Cleveland County Commissioners Work to deter Public Vote on Arena

On March 2, 2026. the Cleveland County Commissioners took action to move the Arena TIF forward, trying to block city action to repeal.

What did Commissioners do?

They approved issuing bonds, notes, and other short-term debt for the Arena TIF project, to be paid with longer term bonds issued later. Why does this matter?

This allows the Commissioners to incur debt without waiting for the bond process to play out, which takes time. Authorizing other types of debt that can be issued quickly, without public input, without bond analysis, is an attempt to deter a public vote on the Arena Project. How does taking on quick to issue short-term debt impact the City's ability to put the project ordinance to a vote? The County will use the debt obligations as leverage to try to keep Norman City Council from repealing the Arena TIF project, which it has the authority to do under the Local Development Act, which authorizes TIF. Didn't the County Commissioners say they thought the project should go to a vote? Yes, they did. Yet their actions haven't supported this sentiment.

What can you do? Contact City and County elected officials:

Norman City Council members

Ward#@normanok.gov - insert ward number for the "#" city_council_members@normanok.gov County Commissioners:

(405) 366-0200

Rcleveland@clevelandcountyok.com JMcHughes@clevelandcountyok.com RGrissom@clevelandcountyok.com  

Oklahoma Supreme Court shuts down public vote on Arena TIF

On February 3, 2026, the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld the district court decision which found the referendum petition to be insufficient. The gist statement was determined to be flawed for not including details about triggering events which would end the TIF.

The Chief Justice was the lone dissenting opinion. He argued that the right to a referendum is a "fundamental" citizen right that should not have been blocked over these technicalities. 

As reported in  nondoc.com

“Comparison of the plan, the ordinance and the gist demonstrates that the gist accurately summarizes the governing documents. Protestants simply take issue with how that summary is presented,” Rowe wrote. “The ordinance and the plan are both of great textual complexity and were undoubtedly drafted by lawyers specialized in municipal finance law. To find that the gist is misleading we must conclude the governing documents it summarizes are misleading.”

As for the gist not outlining all three ways the sales tax and property tax TIFs could terminate, Rowe cited the court’s decision regarding State Question 809, when the court ruled “the gist is not required to include ‘every regulatory detail so long as its outline is not incorrect.'”

“Upon review, the gist is not inaccurate, misleading, and is certainly not fraudulent. It synthesizes the technically complex governing documents that — in themselves — are difficult to decipher,” Rowe said. “The gist is not required to resolve such technical complexities — rather it is tasked with providing signatories a fair outline of the measure’s substance to prevent fraud, deceit, or corruption.”

The legal requirements for GIST statements are subject to interpretation. 

The requirement for the gist statement are vague. The gist is supposed to summarize the item in question, and is not required to give every detail. How much detail is sufficient is left to judicial interpretation after signatures have been collected. This puts a heavy and risky burden on citizens who wish to utilize the referendum process.

Judge Kuehn wrote: “Because of the sanctity of that right, the power of initiative and referendum ‘should not be crippled, avoided, or denied by technical construction by the courts.'” “A challenger ‘bears a heavy burden to establish any infirmity’ with a petition and any doubt is resolved in favor of the petition.” 

Chief Justice Rowe disagreed: “I cannot accept that proponents’ gist is so inadequate as to deprive the voters of their constitutional right to vote — up or down — on the ordinance.” “I would allow the ordinance to go to a vote of the people.”

What happens next?

Cleveland County Commissioners have been moving forward with the plan, even before the Supreme Court decision on the referendum was decided. 

On October 3, 2025 the County Commissioners signed an agreement to extend the timelines in the Economic Development Agreement by the amount of time between the filing of the litigation against the referendum (November 18, 2024) and the Supreme Court Decision. This means the project plan has a delay of 442 days or 14 months and 2 weeks. 

On December 15, 2025, the Recreation and Entertainment Facilities Authority accepted two bids for the design, construction and operations of the Arena from Legends Global and OVG/Populace/Flintco. These are under review by Hunden Partners and Floyd and Driver. 

On February 17, the County approved payments to Hunden Partners for advisory services for January ($40,000) and to MuniCap, Inc for assessment services to evaluate the tax increment in the TIF district ($10,000, initial Phase 1 upfront payment).

What is City Council's next move to assure a public vote?
Norman City Council will explore options regarding the Rock Creek Entertainment District TIF ordinance at a study session on February 17, 2026. Stay tuned... 

Cleveland County Commissioners Continue to push Arena Project

 

On August 7, 2025, the Cleveland County Recreation and Entertainment Facilities Trust held an the 8- minute, special meeting regarding the "Cleveland County arena".  Once again, there was no opportunity for public engagement. The Authority's legal counsel, David Floyd, gave a brief presentation after which the 3 County Commissioners and a member that they appointed (with one member absent) approved issuing a Request for Proposal for a builder, designer and operator of the "Cleveland arena project."

The Commissioners/Authority members have not seen a draft of the RFP. There was no discussion of what the RFP should include. Once again, the Commissioners provided no opportunity for public comments.

Attorney Floyd noted that the referendum petition to put the arena project to a public vote is at the State Supreme Court. There is a disagreement about if the arena process is on hold due to the referendum.  Attorney Floyd argues that the petitioners did not request an injunction so none exists. Attorney Robert Norman (for ORED) has argued that there is a defacto injunction until the referendum is determined.

After the meeting, I asked Floyd why the County Trust/Commissioners didn't request a delay due to the litigation.  He said it wasn't the county's place claiming they "play a small role in the project."   

Yes, the Trust is a separate legal entity.  It is a creation of the Commissioners and the Commissioners make up 3 of 5 board members (the other 2 were appointed by the Commissioners). The Commissioners role on the authority is to protect the interests of the County.   

Floyd also tried to claim that the Commissioners have a small role because a third-party operator will be hired. Who has the responsibility to oversee the operations and management? The Trust/Commissioners. If they choose to hire a third-party operator, the Trust/Commissioners are still responsible for the arena. The County Trust will own the public arena.

It is hard to have faith in County oversight of third-party operators based on the problems at the Cleveland County Detention Center, including troubling health inspection reports and several inmate deaths. 

Bottom line - the County has played a HUGE role in steamrolling the arena TIF project forward.  The County set up a trust. The Trust will take on massive debt obligations, as well as responsibility for building, maintaining, and operating the facility. 

News Articles: 

Ana Barboza, OU Daily: Cleveland County requests entertainment district services | News | oudaily.com

Sam Royka, Normant Transcript: County seeks proposals, quotes for Rock Creek Arena Project | News | normantranscript.com

Media Coverage:

John Hayes, Kfor. com: Cleveland Co. moves forward with requests for proposals tied to Rock Creek project

Matt McCabe, news9; Q&A: What’s next for Norman’s Rock Creek Entertainment District?

Norman Arena TIF Referendum Timeline

This article gives the timeline surrounding the Referendum Petition to allow Norman to vote on the Arena TIF proposal. 


November 13, 2023 - City Council approved creating a statutory review committee to make a recommendation about the proposed arena TIF district in the north part of the University North Park District, which was part of the original UNP TIF #2.

April 4, 2024 - pre-development meeting to discuss the site plan and zoning.

April 4, 2024 - Oklahoma Department of Commerce Economic Impact of Norman TIF District

This analysis starts with the development plan provided by OU Foundation and Norman Economic Development Coalition (Hunden Partners Analysis). It does not detail the exact components that were used as inputs. It includes a weather museum which is not part of the development agreement.  

The approach is inverted because it estimates the number of jobs associated with projected activity in the TIF district plus the construction of the district itself. Construction job costs become a "benefit" of the project rather than a cost. Further, if a person lives but does not work in the district, their job would be part of the indirect impact of the TIF activity. The analysis also ignores the likely shift of jobs from retail outside the TIF to the TIF.  

April 24, 2024 - First Meeting of the Full Statutory Review Committee (46 minutes)

May 13, 2024 - Statutory Review Committee meeting (83 minutes)

Presentations of studies by Hunden Partners, Department of Commerce, CoAlign with analysis based on the original OU Foundation plan which was much larger than what was eventually approved.

May 16, 2024 - Statutory Review Committee meeting  (89 minutes)

Presentation of Project Plan by Center for Economic Development Law

May 23, 2024 - Statutory Review Committee recommended approval (30 minutes)

The SRC made its recommendation based on the marketing information and analysis related to a larger project than what was later approved by City Council in the development agreement.

Discussion and presentation of financial impacts on taxing jurisdictions. The SRC did not consider the financial impacts on the City, County, School District, or Moore-Norman Vo-Tech budgets during the period when the TIF would capture tax revenue growth. No comprehensive cost-benefit or risk analysis was performed.

June 13, 2024 - Planning Commission approves zoning and project plan

June 18, 2024 - Development Oversight Committee for original TIF #2 rejects Arena TIF Plan

The committee voted against the overall project plan in a 3-2 vote with the representative from Norman Public Schools abstaining. The committee's letter expressed "overriding concerns" including:

1. Overall amount of future City sales tax and multi-jurisdictional property tax revenue that would be pledged toward the project for up to 25 years; 
2. Diversion of taxes from properties in University North Park that lie outside the proposed Entertainment District (south of Rock Creek Road)  
3. Potential negative impact on Norman businesses and the City's General fund and Capital sales Tax Fund through "cannibalization" and diversion of customers from areas of the City outside of the Entertainment District to businesses in the Entertainment District. 

July 22, 2024 - Development Oversight Committee for original TIF #2 Meeting

The City Council and City's Attorney's office expressed problems with the development agreement negotiations.  The oversight committee members had significant concerns about the proposed arena entertainment district. One member suggested it needed to go back to the drawing board. 

August 29, 2024 - HVS releases Sales TIF District Analysis for arena District

This analysis shows how the diversion of sales taxes to the TIF fund will negatively impact the City general fund budget. Note that the Statutory Review Committee did not see this analysis even though it is mandated to consider fiscal impacts on impacted jurisdictions.

September 3, 2024 - First public hearing

Members of the public were given 3 minutes to ask questions. Some, but not all, questions were addressed. 

The final development agreement was not complete. This is important because the contractual obligations that OU Foundation/developers agreed to were much smaller than the plan shown to the Statutory Review Committee.

September 12, 2024 - Development Agreement finalized 

The development agreement sets out the contractual obligations of OU Foundation/developers for the arena TIF project.  The project's scope outlined in the development agreement was much smaller than the $1 billion project approved by the Statutory Review Committee. The Statutory Review Committee  reviewed a much larger plan than what was detailed in the development agreement but the authorizes spending was the same $600 million.

September 17/18, 2024 - Second public hearing

OU Foundation/developer gave an extended presentation. OU's president and OU's Director of Athletics were given the opportunity to make comments. OU Students were paid to attend and occupy seats in City Council chambers. Members of the public, including legal and economics subject matter experts, were given 3 minutes each to make comments.  

City Council approved the ordinance to create TIF #3 (sales tax capture) and TIF #4 (property tax capture) in a 5 to 4 vote cast after midnight on the 18th.

September 20, 2024 - Citizens file Referendum Petition to put the TIF Plan to a public vote. www.responsibleok.com.

October 17, 2024 - Referendum Petition signatures were submitted to City Clerk

November 6, 2024 - City Clerk certified sufficient signatures to put Arena TIF to a vote on February 11, 2025.

November 18, 2024 - Legal protest filed against Referendum Petition

Four Norman businessmen filed a legal petition challenging the sufficiency of the Referendum Petition:

- David Nimmo, CEO of Chickasaw Nation Industries, Board Chair of Norman Economic Development Coalition, 

- Vernon McKown, CEO of Ideal Homes, 

- Dan Quinn, real estate agent, 

- Kyle Allison, Allison's Fun Inc. 

February 19, 2024 - Case heard by Judge Virgin.  Challengers argued that gist was deceptive and lacked key elements.  Referendum filers argued that it was a good gist and summarized the ordinance and that it would lead to a vote on the ordinance. 

As reported by NonDoc.com -   Norman TIF saga continues as judge blocks public vote

“This right is precious,” Norman said. “This is what separates us from the oligarchs, the monarchs, and the dictators and the few who would seek to influence them by going against the will of the people.”

Norman said the protestants “denigrate the signatories” by arguing they would not understand the gist as written. Further, he argued distilling the 133-page project plan into a short paragraph will always, by nature, require omission of some detail, but the level of omission must constitute “fraud” to warrant being struck from a ballot.

February 21, 2024  - Judge Virgin rules the gist is insufficient striking down the public vote on the arena TIF ordinance. Court rejects petition against Norman TIF: Key dates, funding, and project timeline

March 7, 2025 - Cleveland County Recreation and Entertainment Facility Authority approved Economic Development Agreement for Arena TIF district in a special meeting called with the minimum required 48-hour notice.  No public comment was allowed. The Commissioners did not discuss the financial implications of taking on debt needed to finance $230 million in project costs, or the requirement to build, operate and manage an 8,000 seat arena and parking structure.  The only commissioner comment was Rod Cleveland who noted that the agreement was "the exact same thing" that the city approved.  

There was no discussion of the Referendum petition signed by over 11,000 Norman (and Cleveland County) residents.  The legal process has not been completed.

Cleveland County leaders approve Norman entertainment district plan

March 18, 2024 - ORED Appeals Gist Challenge, files appeal at Oklahoma Supreme Court.

ORED files UNP petition appeal with Oklahoma Supreme Court | News | oudaily.com

March 27, 2025 - Oklahoma Supreme Court grants request to hear the case

April 29, 2025 -  May 15, 2025 - motions were made to forgo and to retain oral arguments.  The Supreme court has not decided this issue. Briefs can be found here - https://www.normanok.gov/information-proposed-entertainment-district

April 29, 2025 - Brief of respondents (defending the referendum) https://www.normanok.gov/file/31410/download?token=phLi0MmL

May 10, 2025 - Norman City Council voted to approve the Phasing Plan contingent on the Supreme Court decision to throw out the Referendum, or a majority vote of the public.

May 19, 2025 - Answer Brief of petitioners (opposing the referendum) - https://www.normanok.gov/file/31409/download?token=BKAASprQ

May 25, 2029 - Final Brief of respondents (defending the referendum) - https://www.normanok.gov/file/31410/download?token=phLi0MmL
 

STAY TUNED FOR UPDATES ON SUPREME COURT DECISION

Referendum Effort Almost Doubles Signatures Needed

This article provides a brief history of the referendum petition related to the proposed UNP arena district in Norman, Oklahoma. Link to project plan

City Council approved an ordinance creating the Rock Creek Entertainment TIF district by a vote of 5 to 4. There were two public hearings held two weeks apart. These were contentious for multiple reasons. The opposition to the ordinance led to the creation of the non-profit, Normans for Responsible Economic Development and a referendum petition effort that submitted 11,602 signatures to the City Clerk.


FIRST PUBLIC HEARING

The first hearing on September 3, 2024 was intended to be a question and answer format.  Residents were not aware that comments had to be made in a question format and some were deterred from commenting. 

Notably a group of OU students showed up two hours early for this meeting.

OU Daily photo showing group of students at first public hearing

SECOND PUBLIC HEARING: 

The second hearing on September 17, 2024 was grossly one-sided.  OU Foundation and the Texas Development partners (Rainier) were given as much time as they wanted.  OU President Harroz was given time to make comments even though OU is not a party in the economic development contract. OU Foundation is the landowner and developer of record.

Subject matter experts were limited to 3 minute comments. Attorney Robert Norman, who sits on the University North Park TIF #2 committee and has knowledge of the contents of the ordinance and the development agreement, was given 3 minutes to make comments.  Dr. Cynthia Rogers (that's me), OU professor of Economics and subject matter expert on TIF, public finance, and local economic development was also limited to 3 minutes. 

OU STUDENTS WERE OFFERED PAYMENT TO OCCUPY COUNCIL CHAMBERS

Over 60 OU students attended the meeting, showing up early and taking seats in the City Council meeting room.  OU President Harroz pointed them out and a made a big deal about their attendance.

It was later discovered that those students were offered payment to show up and serve as props.  When OU Daily asked students why they showed up (audio) none mentioned they were offered payment. OU Daily obtained a message sent by OU Sophomore, David Echols, which offered payment to students to attend the meeting.  Echols denied sending the message despite the evidence (OU Daily article).   

OU Daily's investigation discovered the source of the payment offer - Jayke Flaggert, an OU alumni, a former employee and current subcontractor for Norman Economic Development Coalition (Link to OU Daily article).   It is unclear who covered those payments.  NEDC, OU Foundation, OU Athletics, OU President's office have all denied knowledge of the payments. Link to OU Daily video

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS NOT DISCUSSED 

The development agreement which creates the contractual obligations related to the TIF ordinance was released to the public a mere 4 days prior to the second public hearing.  There was little time to dig into the peculiar and vague language and there was not additional/separate public discussion on the actual contract.

COUNCIL APPROVED TIF ORDINANCE 

City Council approved the creation of the UNP Arena TIF with the minimum number of votes needed in a 5 to 4 vote. Voting for were Mayor Heikkila, council members Scott Dixon (Ward 8), Matt Peacock (Ward 2) , Joshua Hinkle (Ward 6), and Austin Ball (Ward 1).  Voting against were council members Bree Montoya (Ward 3), Michael Nash (Ward 5), Helen Grant (Ward 4), and 2025 mayoral candidate Stephen Tyler Holman (Ward 7).

OKLAHOMANS FOR RESPONSIBLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (ORED)

ORED is a grass roots, non profit organization formed by Norman residents who seek to provide residents with a voice in economic development matters.  Their first action was to organize a referendum petition allowing Norman residents to vote on the UNP Arena TIF ordinance.  ORED website

A referendum petition is built into the Local Development Act which enables the formation of TIF district in Oklahoma. It is the last recourse for voters if they do not agree with a legislative action.  A petition requires considerable effort and organization. There are specific requirements for the petition packets, including the wording of a gist statement summarizing the issue, the signature page, and a copy of the actual ordinance to be put up to vote. Once the packet is drafted, it is filed with the City Clerk who reviews it and then stamps the date it was filed.    

REFERENDUM PETITION SUCCESS

The referendum petition on the UNP Arena TIF ordinance was filed by three Norman residents, Pamela Mccoy-Post, Paul Arcaroli and Richard Sondag, on Sept. 20. If successful, the petition would put the ordinance approving the UNP arena TIF to a public vote on February 11. The required number of valid signatures is 25% of the number of voters who cast a ballot in the most recent Mayoral election, which was 6,098 in this case.                                      

Over a hundred volunteers participated in the signature gathering process. Women in Action for All of Norman organized training events for volunteers to understand the legal requirements for collecting signatures. Volunteer notaries were available for notarizing signed petition packets.  Several businesses, including Stash, Green Feather, Alameda Market, B&B Liquor Market, supported the effort by having petitions on hand. Roots Salon allowed a tent to be in place daily for drive-up signature gathering. The location was moved to Yellow Dog Coffee's parking lot for better traffic Flow. Pink Pig and St. Stephens UMC allowed petition collection and notarizing on their premises.

Photo from OU Daily article  Link to OU Daily article

On October 15, 2024, ORED and petition volunteers submitted 11,602 signatures on the referendum petition. 

"Municipal Referendum Act and the Local Development Act required us to get 6098 signatures, I am happy to tell you that our official signatures we are submitting is 11,602," said Attorney Rob Norman. (Fox25news)

WHAT COMES NEXT?

The city clerk has 30 days to validate that enough signatures from registered voters in Norman were collected. 

Then there is a 10 day period for challenges.  There was a challenge by 3 former Norman mayors the last time residents filed sufficient signatures for a referendum petition on the UNP TIF #2 amended project plan. 

If the petition survives legal challenges, then voters will get to cast a ballot on Feb 11. Legal challenges could delay the vote to the April election.

Arena Referendum Offers Community Building Opportunity

This letter to the editor was published in the Norman Transcript, October 23, 2024.
link to lte

Arena referendum offers opportunity for community building

Norman’s experience with TIF targeting public spending in the University North Park district between Robinson and Tecumseh continues to divide our community. Norman has been here before. Lather, rinse, repeat.

A referendum petition is the voter’s goal line stance against controversial projects approved by council. All council votes on UNP TIF projects have been controversial.

The proposed UNP Arena TIF was approved by a 5 to 4 vote, the bare minimum needed. The original UNP TIF #2 for the Target anchored retail strip mall and the amended TIF #2 agreement which ended the TIF diversion to balance the city general fund also passed with only 5 council votes.

The referendum petition offers a chance for community dialogue and engagement that should have happened at the beginning of the process.

Do Norman voters want to spend up to $600 million tax dollars on an arena rather than other things? Do Norman voters want to pour more tax dollars into the UNP area which already benefited from TIF #2? Would other areas give a bigger band for public tax spending infusion? Do Norman voters trust a county authority to build, own, and operate an arena? What happens if the project goes belly-up before completion?

This is not the first Norman referendum on UNP TIF projects. In 2019, citizens collected enough valid signatures in to put the amended UNP TIF #2 agreement to a vote. In exchange for ending the TIF diversion which was needed to balance the city general fund, the developers were no longer required to completing the promised (and still not built) lifestyle center or refund its share of Legacy Park which was tied to lifestyle completion. Legal challenges prevented voters from getting to vote on the agreement.

A referendum petition is citizen’s only recourse when the process does not lead to a plan broadly acceptable to voters. Mayor Heikkila, OU Leadership, Norman Economic Development Coalition, and the UNP arena development partners have demonstrated a gross disrespect for citizen input and the petition process.

A referendum petition is the red zone for creating a TIF district. Gathering over 11,600 signatures is not an easy or cheap task. The level of community support for the petition demonstrates a strong and clear message about the TIF plan.

As Norman resident await signature validation, what will Norman business and OU leaders be doing? Will they pursue legal tactics to try to throw out the strong and clear desire to vote on the project? Will they, instead, participate in forums and townhalls with balanced discussions?

If the arena project is so good for Norman, make the case, engage the community, respect the process. Let’s brainstorm as a community on financing that makes sense and does not burden future city, county, and school budgets.

Above all, please be good neighbors.

Cynthia Rogers, Norman

OU Arena Entertainment District is NOT $1 Billion Proposal

 Wow, wouldn't a $1 billion entertainment district be great for Norman?  Imagine the private investment, the new entertainment opportunities, the money rolling into Norman.  Overblown marketing plans are a far cry from the reality of the Arena TIF agreement.

The TIF district landowner (OU Foundation, UNP North, LLC), Texas development partners (Rainier), Norman Economic Development Coalition (Lawrence McKinney), the Norman Chamber of Commerce (Scott Martin), and Visit Norman (Dan Schemm) have been promoting a $1 billion district. 

The contractual agreement falls well short of this.  The development agreement outlines the legal obligation of taxpayers:  up to $600 million paid out for as long as 25 years to finance $230 million in costs for the anchor project (arena, parking structure and public infrastructure).  

The TIF district would take 100% of sales taxes and property taxes paid in the larger increment area for improvements made on land owned by OU Foundation.  Instead of tax revenues flowing to City, County and school budgets, they would go toward the costs of an arena and parking structure. 

What are OU Foundation and their development partners proposing to do?  Not a $1 billion project that has been presented as the maximum potential cost of a larger project in the area. 

OU Foundation proposes to facilitate" the construction of $650 million project on land that it owns.  The $650 million includes $230 million for the arena, parking structure, and public infrastructure paid for by TAXPAYERS. 

The private investment portion is only $420 million!

The entertainment district includes a boutique 8,000 seat arena (the smallest in the SEC), a 1,200-spot parking garage, a plaza, and 140,000 square feet of bars, restaurants, and retail. We are talking about a block and a half of downtown Norman or Campus Corner adjacent to an area. 

The proposed project plan adds up to $650 million, not $1 billion. 

Here's a graphic that Dan Munson created to illustrate. 

Debunking Myths: Arena TIF WILL Negatively Impact Norman Schools

 In this article, I will explain how the Arena Tax Increment Finance (TIF) plan will take revenue growth from Norman Schools.  Imagine you plan for 4.25% tax revenue growth but some of that will go to a build an arena instead of flowing to your budget.  This is the situation with the Arena TIF.   

I will dispute some misleading/incorrect assertions made to make it seem that the Arena TIF does not harm public education.  We want the project to leave school funding harmless. This, however, is not going to happen for a project that could grab $389 million in property taxes. 

Myth #1 - The Arena TIF does not impact current budgets so it won't harm schools.

Discussion: Whereas it is true that current budgets are not impacted this is a silly statement. The TIF plan impact budgets going forward.  Future school revenues will be impacted. (see details below)

Myth #2 - Norman School District will not benefit from revenue collected in the TIF district because the school aid formula will offset new school revenues.  

Discussion: This is clearly false.  Not all school taxes are factored in the school aid formula. As properties come onto tax rolls, Norman Schools get more revenues.  TIF grabs school taxes that would otherwise go to schools. 

Myth #3- Nothing would happen in the Arena TIF district without spending $600 million on the arena, parking garage and public infrastructure.

Discussion: This is a far-fetched claim.  (1) The Arena project mostly involves moving (OU sports) and replicating entertainment opportunities (bars and restaurant) already happening in Norman. (2) The tax diversion district includes properties that have no commercial retail restrictions, are adjacent to operating businesses and the Young Family Athletic Center which attracts a lot of foot traffic. These will go on the tax rolls without an arena. (see details below)

Here are some slides with details:

Guest Post: Is there an 8,000 seat arena opportunity gap?

In this Facebook Post, Norman Resident Dan Munson provides interesting details which challenge the claim that an 8,000 seat arena in Norman would fill an "opportunity gap."  According to Munson, there does not seem to be a gap in the OKC metro area.  

Here's what Munson wrote:


The proposed arena in the University North Park (UNP) is projected to seat 8,000 people.  The current arena (Lloyd Noble Center) seats 11,528 people.

The University of Oklahoma foundation, Team Norman, and the developer claim that there is a gap for arenas in the midsize range.  I don’t agree with that assessment because 22 miles away there is the Jim Norick arena (10,944 capacity) and the new OG&E coliseum that is projected to open in April 2025 that will hold between 7,000 to 8,500 depending on the event.  Other Oklahoma arenas include Fire Lake arena (5,000 seats), Mabee Center (10,094 seats) and the Lucas Oil arena (6,500 seats). The Lucas Oil arena completely dominates the concert market in Oklahoma.  During public comments, I asked why Lucas Oil arena wasn’t considered in the market analysis for the Hunden report or the HVS report and received no response.

Booking concerts, large family events, and comedy shows will be the key to financial wellness for the proposed arena. The other arenas listed above have established relationships with the large concert promoters like Live Nation. These concert promoters are key to getting dates booked at an arena. I believe the University of Oklahoma has been woefully unsuccessful utilizing the Lloyd Noble arena for concerts.  The Lloyd Noble center has no established “muscle memory” as it pertains to concerts. This will increase the difficulty to attract future concert dates.  I believe the only way to win in a situation like this is to offer additional revenue sharing to the concert promoter which isn’t good for the longer term financial wellness of the arena because they will not likely have the funding to properly maintain the arena.  

The SEC had conference-wide average attendance for men’s basketball games of over 11,000 in 2023, with the sole arena that is off campus being Kentucky basketball’s Rupp Arena having an average attendance of 19,928 for men’s basketball this season. Rupp is only 0.7 miles off campus.  Building an arena that seats 3,000 less than the average attendance of the SEC that is about 5 miles away from campus, doesn’t seem like a good long-term plan unless the University of Oklahoma is planning to be uncompetitive in basketball.

During the Q&A’s someone asked if the Lloyd Noble Center would be torn down after the new arena was built.  The answer was “No”.  If the LNC isn’t torn down, did someone get a non-compete letter signed by the University of Oklahoma for the Lloyd Noble Center?

Does UNP warrant $600 million more public spending? (Guest Blog)

Norman Resident Dan Munson posted this article on Facebook (see link below). It discusses how much public funding has already been spent in the University North Park District. It also points out the large ownership that the Arena TIF development partner, Rainier, has in the UNP TIF district south of Rock Creek Road.  The original TIF was launched in 2006 and now has maintenance issues even while the project is still moving toward full build out. 

Here's what Dan Munson wrote:

The city of Norman has invested more than $100M in the University North Park (UNP) area with Norman Forward & TIF funded projects. There have been substantial investments in infrastructure in that area since 2006. Legacy Park & The Young Family Athletic Center (YFAC) are two major projects that have helped drive an increase in revenue to businesses.

When UNP property owners don’t maintain their properties (to include parking lots and landscaping) there isn’t any recourse for the city of Norman since it’s considered private property.  When I drive through portions of the UNP, I see potholes, large cracks in pavement, and parking lots that should have been resealed and stripped years ago. I also see dead trees and unkept landscaping in some areas.

Perhaps, I’m just old fashioned, but I think when we give UNP property owners a $100M+ gift, we should expect they keep up with the maintenance of their properties.  I believe that if we allocate an additional $600M to expand the UNP TIF area then we’ll just see more of the same in years to come. 

The TIF applicant (*Rainer) has been a 50.4% owner along with South African REIT Emira Property Fund who is a 49.6% owner (more on the South African Emira tomorrow) since June 2019. According to Rainer’s website (link in comments) they jointly own Super Target, Crest Foods, Academy, Dollar Tree, Home Goods, Kohls, Petco, TJ Max, and Ulta Beauty.  I’ve included some photos of their properties and others in this post. I believe these photos represent a very small sample of the maintenance needed.  I would encourage you to take a drive or stroll through the UNP starting at Target and ending at Guitar Center to see for yourself.

Since the city of Norman is unable to enforce property maintenance on private property, we should consider changing the form-based code in the UNP to require all parking lots to be made with concrete rather than asphalt for all new construction moving forward. Concrete parking lots are significantly more durable, can withstand hot weather, they radiate less heat, and can be textured to improve safety.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1547280172174370/?hoisted_section_header_type=recently_seen&multi_permalinks=3990267434542286&__cft__[0]=AZXnBlDNGPLefX6lHcsXtHRzuY8H6pGwey10b3L09Q1mGzk8w3UhvjVVhDlOT-RSJI8eLru_P9vhJngQYpjNQ_S6ebROlVgxHulw_CQII0NMiubu0VqbMgR1kALsjvHEc5U0JUmmZHjVWMczVqoDDcNgC8DxsJ1z0mSjqeZb94oNnYDfudCBX8RgRhL7CzoMEzWMvaEnhJsH5-cu4PpPCeV4JoadJlDz5CYiTQdxCJ6IUGDB1XbqzoWndeUEriM50z4&__tn__=-UC%2CP-y-R

Referendum to put the Arena TIF plan to a vote

This article has information about the petition process. 
Norman residents want public vote on arena and entertainment district (newsbreak.com)

Once filed, petitioners will have 30 days to collect signatures.
6200 signatures are needed to put the project plan ordinance to a public vote.
Signatures must be from registered voters who live in Norman.

A nonprofit has formed to organize the referendum petition.
See Oklahomans for Responsible Economic Development for more information (responsibleok.com)

About 40 people attended a training on how to collect signatures.
Women In Action for All Norman organized the training.
There will be a second training event on Tuesday, September 24th.

I will be at the training to answer questions about the Arena TIF plan, how it impacts the city and school budgets, and how it displaces activity from nontif businesses. 

 

Articles on how TIF works (and doesn't work)

 Does Tax Increment Financing Really Work? Usually, No. - Bloomberg

Your Questions Answered: Is TIF Always Bad? (strongtowns.org)

Trouble with UNP Arena TIF: Slides explaining how TIF hurts City Budget

 

OU Foundation owns most of the proposed UNP Arena TIF district

 

It is always good to check the facts when developers bring projects forward asking for large amounts of public tax spending. 

The City of Norman has brought in the Center for Economic Development Law and also CoAlign to "run" the TIF numbers. O'Connor from CoAlign gave the city's presentation at the first public hearing for the proposed Arena TIF project in the north half of the University North Park. 

 O'Connor tried hard to make it seem like the difference between the City's independent analysis by HVS and Hunden was how much Land OU controls.  HVS was hired by the Center for Economic Development Law to do economic impact analysis of the project. The performed estimates for a project that was significantly smaller than the original ones provided by OU Foundation and Rainier Partners done by Hunden Partners. 

FACT CHECKING SHOWS THAT OU FOUNDATION OWNS MOST OF THE LAND

The bulk of the project spending would be for an arena and parking structure in the "improvement area" outlined in yellow. This is ALL owned by OU Foundation. 

OU Foundation controls 159 acres if the data at the assessor's office is correct.

Of the land in the larger project area, the stuff outlined in red is already set to pop.

Southwest Wire has an industrial site and has stated it does not want to be included in the TIF district.

What about the remaining lots that might be developed in connection with the arena?

Norman Economic Development Coalition and Moore-Norman Vo-Tech are the primary land owners of the "larger" project area

The taxes paid in the larger increment district will be used to funnel public spending on OU Foundation land.  OU Foundation and OU don't even pay property taxes making it interesting that they want to grab taxes paid by other businesses. 

If you think of it this way, it is a shell game - where do the tax dollars flow?  From one budget to another.  

UNP TIF #2 Oversight Board REJECTS arena TIF district

 

At the June 18, 2024 meeting, the UNP TIF #2 Oversight Board voted 3- 2 to reject the Rock Creek Entertainment Tax Increment Finance District Project Plan Ordinance. You can find the meeting minutes here: Minutes.

Voting against were Dr. Greg Burge, Attorney Rob Norman, and local builder William "Bill" Wilson. 

Dr. Burge is the Oversight Board Chair and the Economics Department Chair at the University of Oklahoma. Dr. Burge is a nationally recognized expert in housing, public finance (impact fees), and real estate economics. https://sites.create.ou.edu/gregburge1978/curriculum-vitae/

Robert Norman who was a leading advocate for Norman Forward Quality of Life special purpose sales tax program. Attorney Norman has a high level of understanding of legal aspects of development agreements as well as displacement effects which result when you bring new stuff in one area of town causing consumer spending to shift from other areas of town. 

William "Bill" Wilson was first appointed to the board in 2015 and is the longest serving member. He has observed the challenges of holding UNP developers/OU Foundation accountable for completing promised development. Mr. Wilson has developed projects in Norman, including a building in downtown Norman.

Voting in favor of the plan were banker Kurt Lee and accountant Kamie Kellis. Mayor Heikkila appointed both in 2022.  

The overriding concerns of the majority of the Committee, included

(1) The amount of future City sales tax and multi-jurisdictional property tax revenue that would be pledged toward the project for up to 25 years; 

The sales tax pledge is $151 million and the property tax pledge is $389 million.  These tax revenues won't go to original taxing jurisdictions. 

(2) the inclusion of properties in University North Park that lie outside of the proposed Entertainment District within the tax increment area;

The increment district includes properties south of Rock Creek Road which were in the original UNP TIF #2 increment district.  These were part of that original project which has spent about $74 million in tax dollars for project costs. 

(3)  The potential negative impact on Norman businesses and the City's General Fund and Capital Sales Tax Fund through "cannibalization" and diversion of customers from areas of the City outside of the Entertainment District to businesses in the Entertainment District.

The shifting of customer spending from outside the TIF to TIF stores negatively impacts the city general fund.  Estimates of these impacts have not been clearly spelled out in the Hunden Partners study which informed the project plan.  The recent HVS study provides estimates which can be used to evaluate the annual impact on the city general fund.  The Statutory Review Committee and the Oversight Board did not have such analysis when they were asked to evaluate the plan.

(4) Who will own and operate the proposed arena and parking garage? 

Mr. Francisco mentioned that this has not been decided. There have been discussions about some sort of city-county authority. The City has no plans to be the owner/operator.  

UNP TIF #2 Oversight Board Meeting clarifies Issues with Development Agreement

The minutes of the University North Park TIF (#2) Oversight board meeting held on July 16, 2024 spell out problems with the arena TIF development agreement. UNP TIF #2 Oversight Board Minutes

The Economic Development Agreement does not define project or commit developer to completing minimal development beyond an arena.

Comments by City Finance Director, Anthony Francisco:

“Before the recommendation will go before Council formally, we want to have an Economic Development Agreement that basically puts meat on the bones if you will, that makes all the contractual parties bound for what is in that Project Plan,” Francisco said. The Economic Development Agreement has been in negotiations for several months. There have been what Francisco describes as the following “sticking points” which have been communicated by City Council and the City Attorney’s Office to the developers and the developer’s counsel:

1. There needs to be an obligation to do a specific and defined project;

2. The project needs to name a specific party that is the main developer;

3. The developer’s counsel proposed changes to the draft Economic Development Agreement that makes the TIF revenue payments to the developer dependent only on construction of the Arena and not the entire District, leading to default concerns. "



Access to I-35 is not under design. 

The proposed East-west Access Oklahoma Turnpike put a stop to the design of the interchange which would serve the arena entertainment district. 

City interim public works director Scott Sturtz commented:

“There is a big circle on the map that basically says that ‘this (Rock Creek and I-35 intersection) needs further study.’ They did not get far enough along to make recommendations,” Sturtz said. “Again, this is all preliminary. They are pretty good concepts, they’re laid out pretty well, but I wouldn’t say there’s anything that’s definite at this point.”

TIF Project Plan does not detail developers' obligations to build anything

The first of two public hearings for the proposed Arena entertainment district in northwest Norman is scheduled for September 3.  Incredibly, the actual project details beyond an arena and parking structure have not been clearly defined.  The ask is for up to $600 MILLION tax expenditure to repay the financing costs of $230 MILLION for the arena and public infrastructure.

What will City taxpayers get for that huge 25-year spending project?

The TIF Project plan details taxpayer legal obligations via establishing the TIF increment district, and the diversion of tax revenues collected in the increment district to the TIF fund for authorized TIF projects (up to $600 MILLION).

What is included in the development? The Arena project plan gives only the vaguest of details about what is planned.

"The project includes the development of a multi-purpose arena to be used by the University Oklahoma basketball and gymnastics teams and the venue for high school and other sports activities as well as concerts and other performances. The development also includes commercial, and retail uses with restaurants and bars and a public festival plaza street, a public parking garage, as we as over 1000 residential units."   https://www.normanok.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-08/project_plan_entertainment_district.pdf

What are the Texas developers, OU Foundation, and OU legally required to do to get the $600 Million in financial assistance?

The developer obligations are established in the Economic Development Agreement? The EDA has not been released to the public presumably because it is still being negotiated. 

Will OU be locked into a 25-year lease??

Will the Texas Developer be locked into building at least 750 apartment units? What if only 500 get built, will the arena costs still be covered?  

Will OU be locked into providing some up front $ to cover part of the $330 million arena+parking costs? 

Will OU Foundation be on the hook for part of the costs?

What is the minimum retail needed to get repayment of the arena costs?  The Hunden partner's analysis projected 240,000 square feet of retail/restaurants but the lastest city-funded analysis by HVS only projected 120,000 square feet.  

Who will OWN the arena?  Private? Public? If public when will "the public" get the deed? 

Who will borrow the money to build the arena?

The bottom line is that the project plan sets out taxpayer costs/payments but NOT developer commitments.  

You wouldn't agree to house mortgage without knowing what house you are buying. This is a similar situation, folks  

Also notice the 3-2 NO vote by the UNP TIF oversight Board does not seem to be included with the agenda or project plan documents.  Oversight? Intentional?  

Don't Yum Center my Norman! 
The Yum! Center provides a useful cautionary tale about how mega projects centered around university sports can fail.   Getting STIF[ed]