[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6233987,"mediaKeyId","3412244-792cfcb4c992ca0076b5efb2f4fb9401","parentId",3412244,"title","Norman council approves Rock Creek Entertainment District phasing plan amid court challenge and public protest","audioSeconds",5068,"startMs",1711000,"endMs",6779000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3412244-792cfcb4c992ca0076b5efb2f4fb9401&start=1711&end=6779","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3412244-792cfcb4c992ca0076b5efb2f4fb9401/thumbnail_1711000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6233987/Norman/Cleveland-County/Oklahoma/Norman-council-approves-Rock-Creek-Entertainment-District-phasing-plan-amid-court-challenge-and-public-protest","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6233987-17c6163c84040d64d4e9e91f701ee17b/orig.mp4?Expires=1775624141&Signature=iCuqjXj3QZMFsgbh-jD1EzSgoDSq56IAJ3P45UbfmJsb6ZJfxXuqzHup-QkMYtOLcTn7R7ns9OMazG-RjxP0gENHvVOVEKu9w9zDOhS3JsKodRJLHseQH9R~LK68lPK6HukKyOjOsPAeQixDK5Bv9aR8~BfbUUKqD~vYDhO9jObHCYG57KrFh9k1NuBEvkFfWnLQtlSnnOC75ar7JlS7w-oB~-D~k9f2OnWu7TnpW6E61hMVcXXfciSS4eKz7FJee09azGIqmFPqFVDiOJ5C5gTuLYukbJ-J1O114tzEiT5LMXGQxp8kBm1gsHO6rf03L0-r7xvDMMCePvjebFf4mw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Norman, OK","date","2025-05-21T02:39:55.597Z","article","The Norman City Council, sitting as trustees of the Norman Tax Increment Finance Authority (NIFTA), voted 8–1 on May 20 to approve a phasing plan required by the Rock Creek Entertainment District Economic Development Agreement (EDA), making approval contingent on either Judge Virgin’s ruling being affirmed or — if reversed — voters approving ordinance 24-25-2. Council Member Grant offered the amendment; Austin Ball recorded the lone vote against the motion.

The matter mattered to residents because the phasing plan ties to tax-increment financing for a proposed arena and mixed-use development and has drawn a referendum petition and pending litigation that, speakers said, could change whether tax increment is available to finance the project.

Council Member Chris Grant introduced the amendment and asked the city attorney how approving the plan as amended would affect the city’s legal and financial risk. City Attorney Knighton responded, “If you approve the motion as amended, you would satisfy the provisions in the E.D.A. that requires the tax increment authority to approve or disapprove the phasing plan,” and said that, under that approach, he did not believe the city would face additional financial risk in pending litigation.

Public commenters urged the council to postpone action while litigation and a referendum proceed. Steven Ellis of Ward 4 said the phasing plan is “seriously deficient” and asked whether language that phrases investment “subject to market demand” could allow developers to avoid the committed investment totals in the EDA. Rob Norman, counsel for the referendum petition proponents, argued the council had “a fiduciary duty” to wait until the referendum process and court review are finished and warned that moving forward would appear to align the council with “elite establishment” interests opposed by petition signers.

City Attorney Knighton described legal complexities in the room: the EDA ties tax-increment assistance for a roughly $230 million arena and parking garage to increment generated by the mixed-use development; the Cleveland County Trust would borrow to finance the arena and expects the mixed-use increment to cover debt service. Knighton said the statutes that allow judgments to be collected from municipal tax rolls do not apply to public trusts; instead, “judgments against public trust are paid for from the property of the public trust,” and he said that could put funds held for other TIF districts at risk if a large judgment were assessed against NIFTA.

Council members pressed for specifics about what “subject to market demand” meant for anticipated investment totals in the phasing plan. Knighton and council members described a two-step review: the phasing plan lists project components, timing windows and anticipated investments, and later-submitted development plans (due 90 days before construction) must include drawings, budgets and “evidence of sufficient financing capacity.” Knighton said development plans give NIFTA the more detailed assurances the authority can review before construction of each phase.

Several speakers raised practical concerns about incomplete projects and local fiscal impacts. Council Member Homan emphasized that consultants project a negative impact on the city’s general fund beginning early in the project and noted that lost general-fund revenue could require the city to raise other revenues or cut services. Multiple commenters asked whether approval would allow developers to begin substantial work before courts decide the referendum or appeals; Knighton said litigation remedies vary — termination, damages or equitable relief — and that some remedies could direct NIFTA to approve the phasing plan, while other outcomes could dissolve the EDA if a material financing component (tax increment) is removed by a vote.

After debate, the council voted to approve the phasing plan as amended. The vote count was 8–1 in favor; the clerk announced “the motion to approve the phasing plan contingent on Judge Virgin’s ruling being affirmed or by the voters approval of ordinance number 02425-2 if Judge Virgin’s ruling is reversed, passes by a vote of 8 to 1, Austin Ball voting against.”

The action does not end legal uncertainty: petitioners have challenged the ordinance that created the underlying TIF and the case is on appeal; the referendum process and any Supreme Court rulings could change whether tax increment is available to fund the arena. Several members of the public asked the council to wait for the court process and the referendum, while council members cited their responsibility as trustees of NIFTA and questioned the likelihood and consequences of litigation if the phasing plan were delayed. Council adjourned after the vote.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council Special Meeting, 5/20/25","oneSentenceSummary","The Norman City Council, sitting as trustees for the Norman Tax Increment Finance Authority, approved the phasing plan for the Rock Creek Entertainment District on May 20 by a vote of 8–1, while public commenters urged postponement pending a referendum and pending appeals.","taxTitle","Norman, Cleveland County, Oklahoma","taxId",2684,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6233992,"Norman budget presentation details sanitation, water and sewer enterprise funds and planned capital work",1239,100000,1339000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3412244-792cfcb4c992ca0076b5efb2f4fb9401&start=100&end=1339","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3412244-792cfcb4c992ca0076b5efb2f4fb9401/thumbnail_100000.jpg","/articles/6233992/Norman/Cleveland-County/Oklahoma/Norman-budget-presentation-details-sanitation-water-and-sewer-enterprise-funds-and-planned-capital-work","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6233992-afa7eda6c9422b809d7cd5efc284590d/orig.mp4?Expires=1775609132&Signature=okARtiCPvNe6F4b4SeX6~LveFHBeRrSq6dK-uZwb0FgeeWqlGwlB7mUY0hVMlwAkU2b6UDtP2odkRX8Rcl~rQoaVue6oklUiuX-5qPKTweEvS7N7FBxB6A7SCZmEfAWXykGWNz2fkmAgU2qmITrxrK-9DLHjzE3aREertHOSVuuz4OOxbSJQ0VjV4GhKWGAb4UGyFkwnRI-8e8DipGbLJMgiiV6LcwOF90C3JdDSezBLWUrRfb-kULX829w6xQ1qggRtAZ8lP1BOpaGbQcny~MoU2UoU4erUM71SOtWf530KyRaROIJU-S4Vyh8NGGNc3I71LaFUfAZT8Bf8diDwvQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Kim Kaufman, budget manager for the City of Norman, presented the city manager’s proposed fiscal year 2026 enterprise funds budget on May 20, detailing sanitation, water, water-reclamation and sewer maintenance funds and related capital projects.

The presentation matters because enterprise funds operate like utilities and are funded by user fees rather than general taxation; changes to those funds can affect ratepayers directly and influence future capital and maintenance work across the city.

Kaufman told the council the sanitation operation collects more than 110,000 tons per year and collects over 40,000 tons of yard waste annually, with curbside recycling—moved in-house this fiscal year—covering about 85% participation and more than 4,000 tons collected. The city’s residential trash service for a single poly cart is currently $17.20–$17.60 per month (includes $3 for recycling and a $0.20 Oklahoma solid waste management charge), a rate set in April 2011. Major proposed sanitation expenditures for FY2026 include about $2.2 million for computer and vehicle replacements and route-service software; the landfill tipping expense is budgeted at $3,125,000. Kaufman said the projected year-end fund balance for sanitation is about $4.8 million. The compost facility scale house is listed as a capital project at about $1.2 million.

On water, Kaufman said the city produces roughly 5 billion gallons annually from the water treatment plant, wells and purchases from Oklahoma City. Norman’s residential water base fee is $10.90 per month with usage charges beginning at $3.40 per 1,000 gallons; a summer surcharge of $0.35 per 1,000 gallons applies in July and August for usage above 20,000 gallons. The presentation compared Norman to peer cities: for 10,000 gallons monthly use Norman’s combined water charge was $52.70, about 25% below the sample average of $70.30. Kaufman projected an ending fund balance for water of about $2.6 million and listed major capital projects including a $16 million meter infrastructure program and a $7 million groundwater facility.

For the water-reclamation fund, Kaufman said average plant flow is about 30% below capacity except for an April 2025 outlier caused by heavy rains. Current residential wastewater rates were last changed in November 2013; the fund’s FY2026 ending balance was projected at about $4.9 million before a proposed amendment that would allocate part of that balance to main admin building and storage upgrades estimated at $3.5 million. Capital work slated for the plant includes dewatering centrifuges ($3.3 million) and aeration basin blower replacements ($2.8 million).

Kaufman reviewed the sewer maintenance fund, which is supported by a $5-per-month flat fee approved by voters in February 2001; council member Holman confirmed the fee has not been increased since voter approval. Kaufman said the sewer maintenance program has rehabilitated over 488,000 feet of sewer lines since 2001 and listed planned projects totaling several million dollars across multiple years.

Council members asked clarifying questions about long-term fee history and the cost-of-service study. Council Member Grant asked about the Raftelis cost-of-service study; Kaufman said the study is expected to be completed next fiscal year and will inform any future rate decisions. Council Member Holman emphasized landfill tipping costs—about $3.1 million per year—and urged continued focus on waste reduction.

The presentation also included cross‑city rate comparisons showing Norman’s total monthly utility bill for 10,000 gallons of water and sewer plus trash service at about $102, roughly 36% below the sample average of $158.63. Kaufman said user-fee revenues across utility funds are modeled to grow about 1.5% annually for planning purposes. The council did not take action on the item; Kaufman closed by offering to answer additional questions.

The council will hold a final budget hearing May 27 and consider budget adoption on June 6; Kaufman said an optional June 3 study session is scheduled and the fiscal year begins July 1.

","Budget manager Kim Kaufman reviewed the city manager’s proposed FY2026 enterprise funds budget, outlining current rates, major capital projects and fund balances for sanitation, water, water reclamation and sewer maintenance and noting planned studies and upcoming development-plan amendments.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Norman council approves Rock Creek Entertainment District phasing plan amid court challenge and public protest

Norman budget presentation details sanitation, water and sewer enterprise funds and planned capital work