Amid a year-to-date dip in collections, the Edmond City Council on Monday night set a Nov. 18 special election date for voters to consider the potential renewal of the current 1 percent General Fund sales tax and the 0.5 percent capital improvement sales tax initially passed in 2017. Council members also voted down a proposed development they said runs contrary to plans for growth in east Edmond, and they gathered in executive session to review a new lawsuit they were told they would face when they voted down a proposed Walmart in July.
The council is asking voters to extend both taxes for another decade. If they are not renewed, each would expire in 2027.
The Edmond Police Department and Edmond Fire Department receive a collective two-thirds of the General Fund tax to support their operations, owing to a 2000 ballot question that some former city leaders said was unclear to voters at the time. The capital improvements tax funds a variety of projects, from parks to street maintenance. However, at its Monday night meeting, council members decided to narrow the capital improvements tax if it is renewed.
Under the new proposal, it would be allocated solely toward road improvements.
That change has caused concern from Parks and Recreation Advisory Board members, including Rick Smith. Parks and Recreation receives an eighth-of-a-cent of a permanent sales tax, but the proposed capital improvements alteration will require another revenue source to be sought for future park projects.
“I’ve been on the board for about a year, and so I was very concerned about future funding for parks. I mean, we’ve got a budget, we’ve got capital projects, as you all do as well. I know ultimately you approve them. That’s why we’re called an advisory board, but I just wanted to express my concern about future funding,” Smith said. “[Councilman Barry Moore] and I have had several discussions. I’ve also had discussions with others, and I think the solution is fine, but I hope that we come back in a couple of years and look at other funding resources and revenues to help the parks.”
The council debated the renewal at its Aug. 25 meeting, questioning the transparency of maintaining the current tax when an increase in funding may be needed sooner than later to fund city services. That additional tax increase would be in addition to the 10-year extensions now set for the Nov. 18 ballot.
During his city manager’s updated at the Edmond City Council’s Aug. 25 meeting, interim city manager Randy Entz said Edmond is one of two Oklahoma City metro municipalities reporting a year-to-date sales tax dip, the other being Norman. Although sales tax collections are down .83 percent year-to-date, during his report Entz said August was the first uptick in collections since December, a 3.14 percent increase.
Council approves Whole Foods, PUD plans
On Monday night, the Edmond City Council also approved a site application for a Whole Foods on the north side of Covell Road, east of Sooner Road. Members also voted to rezone a property on the east side of Thomas Drive, south of Covell Road for a planned unit development with primary uses of garden apartments and town homes. The apartments are set to a maximum of three stories with approximately 288 units.
But council members voted down a third development Monday that had been sent to them by the Edmond Planning Commission on Aug. 19.
While the Planning Commission voted to rezone a spot on the east side of Air Depot Boulevard, south of Danforth Road, for commercial development and two-family residences, Nash said the proposal goes against prior plans, including the 2050 Plan for east Edmond.
“This is getting a little bit ridiculous that we’re stripping away the plan that we had for east Edmond. What’s the rationale for doing duplexes here?” Nash asked.
Ken Bryan, the city’s director of planning, shared an explanation of why staff had recommended the project.
“Part of the rationale for recommending or working with the applicant on this particular location is the opportunity to leverage existing infrastructure that’s in the area, and to get a mix of commercial and a variety of housing,” Bryan said. “All of those things are slightly in demand, of course, the opportunity to integrate commercial over on the east side, especially an intersection like this, has the opportunity to reduce trip length for residents in this area.”
The motion to approve the plan failed, with Ward 1 Councilwoman Maggie Murdock Nichols casting the only “Yes” vote and Ward 3 Councilman Preston Watterson abstaining. Nash, Moore and Fraim voted against the proposal.
Controversial Walmart proposal puts city back in court
The council also entered executive session Monday evening to discuss pending litigation against the city, including a new lawsuit filed by Coltrane Land Development over the contested Walmart development. The project has been litigated previously, with an Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals panel ruling against the city and in favor of the developer after the council blocked development of the Walmart in 2017. Nonetheless, this July, the Edmond City Council again rejected the proposed Walmart, despite warnings that the city had already lost in court once before.
RELATED
Council denies long-litigated Edmond Walmart proposal as legal ‘consequences’ loom by Blake Douglas
In the new petition, the plaintiff — represented by development attorney David Box — asserts that the city’s decision is “arbitrary, capricious and based upon inappropriate considerations” and that denial of the site plan is “against Oklahoma law.”
Because the site plan was fully compliant with the city’s planned development unit ordinances, the petition advocates for its approval. Accusing the city of inverse condemnation, the suit claims the actions of the Edmond Planning Commission and Edmond City Council “asserted dominion and control over the property such that the plaintiff has been deprived of the use and enjoyment of the property.” The plaintiff seeks “just compensation for the property taken and any damages to the remaining property.”
“I think it’s going to lead to Mr. (Jim) Tapp pursuing litigation against the City of Edmond like they did 10 years ago,” McKinnis told NonDoc in July. “I believe there will be at least a claim for financial damages in the form of an inverse condemnation, that you’re taking my property without just compensation. I think the request will be whatever those damages can be. Is it the value he paid for the land in March, which was $2.6 million, or is it the value that Walmart would be paying for the land, which is exponentially higher? (…) I believe the potential claim is in the millions of dollars. And I believe if we are fortunate enough to get the same judge that had the case last time, it will be a very painful day for the City of Edmond.”
The City of Edmond has yet to respond to the lawsuit filed by Tapp’s company.
Council approves floodplain variance against advice of staff
A dispute over how a parcel of land between Spring Creek and East 2nd Street may be used got even more complicated Monday night when the Edmond City Council approved a variance that could eventually allow apartments to be developed on the site despite the opposition of city staff.
Located just south of East 2nd Street and west of Interstate 35, the parcel is within the Spring Creek regulatory floodplain and the Federal Emergency management Agency 1 percent floodplain, which designates the range of impact of a 100-year flood event.
The proposal to plan apartments on the creek-adjacent property comes as city staff have negotiated with its owners for more than three years to purchase a portion of the property for a sanitary sewer “to keep the current sanitary sewer from overflowing raw sewage into Arcadia Lake.” A city memo says the property is the final piece needed to begin a new sanitary sewer project, and it refers to the Edmond City Council’s April 14 authorization for use of eminent domain to acquire the land, although that has not happened.
On Monday, city staff said the variance to allow an apartment proposal is in conflict with previously proposed sanitary sewer improvements and will require those plans to be modified.
The crux of Monday’s discussion involved the city’s Community Rating System (CRS), which predicts a reduction to the 20 percent flood insurance premium discount currently available for resident policyholders. The city memo describes the program as “a flood insurance rating system based upon development codes, performance and enforcement, similar to an ISO rating for fire insurance.” The ratings are one through 10, with one being the highest.
The city joined this program in 1975 and worked to increase its rating to obtain “greater insurance discounts and reductions in repetitive flooding impact on public and private properties.” Currently, the City of Edmond holds a Class 6 rating.
Keith Beatty, a city stormwater engineer, said the development of apartments on the project would likely lower the CRS rating.
“[FEMA is] very particular that we do follow our higher standards and stick to it. The last variance they gave cost us a bunch of points,” Beatty said. “We were able to work and scramble and find some ways we can pick up a few more points. But right now, with our Class 6, we don’t really have a lot of points that we can go chase.”
Billy Lewis, an attorney representing the property owner, argued the opposite — that the proposed project would address water issues and ultimately improve the city’s rating. He said the city bases its estimates on a 1991 study, which allows no compensatory storage, ponding or water remediation remedies and shows water-flow rates that are twice as high as the FEMA study.
“You have to just imagine a flat ground, and 30 years ago, they didn’t include any compensatory storage. So we believe when you adopted the regulatory floodplain based on the CM Hill study, it doesn’t reflect reality,” Lewis said. “Because for 30 years, the city council has not allowed a neighborhood, has not allowed construction to be built without some type of compensatory storage, ponding, or something to slow down the water.”
Lewis said the project will benefit the developers and the city.
“It provides not only value to us, it provides value to the city by providing extra commensurate storage, lowering the float elevations around us, and we’ve met every standard for health and safety. I mean, our numbers are correct,” Lewis said. “They show we are dropping the flood levels and the water levels, and so it benefits everyone. City staff should be thanking us for helping the surrounding properties and help manage this floodplain issue, instead of fighting so much on this.”
Nash sided with the developers, citing the lack of a definite prediction from city staff.
“I don’t care about potential,” Nash said. “There’s gotta be some logic in here somewhere. I can say it might, it could (raise insurance rates), potentially. The logic, though, says if they’ve improved the situation, the insurance is not an issue. It gets better.”
Nash asked if Beatty could prove or disprove how the variance would affect the CRS, but Beatty said he cannot say what FEMA will do.
“The CRS program is about our higher standard,” Beatty said. “When we grant variances to our higher standard, we put our rating at risk.”
