Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Finance Tif topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council declines to authorize litigation over arena TIF referendum; residents urge a public vote
Summary
A motion to authorize city litigation seeking a declaratory judgment about council authority to order a legislative referendum on the arena TIF failed for lack of a second. Dozens of residents used miscellaneous comment to press the council to put the TIF to a public vote and alleged procurement and conflict‑of‑interest problems at the arena trust.
A motion to authorize the Norman city attorney to file for a declaratory judgment about the council’s authority to order a legislative referendum on a tax increment financing (TIF) district failed Tuesday when it received no second, halting the city’s consideration of litigation and prompting extended public comment.
Councilmember Gandersberry moved to authorize litigation related to whether the council may order a referendum on an ordinance establishing a TIF under the Local Development Act; the motion received no second and therefore failed. Mayor Holman announced the procedural result from the dais.
The failure to advance the motion unleashed prolonged miscellaneous comment focused on the arena TIF and the related arena trust’s procurement and governance. Several speakers urged the council to put the TIF to a public vote and criticized staff and county actions. Rob Norman said he was “very disappointed” the item did not get a second and interpreted that as rejecting the city attorney’s recommendation; he described the staff proposal as a narrow path that reduced risk but said the council refused to deliberate.
Other residents alleged procedural and legal lapses at the arena trust. Andrew Rosneau and Cynthia Rogers described records and procurement steps they called irregular — citing timeline inconsistencies for RFP approvals, missing approvals and alleged gifts to the University of Oklahoma, and called for the council to step in and require compliance with law. Rogers, who was part of the referendum petition effort, said petitioners collected more than 11,000 signatures and urged the council to collaborate with citizens and developers to find a path to a public vote.
Council members gave varied explanations for not pursuing immediate city litigation. Councilmember Grant said she would not support suing the activist organization that circulated the petition and noted legal and practical risks, including the possibility of personal liability for council members if actions were taken contrary to the city attorney’s advice. Councilmember Blodgett echoed concerns about the optics of the city suing petitioners, while Councilmember Kirby said he opposed suing residents who sought a vote and remains supportive of putting the matter before voters by lawful means.
Supporters of the TIF project also spoke at the meeting. Chelsea Hinkle told the council she supports the TIF and said prior court rulings had found the referendum gist statement insufficient under legal standards, arguing that the referendum process had already been litigated and that additional city funding for litigation would amount to moving the goalposts. Paul Wilson and other residents offered a range of views from support for the project to sharply critical takes on process and communication.
The meeting closed without council action to authorize litigation; council members said options remain limited and that other procedural pathways — including actions by the Trust, county, or petition revision — may determine next steps.
