Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Norman Council adopts new local TIF process after extended debate; vote 6–2
Summary
The council adopted an ordinance creating additional local review for tax‑increment financing (TIF) proposals — including an early economic and risk analysis and an ad hoc stakeholder committee — following detailed discussion about the 'but‑for' test, district scope, impact on taxing jurisdictions and whether large TIF splits should require public approval.
The City Council voted 6–2 to approve a local ordinance establishing additional procedures to evaluate proposed tax‑increment financing (TIF) districts, a measure staff said is designed to provide more economic and fiscal analysis early in the review process.
Assistant City Attorney Catherine Walker described a multi‑step local process that adds an early economic and risk analysis, convenes an ad‑hoc stakeholder committee of residents, businesses and nonprofits, and routes proposals to the Economic Development Advisory Board before the statutory review committee and public hearings set out in state law.
The ordinance also incorporates a local 'but‑for' analysis intended to evaluate projects that statutorily qualify (for example, because they lie inside an enterprise or reinvestment area) to make sure TIF assistance is necessary to achieve council goals. Walker said the change does not replace the state statutory review; it supplements the review with more local analysis and public input.
The item drew extended debate. Council members and many public commenters questioned how the but‑for test would be applied across different TIF purposes, whether ad valorem tax increments (property taxes) should be preferred over sales‑tax increments, the maximum allowable percentage of revenue to be captured by a TIF and whether large incentives should be subject to voter approval. Several residents and experts recommended stronger analytic standards—economic impact studies and clear thresholds—before council approves TIFs that could divert property tax revenues from schools.
Supporters said the new process will produce more information early and create structured opportunities for resident input; critics argued the ordinance does not fully resolve core economic‑analysis gaps and urged additional changes including requiring public votes for large or long‑term TIF commitments.
After debate the ordinance passed final reading by a 6–2 roll call; the council recorded two dissenting votes.
