most of us believe that the property could ease could develop on its own if the owners of it allowed it to?

Um, that it would be very attractive for that.

Their argument is well, but without this TIF, we can't get this development.

That could be type of development.

This is this entertainment district.

It would otherwise maybe just be commercial or just apartments or whatever it may be, but that's the argument that they're making for why they wanted this.

Yeah, and I think the key here is um in this language is it has to be in line with the city's goals.

Ultimately, it comes down to you guys to make that determination.

And what we're trying to set up here is a process where you get more information and you get more input.

And I'll go through the input here in a minute.

But uh the ordinance also talks about you have to make a determination that use of a TIFF is an appropriate incentive tool.

Are there other tools out there that could be used instead?

Are there other ways to finance the project that are more appropriate?

Uh, the area proposed for designation as a TIFF district is projected to increase in real property taxable value within the first five years.

That's that's not will it uh increase within the first five years regardless of the TIF, but but will the financing provide some development quickly?

It's not going to take all 25 years to see anything, but will we start to see some movement and some turnover there in the taxable value quickly?

Proposed districts and urban areas are expected to support development or revitalization within the project area.

That's a change we made, and at the end I'll highlight all the changes from last week, but across properties of multiple properties of separate ownership.

That might be a duplication there.

Um, and then the TIFF is expected to support and encourage development that will have a positive net fiscal impact on the city as a whole.

That's not a requirement under the local development act.

So that's an important consideration for us as well.

Um when you go through how these proposals get analyzed, there's nothing in the local development act that talks about you know what kind of information has to be provided to the city to look at these proposals and analyze them.

There's no formal citizen input until the public hearings on the project, other than three at-large members that are appointed to the statutory review committee.

Here we would be implementing a lengthy uh economic and risk analysis of the proposal.