PRYOR, Oklahoma - On Wednesday, the Honorable Judge Rebecca Gore ruled in favor of the Petitioners in civil case CV-2022-00064. Judge Gore's decision will allow the TIF petition to be placed on the November ballot for the citizens of Mayes County to vote on.
This civil case was filed by Pat & Clint Lane protesting the legal sufficiency of the Referendum Petition on Resolution No. 22-38, the Mayes County TIF for Project Ocean. The plaintiffs argued that the language on the petition did not meet the state statute's requirements. Tom Sawyer, attorney for the petitioners, wrote in his response to the argument, "Petitioners are unable to persuade the People of Mayes County through the democratic process to choose the future Petitioners want. Thus, Petitioners are turning to this Court to force the People of Mayes County to accept the future Petitioners desire."
A second civil case, CV-2022-00065, was filed by Amy Allen and Greg Minnix against Mayes County Clerk Brittany True-Howard and Jill McCullah with the the Mayes County Election Board. It centered around two arguments. The first questioned whether the petitioners gathered signatures within the 30-day window required by the state statute. The second questioned whether the petition was filed within the same 30-day window. Attorney Glenn Coffee of Glenn Coffee and Associates withdrew the case on Wednesday.
The defendants argued that the County Commissioners passed Resolution 22-33 on April 28, 2022. Thirty days would require the defendants to file the petition on May 28, 2022, which was a Saturday. The petition was filed on Tuesday, May 31, 2022. Monday, May 27, the Courthouse was closed for Memorial Day. The petitioners provided notarized affidavits that all but 22 signatures were gathered before May 28, 2022. Tom Sawyer, attorney for the petitioners brought clarity by quoting an Oklahoma Supreme Court case, "When the last day within which a deed is to be performed falls on Sunday, that day is excluded, and the act may be done on the succeeding day."
Both cases have drawn much attention. Wednesday's issue was so crucial that Oklahoma's Secretary of State, Brian Bingman, was in the courtroom. However, the four plaintiffs were not available when Sawyer asked if they were registered voters for Mayes County. To prove that they were, the election board took the stand and verified that they were registered voters. Amy Allen did show up about thirty minutes after the question was raised about the registered voters.
On Friday, the Oklahomans for Fiscal Transparency posted that "we may see appeals to this ruling." We understand that any appeal will go directly to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. This raises the question, "Why are we wasting the court's time and resources when Panasonic (Project Ocean) has already chosen De Soto, Kansas, as their location?"
There are two answers that we have heard to this question. The first is the possibility of winning a phase 2 or an extension of the Panasonic plant. The second comes from a reader's comment on a previous story saying that since the TIF states "Project Ocean" and does not specify Panasonic, MAIP could entice another corporation to build in the TIF area.
Dave Stewart mentioned the first possibility in conversation during the July 27 hearing. In that same conversation, he stated that there are still questions concerning the environmental cleanup at the De Soto site. On July 14, Fox4KC reported that City Administrator Mike Brungardt said in an interview, "there is still environmental remediation going on on portions of the property." The report noted that the Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant is nine-thousand acres and Panasonic will only use 300 of those. According to Brungardt, those 300 acres that Panasonic will use have already been certified by the EPA. On July 22, De Soto approved two TIF districts, in addition to an already approved TIF district that encompasses 5,877 acres of the Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant. The two TIFs approved in July are for two separate 20-year periods. The first $202.6 million and the second $200 million in TIF revenues. Unlike the proposed Mayes County TIF, both De Soto TIFs will fund 100% of the project development, whereas Mayes County proposed a 50/50 split. The amount of money that Kansas is offering Panasonic begs the question, "Why would Panasonic build Phase 2 in the MidAmerican Industrial Park?
The thought that MAIP is using the "Project Ocean" language to entice another plant does not hold water. The Mayes County TIF has very specific financials attached to it. To find a company that will invest the same capital, hire the same number of employees, and brings in the same long-term investment is practically impossible.
The facts support a Phase 2 for the Panasonic mega-factory. If there was not a possibility of one then why did De Soto create the second $200 million TIF district? Even the Kansas City Business Journal reported that the second $200 million TIF shows support for "a potential $4 billion second phase."
