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

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.