Council hears legal briefing after Oklahoma Supreme Court decision in Lisonbee v. McCoy Post et al; counsel cautions on repeal and timelines
Loading...
Summary
City legal counsel told Norman's council that the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed a decision affecting a TIF-related ordinance; counsel said the city likely lacks statutory authority to independently submit the TIF ordinance to voters and warned that repealing the ordinance could prompt contract- and constitution-based litigation with potentially large damages; developer-side counsel argued the Local Development Act permits repeal and downplayed the $230M worst-case scenario.
The Norman City Council held a legal briefing Feb. 17 after the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed a district court decision in Lisonbee et al v. McCoy Post et al (case D F 122,946), a matter tied to a previously enacted tax increment financing (TIF) ordinance and an associated economic development agreement (EDA).
City Attorney (legal counsel) summarized the ruling and explained next steps: parties have a 20-day window to file a petition for rehearing (deadline cited as Feb. 23, 2026). If no petition is filed or the court denies rehearing, the court may issue a mandate within seven days of that action (counsel estimated issuance around March 2, 2026), at which point the decision would be final for purposes of the city’s options.
Counsel advised council that statutory authority to independently submit a TIF ordinance to voters is unclear. He referenced the Local Development Act and municipal election provisions in Title 11 and explained that because Norman is a charter municipality, charter provisions and state statutes interact; his office’s reading is that municipalities do not have express statutory authority to submit a TIF ordinance to an election outside of initiative or referendum processes, and doing so could be judicially challenged.
Counsel also described the EDA’s section 8.5(a) (a force-majeure-style clause) and said the developer gave notice on Oct. 3, 2025 invoking litigation dates dating from Nov. 18, 2024. Counsel presented delay calculations (noting 496 days measured from litigation start to an assumed March 2, 2026 mandate, and a shorter measure tied to construction start dates) and recommended negotiating amended deadlines with the developer to avoid protracted disputes.
On the question of repeal, counsel warned of legal risk: because the city, the TIF authority and landowners are parties to the EDA, a unilateral repeal could lead to breach-of-contract and contracts-clause litigation. He said he would expect parties to seek significant damages and offered a working estimate that plaintiffs could claim at least $230,000,000 in damages, which, if awarded, could be paid from existing fund balances or spread through ad valorem property tax assessments over three years; counsel said such fiscal impacts would be substantial for residents.
Representing the petitioners/developer interests, attorney Norman disputed the city's fiscal worst-case framing and cited 62 O.S. §8-56(c) of the Local Development Act, which he said allows a municipality to repeal or amend an increment ordinance; he argued that, because no increment monies have yet been collected or bonds issued, the risk of a successful monetary judgment is lower and courts would likely resolve injunctive and declaratory issues before any jury award for damages.
Council members asked about charter amendment options, the possibility of using the charter to authorize ballots, past local precedents (including a Bethany example discussed in the briefing) and how to manage the EDA deadlines if the Supreme Court decision stands. Counsel recommended waiting out the rehearing window, then meeting with the county trust, developer and finance staff to discuss reasonable amended deadlines and to evaluate litigation risk and charter analyses before any formal council action.
No vote or formal direction was taken at the study session; staff were instructed to return with additional advice after the rehearing deadline.
