The first court hearing to determine the legitimacy of the petition to turn the University North Park entertainment district to a public vote took place Wednesday.
The hearing was originally scheduled for 9 a.m. but was rescheduled to 1:30 p.m. due to winter weather.
Around 50 people were in attendance, including Ward 7 Councilmember and Mayor-elect Stephen Tyler Holman; Ward 8 Councilmember Scott Dixon; OU economics professor Cynthia Rogers; City Attorney Rick Knighton; and Russell Rice, co-founder of Norman Care-A-Vans. Judge Jeff Virgin oversaw the case.
Respondents listed in the court records include Pamela McCoy-Post, Paul Arcaroli and Richard Lorenz Sondag, who were in attendance and represented by attorney Rob Norman.
Petitioners include David Nimmo, president and CEO of Chickasaw Nation Industries; Kyle Allison, director of Allison’s FUN Inc.; Vernon McKown, CEO of Ideal Homes & Neighborhoods; and Dan Quinn, former Ward 8 council member and a real estate agent for Dillard Cies, who were represented by attorneys Denise Lawson, Sean Rieger, Spencer Smith and Scott Henderson.
Rieger, from Rieger Sadler Joyce LLC, also represents the OU Foundation, which owns the land the project would be on.
Virgin said he would document and likely report his findings on Thursday. Norman said that after the ruling, the case would be heard by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
“I feel good about our case,” Norman said. “I feel good about the presentations, I feel good about the briefs, but then I temper that with, ‘Our fate is in the hands of judges now.’”
A second hearing is scheduled for 9 a.m. Feb. 25, but Holman said he does not expect it to occur. He added he believes Virgin’s decision will be to allow residents a public vote on the entertainment district.
“I didn’t find the argument of the (petitioners) to be very persuasive,” Holman said.
Petitioners’ argument
The petitioners argued against the gist of the referendum petition, claiming it was insufficient for signatories to make an informed decision.
Lawson said the gist should be able to answer three “essential questions,” including the purpose of the ordinance; the means of its implementation, such as the taxes it implicates and the taxing amounts; and when it will end. Lawson argued two of the three questions went unanswered, claiming it omits and confuses information about the relevant tax base and sales tax percentage allocation.
“Petitioners maintain that the gist of the referendum petition is insufficient, and thus, should be struck from the ballot,” Lawson said.
Lawson said the ballot title submitted was rewritten by Knighton, including sentences that defined when the tax increment financing district would begin and noted that non-dedicated sales tax would be collected.
“The city attorney likely agreed that the wording of this provision was confusing, which also was identical,” Lawson said. “Mr. Knighton modified the petitioner's incorrect identification of those three tax categories and obviously added and quantified the relevant sales tax percentage, both of which are essential for the public to be able to understand the gist of the petition.”
Additionally, Lawson said signatories would not have an understanding of the conditions that could terminate the TIF district, including the passage of 25 years, a $230 million principal plus interest repayment to the lender or $600 million in public assistance.
“This element of information speaks directly to the maximum amount of public assistance authorized under the project plan, which is potentially the most critical element of the project plan as a whole,” Lawson said. “But an average signer in reviewing the gist would have no clear understanding as to both a maximum amount of public assistance and whether that obligation actually terminates at the end of the 25 years.”
Respondents’ argument
The respondents argued the petitioners made technical analyses that overcomplicate the gist.
Norman said the case involves the constitutional rights of direct democracy through initiative petition and the First Amendment.
“All presumptions are entertained in favor of exercise of that right, whether it's the gist, whether it's the petition itself, whether it's signature gathering, and they are not to be trifled with, crippled, avoided or denied by technical construction by the courts, and that's what's going on with the protestants here,” Norman said.
Citing Oklahoma petition movements to vote on increasing the minimum wage and legalizing recreational marijuana, Norman said people protesting the petitions have tried to pick apart simple and direct gists with “hyper-technical analysis.” He said petition writers have to condense a gist to the top of a signature page.
“It's inherently a subjective process of creating a gist. You're going to have to decide what goes on the cutting room floor and what goes in, and it should not and cannot be analyzed under some sort of fly-specking analysis,” Norman said. “(Petitioners) argue it should contain a laundry list, a dinner menu full of additional provisions that, as we said in our brief, ends up looking like the dinner menu at Chili's. That is not what this is about.”
Norman said the gist was derived from Knighton’s gist to Norman City Council.
“That was good enough for city council, and it should be good enough for the public,” Norman said.
Norman said the gist the petitioners propose is complicated, and he believes the petition’s gist is already sufficient.
“Their vision of the gist, again, is the one that is too complicated. It is the one that is misleading. It is the one that goes on for just too darn long,” Norman said.
Background
Around 1 a.m. on Sept. 18, Norman City Council approved the University North Park entertainment district 5-4. During the meeting, over 70 residents voiced support and opposition to the district and its TIF model.
On Sept. 20, three Norman residents filed a petition to turn the district to a public vote.
Organized by the nonprofit, Oklahomans for Responsible Economic Development, petitioners collected 11,602 signatures over 30 days, exceeding the 6,098 required by law. Of the 11,602 submitted, 10,698 signatures were certified by City Clerk Brenda Hall.
On Nov. 19, Nimmo, Allison, McKown and Quinn filed the legal notice opposing the petition.
According to the 119-page notice, the protest challenged the gist of the petition and argued it did not comply with Oklahoma Statutes, which require a referendum petition to summarize the nature of the proposed referendum vote in a manner that can be understood by those who do not practice law.
“Rather than attempt to distill the legal effects of the Ordinance in a manner that the common person might understand, the language of Proponents' gist, set forth below, instead attempts to track the highly technical and often complicated terms of the Ordinance itself,” the notice reads.
The vote was originally planned for the Feb. 11 municipal election, but was delayed due to the legal notice.
This story was edited by Ana Barboza and Ismael Lele. Mary Ann Livingood copy edited this story.
